8 ms·

The article is valid in speaking specifically about US states competing, but otherwise I find the idea of treating governments, and countries, as mere economic

The article is valid in speaking specifically about US states competing, but otherwise I find the idea of treating governments, and countries, as mere economic platforms, that compete like a business would, disturbing. They are representatives of their nations, and their duty is to their people, to whom they are guardians, of said people and their homelands. They should not be 'competing' for more residents just as families shouldn't compete to attract other's children.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago
Whether something is disturbing or not doesn't say much about whether it's a good idea, just that it is different from the conventional. Around the world, governments act like abusive parents. If people could migrate freely (creating a competition for residents), much more people would live without the abuse of authoritarian governments.
- nhchris 4y ago
  Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. Living in a small country myself, a place such as China, India, Indonesia, or Nigeria could send (and they would gladly come) enough people to outvote us on any issue 3x over, without even noticing they're missing anyone. We would simply cease to exist first as a sovereign people, and soon after as a distinct people at all, without any territory to call our own.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different. When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people, we're referring to an almost fictional nation that's supposedly being overrun—we have always been an eclectic group of immigrants from many places, and the people who have deep ancestral ties to the land are generally marginalized already. But when people in a true nation state express the same concerns, we in the US should understand that the context is very different. This isn't the case of third generation Americans trying to claim that this land is theirs and no one else should be able to come here—instead we're talking about people whose families have been there literally since time immemorial. I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context. A good article on this topic: https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-nation/ https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-...
    - indigochill 4y ago
      There are a couple interesting assumptions here: 1. There's such a thing as a true nation 2. That how long a person's family has lived in a region should entitle them to keep others out The first one is bound to wander into circuitous philosophical debate, but I'm curious what the rationale is for the second.
      - lolinder 4y ago
        I'm not making the second assumption at all, I explicitly disclaimed any opinion on the merits of particular stances on immigration in countries that are not my own: > I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context. As for the first assumption, I'll grant you I was making that. Whether or not the concept of a nation exists in reality, it undeniably exists in people's heads, and it's less obviously artificial in Europe and elsewhere than it is in the United States. EDIT: Although, note that I didn't actually use the phrase "true nation", I said "true nation state", and I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation.
        jacobr1 4y ago
        > I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation. That seems muddled. A nation-state is a state whose population are dominantly formed out of a single "nation." Generally the nation implies some kind ethnic or ancestral ties (and granted the definition can be fuzzy) - but if concept of a nation is in doubt ... then so in the concept of a nation state. They are necessarily coupled. I think the key thing is that for a nation state, anything that can significantly impact the composition of the citizenry to change the scope of what the nation means is effectively an existential consideration. The US is explicitly not a nation-state, though americans have mixed opinion on the matter. Europe is comprised of nation states, but may of them these days seem to consider that a bit of an historical embarrassment and want to transition to be some form of multicultural state, especially as part of the multinational confederation of the EU.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. I think that's something the left is increasingly uncomfortable with; the idea that some countries aren't as developed as others because of its people and that simply transplanting people across countries won't change anything to it.
  - tap-snap-or-nap 4y ago
    Initially, immigration served as a means to address specific shortages, but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages. Unfortunately, the political discourse surrounding immigration has become increasingly hostile. This suggests that politicians may be prioritizing corporate interests and a select few economic beneficiaries over the well-being of the general public.
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      > but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages. And to swing elections. Notice the completely different treatment of "Dreamers" (illegal immigrants) to that of legal children of immigrants (especially Indians). The former are given special status and can stay in America forever, the later are to be deported on their 21st birthday unless they manage to secure a visa. So much for following the rules...
welshwelsh 4y ago
The way I interpreted it is- cities and states should focus more on being great places to live, not great places to move your corporate office. And although I'm sure this is not a popular sentiment, I think governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction, even if those people are there by mere coincidence (i.e. they happened to be born there). People shouldn't be held to higher standards simply because they were born somewhere else, which is something they don't control. An ideal immigration policy would be to allow anyone making above the median income, or otherwise anyone who would be an "above average" resident to become a citizen instantly, and the government should work hard to attract these people. Conversely, they should encourage "below average" residents to relocate to more affordable/lower tier areas, and not give them any special privileges just because they are "legacy residents."
- nhchris 4y ago
  It is not "coincidence" that Chinese are born in China and Polish in Poland. It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. To tear out all connection to one's history by calling it "coincidence" is, frankly, sickening.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I wonder if someone born in a war torn region with few resources and no organized society would have the same opinion. It is just a statement of fact that the geographic location a person is born is coincidence.
    - bigger_inside 4y ago
      the term "coincidence" is weird. I read it as somehow relying on the idea that first, there is a person (like a soul?), and then, that soul is "coincidentally" put somewhere. Correct me if you think that's strange, but the idea of "coincidence" to me only seems to make sense if the person somehow predates the location of birth. But if that's not the case, as I would guess most of us believe, then there is no coincidence here, "just" a birth that is already positioned - and your nationality, heritage, culture, language are dependent on that birth. And hence, that is the frame in which a person can only develop - after that fact. And THAT is nowhere near coincidence...
legitster 4y ago
How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.
- psacawa 4y ago
  What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine. Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e.g. the country's ties to Russian petrochemical industry. Others, seeing that, said "You are accruing personal wealth by strengthening a foreign power's hold on our nation." To which the response was occasionally "Are you racist? Are you nationalist?" We see now how this turned out. The dirty secret is that history vindicates all forms of identity group tribalism, in principal. That includes racism. There is no shortage in history of examples like the above, nor of examples of destroyed nations. If anything, I feel the problem is that contemporary countries do not represent the nations the purport to.
  - tracker1 4y ago
    I would say you only have (limited) influence over the nation you are born into... so, you should somewhat naturally favor that nation's well-being over others. You can only influence the acts/actions of other nations as strings attached to trade/treaty. And can only assume those that you trade with will be making the same emphasis, which is their own nation's well-being.
- bumby 4y ago
  Why is family any different, but identity viewed through a evolutionary/genetic rather than geographic lens? Both are pure chance that you have no control over.
- rayiner 4y ago
  “Racism” is where southern white people don’t like southern black people despite being from the same place and sharing highly overlapping culture, religion, and values. When you’re talking about different groups of people from different cultures that’s not “racism.” My parents, who grew up in Bangladesh, an extremely hierarchical and traditional society, couldn’t be more different from my wife’s parents, who are descendent from frontier pioneers. Like they can get along as individuals but neither would want to live in a society built by the other. And that’s exactly what happens when you introduce large scale immigration into a democracy.
mannerheim 4y ago
I don't think countries should necessarily compete for the citizens of other countries, either, but they should have to compete for their own at the very least. People aren't the property of their government, and if another city or state or country offers them a more attractive life than their home, they should be free to take that offer. The solution to emigration for a polity shouldn't be keeping their citizenry prisoner or forcing others to treat their residents more poorly because of some imagined 'race to the bottom', but to instead make their own land more attractive to stay and live in.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > but they should have to compete for their own at the very least. That I agree with. While it is entirely up to a country's discretion whether they permit immigration, leaving a country must not be prevented.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

