5 ms·

Hmmm... That is a really bad comparison. I suspect that you misused the word Apartheid because of its emotional connetation (which circumvents any rational rea

Hmmm... That is a really bad comparison. I suspect that you misused the word Apartheid because of its emotional connetation (which circumvents any rational reasoning that a non-emotional argument might entail). Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country. Then again, SA is a country that should not have existed in the first place - the only ties that bind South Africans together is that they were all subject to British colonialism and their mutual dislike for each other). In any case, the Apartheid regime tried (very successfully) to prevent illegal immigration from neigbouring countries (since for some strange reason South Africa was the only industrialized country). This was done with fairly great success. The motivation for this was twofold: to prevent insurgents from infiltrating the country and protect the jobs of black people (the white minority government was fearful of black unemployment - for this reason unemployment of black people were far less than 10% then and regularly 30-50% after '94). Typing on i phone, continued below.

abracat1 15y ago
To come back to my point - after '94 illegal immigration significantly increased. There are several reasons for this, e.g. The military was no longer responsible for enforcing the border (which fell to the police), liberal policies wrt immigration, Mugabe's experiments in Zimbabe, etc... Post '94 there were two patterns of migration - skilled people left the country (e.g. to Usa, Canada, aus and new zealand), and unskilled people immigrated to South africa (mostly from other African countries). The size of the illegal immigrant population is difficult to estimate, but probably 10% of the population. What was the result of this 'free' immigration? Higher unemployment for the poorest of South Africans, increase in crime (with a large part of crime done by unemployed illegal immigrants) and then of course the fairly recent xenophobic killings(which saw a return of the brutal necklacing killings). I think it would be justified to say that illegal immigration is the biggest threat to stability in SA today. TL;DR: South Africa should be used as an example of why immigration control is absolutely necessary. illegal immigration threatens the poorest of the poor (those struggling to find employment), leads to higher crime and threatens societal stability. Ps: typed on iPhone, please forgive typos. What is
- mlinksva 15y ago
  "Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country." I use the term Apartheid advisedly. I do not regard place of birth a legitimate discriminator any more than I do race. As for the "poorest of the poor", they live in poor countries. Again, I do not see the relatively poor of wealthy countries as being more worthy than the absolutely poor of poor countries. There are huge gains to be had in economic growth and human rights from free migration. I discuss some of this and the South African example in http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/06/apartheid-trends/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/06/apartheid-trends/ I recommend the book "Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility" by Lant Pritchett.
  - abracat1 15y ago
    Usage of the word Apartheid in your link is bogus! The word Apartheid is only used in order to evoke white guilt. It is argued that because of Apartheid, blacks were poorer (even if blavk poverty increased significantly after '94, that is not the point.) The point is that the stereotype is that in South Africa black poverty is due to white people. Your article implicitly makes the same claim. Here is the quote: > Like the world, it was about 15% white, the rest African and Asian. Like the world, the whites were segregated from the non-whites by law (of course the West does have some blacks and Asians, but it segregates the vast majority of them). The whites lived in prosperity, the blacks in poverty, So here is the question: how can whites still be (implicitly) blamed for African poverty? Most african countries have been sovereign for more than half a century. Many of them have been sovereign for as long as history (or only had short periods of colonial rule) - e.g. Swaziland, lesotho, ethopia. The crude (and wrong) comparison ignores issues of culture, historical development patterns, traditional power stucture, etc... Cont. Below
  - abracat1 15y ago
    Part 2. Your article also states that: > However, it is a far from perfect analogue. Bryan Caplan cites evidence that immigrants to the U.S. commit crimes at a far lower rate than U.S. citizens. So? This is expected! It shows the success of current immigration policies. The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a technical field/ or doctor). The blog post makes no argument that th crime rate of immigrants would still be lower if this barrier and selection would be removed (it would not!). Furthemore, look at the South African example in this area - illegal immigrants (without work, etc...) turn to crime. Zimbabweans and Mozambiqucans esp. In violent crime. Many Nigerians ar involved in drug crime and other crimessuch as prostitution and human trafficing. Not pretty. I strongly suspect that if South Africa enforced its border, Mugabe would have been overthrown. But currently, most of the Zimbabweans that would be responsible for a coup de ta in Zimbabwe (18-40 year old males), are doing manual labour in South Africa.

