4 ms·

I wonder what is the sentiment of complete abolishment on the Visa regime. Just plain background check for security maybe, and let everyone who wants in. Maybe

by mrtksn 3y ago

I wonder what is the sentiment of complete abolishment on the Visa regime. Just plain background check for security maybe, and let everyone who wants in. Maybe keep the social programs for the citizens but let whoever wants to work, work. IMHO it's ridiculous to have the bureaucracy as the first step in employment, people shouldn't be asking bureaucrats for permission to work. Edit: Can you please also write why you don't like the idea? Are you worried about competition? About culture? About something else? Edit2: Wow, I wasn't aware of how much people love restrictions on working and traveling. Please tell me, I want to know your thinking behind this, maybe you are right about it?

sokoloff 3y ago
Sovereign countries can set their visa (and citizenship and work eligibility) requirements. I’m not aware of any that have chosen fully open borders, mostly because that’s not in the interest of the citizens and residents of the country. Edit in response to P’s edit: if the country I’m in has a good balance of labor, jobs, and related resources, and is therefore a great place to live, what’s the incentive to open our borders to everyone and risk upsetting that balance with no way to turn off the tap?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I don't say that they can't do that. What I say is, they shouldn't be doing it and any person anywhere in the world should be free to travel, live and work anywhere in the world. I'm curious about your argument against that.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    People in literally every nation appear to disagree with your position, at least as expressed in their border policies. If your position were the majority opinion, some nation somewhere would be trying it. For me personally, I think that the US would be a substantially less appealing place for those I care about if our population doubled to 700M. With open borders, we couldn’t prevent that. Do I support more immigration of high-skilled, highly educated people and their families? Absolutely. Do I support open borders? Absolutely not.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      They can disagree, about 50 years ago UK was castrating gay people and even castrated Alan Turing and at the same time the black people were very limited on what can and can't do in the USA. I simply don't see an argument here. Just because that's how it is now, doesn't mean it should continue to be the way it is. It's not even that old of a tradition, Some 100 years ago people were able to move and work wherever they like. So you support particular kind of people come to your country, do you support deportation of people who are born in your country but don't meet the standards you impose on the immigrants?
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I don’t support deporting citizens (and neither does US nor international law). My support for high-skilled/highly-educated immigrants is based on a nakedly selfish desire to have those immigrants improve the global competitiveness of my country, in order to make it continue to be a great place for my children and grandchildren to live. I assume other countries are making the same selfish calculations, resulting in similar policies. Feel free to call my policy preferences selfish; I already have and will agree with you.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        > I don’t support deporting citizens Why not? If they are substandard, why keep them there? What's the difference between them and the people you would like to keep out? I'm not calling you anything. I'm trying to understand you.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Citizens have, by definition, a right to enter and reside in their country of citizenship. I see a difference in kind between denying someone a right and failing to grant someone else a privilege. (You are the only one calling them sub-standard, by the way.)
        3y ago
  - have_faith 3y ago
    What about all of the negative effects of masses of people attempting to move somewhere that hasn’t prepared for their arrival? (Energy, sewage, public transport, healthcare, housing, etc). How are these things planned if movement is completely free and fluid?
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Why do you assume that people who can build sewage or public transport or houses or provide healthcare wouldn't move to the place where everyone wants to move to? My answer is that the demand will provide its supply.
      - tokai 3y ago
        >My answer is that the demand will provide its supply. You have no definitive proof that this is actually the case.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        I have a proof though, there's this country called The United States of America, where almost everyone is an immigrant and they live in a prosperous country. Immigrants turned into builders, doctors, scientists, engineers, artist and many more!
        have_faith 3y ago
        This isn’t an argument for open borders, just that some level of immigration is beneficial (it is). Americas brief history of “free immigration” is also littered with atrocities. I don’t think you can use an immature country (beginnings of USA) and use it as a template for a mature country (current day USA). Doesnt America already struggle with the level of immigration it currently receives, why would fully open borders improve this situation?
        mrtksn 3y ago
        Visa and restrictions on freedom of movement are pretty new thing though. I don't think the history can be used as an argument for visa regimes. Visa regimes are also littered with atrocities, have you heard of the immigrant boar that sink last week? I'm not talking about the billionaire submarine.