Whether something is disturbing or not doesn't say much about whether it's a good idea, just that it is different from the conventional. Around the world, governments act like abusive parents. If people could migrate freely (creating a competition for residents), much more people would live without the abuse of authoritarian governments.

nhchris 4y ago
Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. Living in a small country myself, a place such as China, India, Indonesia, or Nigeria could send (and they would gladly come) enough people to outvote us on any issue 3x over, without even noticing they're missing anyone. We would simply cease to exist first as a sovereign people, and soon after as a distinct people at all, without any territory to call our own.
- lolinder 4y ago
  This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different. When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people, we're referring to an almost fictional nation that's supposedly being overrun—we have always been an eclectic group of immigrants from many places, and the people who have deep ancestral ties to the land are generally marginalized already. But when people in a true nation state express the same concerns, we in the US should understand that the context is very different. This isn't the case of third generation Americans trying to claim that this land is theirs and no one else should be able to come here—instead we're talking about people whose families have been there literally since time immemorial. I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context. A good article on this topic: https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-nation/ https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-...
  - indigochill 4y ago
    There are a couple interesting assumptions here: 1. There's such a thing as a true nation 2. That how long a person's family has lived in a region should entitle them to keep others out The first one is bound to wander into circuitous philosophical debate, but I'm curious what the rationale is for the second.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      I'm not making the second assumption at all, I explicitly disclaimed any opinion on the merits of particular stances on immigration in countries that are not my own: > I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context. As for the first assumption, I'll grant you I was making that. Whether or not the concept of a nation exists in reality, it undeniably exists in people's heads, and it's less obviously artificial in Europe and elsewhere than it is in the United States. EDIT: Although, note that I didn't actually use the phrase "true nation", I said "true nation state", and I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        > I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation. That seems muddled. A nation-state is a state whose population are dominantly formed out of a single "nation." Generally the nation implies some kind ethnic or ancestral ties (and granted the definition can be fuzzy) - but if concept of a nation is in doubt ... then so in the concept of a nation state. They are necessarily coupled. I think the key thing is that for a nation state, anything that can significantly impact the composition of the citizenry to change the scope of what the nation means is effectively an existential consideration. The US is explicitly not a nation-state, though americans have mixed opinion on the matter. Europe is comprised of nation states, but may of them these days seem to consider that a bit of an historical embarrassment and want to transition to be some form of multicultural state, especially as part of the multinational confederation of the EU.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. I think that's something the left is increasingly uncomfortable with; the idea that some countries aren't as developed as others because of its people and that simply transplanting people across countries won't change anything to it.
- tap-snap-or-nap 4y ago
  Initially, immigration served as a means to address specific shortages, but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages. Unfortunately, the political discourse surrounding immigration has become increasingly hostile. This suggests that politicians may be prioritizing corporate interests and a select few economic beneficiaries over the well-being of the general public.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages. And to swing elections. Notice the completely different treatment of "Dreamers" (illegal immigrants) to that of legal children of immigrants (especially Indians). The former are given special status and can stay in America forever, the later are to be deported on their 21st birthday unless they manage to secure a visa. So much for following the rules...