abracat1 15y ago

To come back to my point - after '94 illegal immigration significantly increased. There are several reasons for this, e.g. The military was no longer responsible for enforcing the border (which fell to the police), liberal policies wrt immigration, Mugabe's experiments in Zimbabe, etc... Post '94 there were two patterns of migration - skilled people left the country (e.g. to Usa, Canada, aus and new zealand), and unskilled people immigrated to South africa (mostly from other African countries). The size of the illegal immigrant population is difficult to estimate, but probably 10% of the population. What was the result of this 'free' immigration? Higher unemployment for the poorest of South Africans, increase in crime (with a large part of crime done by unemployed illegal immigrants) and then of course the fairly recent xenophobic killings(which saw a return of the brutal necklacing killings). I think it would be justified to say that illegal immigration is the biggest threat to stability in SA today. TL;DR: South Africa should be used as an example of why immigration control is absolutely necessary. illegal immigration threatens the poorest of the poor (those struggling to find employment), leads to higher crime and threatens societal stability. Ps: typed on iPhone, please forgive typos. What is

mlinksva 15y ago
"Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country." I use the term Apartheid advisedly. I do not regard place of birth a legitimate discriminator any more than I do race. As for the "poorest of the poor", they live in poor countries. Again, I do not see the relatively poor of wealthy countries as being more worthy than the absolutely poor of poor countries. There are huge gains to be had in economic growth and human rights from free migration. I discuss some of this and the South African example in http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/06/apartheid-trends/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/06/apartheid-trends/ I recommend the book "Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility" by Lant Pritchett.
- abracat1 15y ago
  Usage of the word Apartheid in your link is bogus! The word Apartheid is only used in order to evoke white guilt. It is argued that because of Apartheid, blacks were poorer (even if blavk poverty increased significantly after '94, that is not the point.) The point is that the stereotype is that in South Africa black poverty is due to white people. Your article implicitly makes the same claim. Here is the quote: > Like the world, it was about 15% white, the rest African and Asian. Like the world, the whites were segregated from the non-whites by law (of course the West does have some blacks and Asians, but it segregates the vast majority of them). The whites lived in prosperity, the blacks in poverty, So here is the question: how can whites still be (implicitly) blamed for African poverty? Most african countries have been sovereign for more than half a century. Many of them have been sovereign for as long as history (or only had short periods of colonial rule) - e.g. Swaziland, lesotho, ethopia. The crude (and wrong) comparison ignores issues of culture, historical development patterns, traditional power stucture, etc... Cont. Below
- abracat1 15y ago
  Part 2. Your article also states that: > However, it is a far from perfect analogue. Bryan Caplan cites evidence that immigrants to the U.S. commit crimes at a far lower rate than U.S. citizens. So? This is expected! It shows the success of current immigration policies. The current policy is to only let the best of the best into the country (i.e. Those without criminal records and who has at least a degree in a technical field/ or doctor). The blog post makes no argument that th crime rate of immigrants would still be lower if this barrier and selection would be removed (it would not!). Furthemore, look at the South African example in this area - illegal immigrants (without work, etc...) turn to crime. Zimbabweans and Mozambiqucans esp. In violent crime. Many Nigerians ar involved in drug crime and other crimessuch as prostitution and human trafficing. Not pretty. I strongly suspect that if South Africa enforced its border, Mugabe would have been overthrown. But currently, most of the Zimbabweans that would be responsible for a coup de ta in Zimbabwe (18-40 year old males), are doing manual labour in South Africa.