5 ms·
That’s assuming there are no externalities whatsoever to immigration and that the immigrants will be able to satisfy the demand in labor and in entrepreneurs as
by Nesco 3y ago
That’s assuming there are no externalities whatsoever to immigration and that the immigrants will be able to satisfy the demand in labor and in entrepreneurs as well as the natives.
From my own experience, in France, both of those assumptions are heavily violated. It can vary depending of the type of immigration though, I bet the story is different for California
- pyuser583 3y agoThere are definitely economically bad forms of migration. I was talking about O-1 visa type migration: highly qualified individuals being admitted based on their credentials. Hiring the next generation, instead of breeding and raising it.
- carlosjobim 3y agoWait, were you serious with that post above? I was sure you were making a parody.
- pyuser583 3y agoI was serious that it’s economically best to recruit the next generation. But being human isn’t just about economics.
- carlosjobim 3y agoYou are right. And from studying the history of slavery you will find that those kind of arguments where made during the same time. Slave traders and politicians would say that slavery was economically necessary in order to make the land productive, as the native people of the colonies had little interest in participating in that kind of economy. Politicians and traders make almost identical arguments right now, saying they need to import immigrants to do the hard work because the natives are not interested. For some reason they still want very strict regulations on immigration between wealthy countries, because they think that poor and desperate people are stupid and more easy to exploit. Try telling people it is wrong to exploit immigrants or that immigrants are not more stupid than anyone else and won't let themselves be exploited so easily, and you're talking to deaf ears.