welshwelsh 4y ago

The way I interpreted it is- cities and states should focus more on being great places to live, not great places to move your corporate office. And although I'm sure this is not a popular sentiment, I think governments are too biased towards people already living in their jurisdiction, even if those people are there by mere coincidence (i.e. they happened to be born there). People shouldn't be held to higher standards simply because they were born somewhere else, which is something they don't control. An ideal immigration policy would be to allow anyone making above the median income, or otherwise anyone who would be an "above average" resident to become a citizen instantly, and the government should work hard to attract these people. Conversely, they should encourage "below average" residents to relocate to more affordable/lower tier areas, and not give them any special privileges just because they are "legacy residents."

nhchris 4y ago
It is not "coincidence" that Chinese are born in China and Polish in Poland. It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. To tear out all connection to one's history by calling it "coincidence" is, frankly, sickening.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I wonder if someone born in a war torn region with few resources and no organized society would have the same opinion. It is just a statement of fact that the geographic location a person is born is coincidence.
  - bigger_inside 4y ago
    the term "coincidence" is weird. I read it as somehow relying on the idea that first, there is a person (like a soul?), and then, that soul is "coincidentally" put somewhere. Correct me if you think that's strange, but the idea of "coincidence" to me only seems to make sense if the person somehow predates the location of birth. But if that's not the case, as I would guess most of us believe, then there is no coincidence here, "just" a birth that is already positioned - and your nationality, heritage, culture, language are dependent on that birth. And hence, that is the frame in which a person can only develop - after that fact. And THAT is nowhere near coincidence...

legitster 4y ago

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

psacawa 4y ago
What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine. Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e.g. the country's ties to Russian petrochemical industry. Others, seeing that, said "You are accruing personal wealth by strengthening a foreign power's hold on our nation." To which the response was occasionally "Are you racist? Are you nationalist?" We see now how this turned out. The dirty secret is that history vindicates all forms of identity group tribalism, in principal. That includes racism. There is no shortage in history of examples like the above, nor of examples of destroyed nations. If anything, I feel the problem is that contemporary countries do not represent the nations the purport to.
- tracker1 4y ago
  I would say you only have (limited) influence over the nation you are born into... so, you should somewhat naturally favor that nation's well-being over others. You can only influence the acts/actions of other nations as strings attached to trade/treaty. And can only assume those that you trade with will be making the same emphasis, which is their own nation's well-being.
bumby 4y ago
Why is family any different, but identity viewed through a evolutionary/genetic rather than geographic lens? Both are pure chance that you have no control over.
rayiner 4y ago
“Racism” is where southern white people don’t like southern black people despite being from the same place and sharing highly overlapping culture, religion, and values. When you’re talking about different groups of people from different cultures that’s not “racism.” My parents, who grew up in Bangladesh, an extremely hierarchical and traditional society, couldn’t be more different from my wife’s parents, who are descendent from frontier pioneers. Like they can get along as individuals but neither would want to live in a society built by the other. And that’s exactly what happens when you introduce large scale immigration into a democracy.

mannerheim 4y ago

I don't think countries should necessarily compete for the citizens of other countries, either, but they should have to compete for their own at the very least. People aren't the property of their government, and if another city or state or country offers them a more attractive life than their home, they should be free to take that offer. The solution to emigration for a polity shouldn't be keeping their citizenry prisoner or forcing others to treat their residents more poorly because of some imagined 'race to the bottom', but to instead make their own land more attractive to stay and live in.

nhchris 4y ago
> but they should have to compete for their own at the very least. That I agree with. While it is entirely up to a country's discretion whether they permit immigration, leaving a country must not be prevented.