1over137 3y ago
>and let everyone who wants in That could be a lot of people. Canada is (I think objectively) a better country to live in that most of our planet (alas). Very many would jump at that offer. Where would they live? There is a housing shortage. Their health care would cost taxpayers a lot (universal healthcare is considered a right and source of pride in Canada). Basically, it would be too much of an increase, too fast. It needs to be spread over decades.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)? In short there could be some problems but at some point it will stabilize and the would will become a meritocratic place.
  - nirav72 3y ago
    >Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Having a large pool of house builders isn't going to suddenly solve new home supply problems or make homes affordable. That is a far more complex problem and simply having a readily available skilled labor force will not solve.
  - 1over137 3y ago
    >Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)? I think you are maybe missing the scale of my point. Canada is a country of 40m people. There are 8000m people on this planet. If we "let everyone who wants in" in, then the country's population could double if just 0.5% of the planet thought Canada was a better place than they are in already. There are easily that many such people. You think housing stock can be doubled? You think there are jobs for a doubling of population? On what time scale? Like I said already, it needs to be spread over decades.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
causality0 3y ago
I agree we (North Americans) need more, easier, and smoother immigration, but I see no reason we shouldn't limit it to people who will make the lives of our citizens better by being here. "You are what you eat" applies to countries as well.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  How do you know who makes it better and who makes it worse? The government officials who issues the visa? Some kind of test? Something else?
  - causality0 3y ago
    No doubt it's a difficult problem. Personally I would start with more straightforward measures such as a zero tolerance policy for violent crime. If someone commits a violent crime of any sort in their adopted country before achieving citizenship they should be swiftly and permanently deported.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Why not deport those who are citizens but commit crimes too? See, the problem with punishment which is different for one group than the other is that you create an artificial subclass. You chose "violent crime", which sounds reasonable but someone can say any crime or even a parking ticket should result in deportation. So let's consider that the politics in your country have turned very divisive and immigrants are protesting together with the citizens against something - should the immigrants be able to protest? What if the protests are considered illegal? What if the protest are legal but at the heat of it some people throw stones and maybe even injured some law enforcement officers. Is it O.K. to have a slap at the wrist for some of the protestors and life changing deportation to the immigrants? I don't say it's easy and there are easy answers, it's just that I really don't like the artificial borders and I think it's worth paying the price of a transition period to get a global society where people are not divided like work cattle and are treated as individuals regardless of their nationality.
stcroixx 3y ago
People with from countries with low standards of living would simply undercut the market, destroying it for citizens. This already happens to some degree with the visa, but without it, the entire would would rush to the highest paying country, push wages down until there's a different country paying more, then move there, repeat. If a country doesn't prioritize the interests of it's citizens, who will?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  This sounds awfully lot like artificially creating a shortage and this artificial shortages can seem to benefit those who create it but on the grand scale it is bad for the society as a whole because it simply means a suboptimal market. At first, I agree that an adjustment period will be needed but this is only because current we have artificial market borders and it will eventually stabilize. There's nothing wrong with someone else takes someones job by providing greater value, be it by doing it for cheaper or doing it better. In other words, if Albanian window cleaners end up driving the Canadian window cleaners out of business, Canada will end up with better cleaned windows or more money to spend on something else than window cleaning. The Canadian window cleaners will need to adapt but the world will be a better place, except for some of the Canadian window cleaners who used to overcharge thanks to the artificial market forces.
  - stcroixx 3y ago
    It is bad for society as a whole - it prioritizes the interests of citizens of one country. That's all countries are - groups of people competing against each others. There are winners and losers. I'm fine with this. It allows countries the freedom to run things according to their values and sink or swim accordingly.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Why don't you limit other subgroups for your advantage? Women used to be like that but it's not cool anymore. People from certain race used to be limited for the advantage of another race but it's not the case anymore. Why just don't drop all these shenanigans and adopt a meritocracy? A meritocracy will yield a much better society where you won't need to be from the privileged class to have a good life.

by mrtksn 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

Sovereign countries can set their visa (and citizenship and work eligibility) requirements. I’m not aware of any that have chosen fully open borders, mostly because that’s not in the interest of the citizens and residents of the country. Edit in response to P’s edit: if the country I’m in has a good balance of labor, jobs, and related resources, and is therefore a great place to live, what’s the incentive to open our borders to everyone and risk upsetting that balance with no way to turn off the tap?

mrtksn 3y ago
I don't say that they can't do that. What I say is, they shouldn't be doing it and any person anywhere in the world should be free to travel, live and work anywhere in the world. I'm curious about your argument against that.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  People in literally every nation appear to disagree with your position, at least as expressed in their border policies. If your position were the majority opinion, some nation somewhere would be trying it. For me personally, I think that the US would be a substantially less appealing place for those I care about if our population doubled to 700M. With open borders, we couldn’t prevent that. Do I support more immigration of high-skilled, highly educated people and their families? Absolutely. Do I support open borders? Absolutely not.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    They can disagree, about 50 years ago UK was castrating gay people and even castrated Alan Turing and at the same time the black people were very limited on what can and can't do in the USA. I simply don't see an argument here. Just because that's how it is now, doesn't mean it should continue to be the way it is. It's not even that old of a tradition, Some 100 years ago people were able to move and work wherever they like. So you support particular kind of people come to your country, do you support deportation of people who are born in your country but don't meet the standards you impose on the immigrants?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I don’t support deporting citizens (and neither does US nor international law). My support for high-skilled/highly-educated immigrants is based on a nakedly selfish desire to have those immigrants improve the global competitiveness of my country, in order to make it continue to be a great place for my children and grandchildren to live. I assume other countries are making the same selfish calculations, resulting in similar policies. Feel free to call my policy preferences selfish; I already have and will agree with you.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        > I don’t support deporting citizens Why not? If they are substandard, why keep them there? What's the difference between them and the people you would like to keep out? I'm not calling you anything. I'm trying to understand you.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Citizens have, by definition, a right to enter and reside in their country of citizenship. I see a difference in kind between denying someone a right and failing to grant someone else a privilege. (You are the only one calling them sub-standard, by the way.)
        3y ago
- have_faith 3y ago
  What about all of the negative effects of masses of people attempting to move somewhere that hasn’t prepared for their arrival? (Energy, sewage, public transport, healthcare, housing, etc). How are these things planned if movement is completely free and fluid?
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Why do you assume that people who can build sewage or public transport or houses or provide healthcare wouldn't move to the place where everyone wants to move to? My answer is that the demand will provide its supply.
    - tokai 3y ago
      >My answer is that the demand will provide its supply. You have no definitive proof that this is actually the case.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        I have a proof though, there's this country called The United States of America, where almost everyone is an immigrant and they live in a prosperous country. Immigrants turned into builders, doctors, scientists, engineers, artist and many more!
        have_faith 3y ago
        This isn’t an argument for open borders, just that some level of immigration is beneficial (it is). Americas brief history of “free immigration” is also littered with atrocities. I don’t think you can use an immature country (beginnings of USA) and use it as a template for a mature country (current day USA). Doesnt America already struggle with the level of immigration it currently receives, why would fully open borders improve this situation?
        mrtksn 3y ago
        Visa and restrictions on freedom of movement are pretty new thing though. I don't think the history can be used as an argument for visa regimes. Visa regimes are also littered with atrocities, have you heard of the immigrant boar that sink last week? I'm not talking about the billionaire submarine.

1over137 3y ago

>and let everyone who wants in That could be a lot of people. Canada is (I think objectively) a better country to live in that most of our planet (alas). Very many would jump at that offer. Where would they live? There is a housing shortage. Their health care would cost taxpayers a lot (universal healthcare is considered a right and source of pride in Canada). Basically, it would be too much of an increase, too fast. It needs to be spread over decades.

mrtksn 3y ago
Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)? In short there could be some problems but at some point it will stabilize and the would will become a meritocratic place.
- nirav72 3y ago
  >Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Having a large pool of house builders isn't going to suddenly solve new home supply problems or make homes affordable. That is a far more complex problem and simply having a readily available skilled labor force will not solve.
- 1over137 3y ago
  >Maybe house builders and doctors can come too if there's a demand for it? Maybe the new comers can pay for housing and healthcare like everyone else(taxes, insurance etc.)? I think you are maybe missing the scale of my point. Canada is a country of 40m people. There are 8000m people on this planet. If we "let everyone who wants in" in, then the country's population could double if just 0.5% of the planet thought Canada was a better place than they are in already. There are easily that many such people. You think housing stock can be doubled? You think there are jobs for a doubling of population? On what time scale? Like I said already, it needs to be spread over decades.
  - mrtksn 3y ago

causality0 3y ago

I agree we (North Americans) need more, easier, and smoother immigration, but I see no reason we shouldn't limit it to people who will make the lives of our citizens better by being here. "You are what you eat" applies to countries as well.

mrtksn 3y ago
How do you know who makes it better and who makes it worse? The government officials who issues the visa? Some kind of test? Something else?
- causality0 3y ago
  No doubt it's a difficult problem. Personally I would start with more straightforward measures such as a zero tolerance policy for violent crime. If someone commits a violent crime of any sort in their adopted country before achieving citizenship they should be swiftly and permanently deported.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Why not deport those who are citizens but commit crimes too? See, the problem with punishment which is different for one group than the other is that you create an artificial subclass. You chose "violent crime", which sounds reasonable but someone can say any crime or even a parking ticket should result in deportation. So let's consider that the politics in your country have turned very divisive and immigrants are protesting together with the citizens against something - should the immigrants be able to protest? What if the protests are considered illegal? What if the protest are legal but at the heat of it some people throw stones and maybe even injured some law enforcement officers. Is it O.K. to have a slap at the wrist for some of the protestors and life changing deportation to the immigrants? I don't say it's easy and there are easy answers, it's just that I really don't like the artificial borders and I think it's worth paying the price of a transition period to get a global society where people are not divided like work cattle and are treated as individuals regardless of their nationality.

stcroixx 3y ago

People with from countries with low standards of living would simply undercut the market, destroying it for citizens. This already happens to some degree with the visa, but without it, the entire would would rush to the highest paying country, push wages down until there's a different country paying more, then move there, repeat. If a country doesn't prioritize the interests of it's citizens, who will?

mrtksn 3y ago
This sounds awfully lot like artificially creating a shortage and this artificial shortages can seem to benefit those who create it but on the grand scale it is bad for the society as a whole because it simply means a suboptimal market. At first, I agree that an adjustment period will be needed but this is only because current we have artificial market borders and it will eventually stabilize. There's nothing wrong with someone else takes someones job by providing greater value, be it by doing it for cheaper or doing it better. In other words, if Albanian window cleaners end up driving the Canadian window cleaners out of business, Canada will end up with better cleaned windows or more money to spend on something else than window cleaning. The Canadian window cleaners will need to adapt but the world will be a better place, except for some of the Canadian window cleaners who used to overcharge thanks to the artificial market forces.
- stcroixx 3y ago
  It is bad for society as a whole - it prioritizes the interests of citizens of one country. That's all countries are - groups of people competing against each others. There are winners and losers. I'm fine with this. It allows countries the freedom to run things according to their values and sink or swim accordingly.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Why don't you limit other subgroups for your advantage? Women used to be like that but it's not cool anymore. People from certain race used to be limited for the advantage of another race but it's not the case anymore. Why just don't drop all these shenanigans and adopt a meritocracy? A meritocracy will yield a much better society where you won't need to be from the privileged class to have a good life.