3 ms·

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 any

by 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.)
        mrtksn 3y ago
        We can rewrite definitions, don't worry too much about. I guess your motivation of keeping substandard immigrants out but substandard locals in doesn't come only from your desire to stick to the definitions, am I right? Because if that's your worry, it's very easy to resolve it by changing the definition through a legislative process.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        The policies don’t emerge from the definitions, but rather the definitions emerge from the policies. Changing the definitions and expecting the policies (which are the expressed will of the people in democracies or of the leaders in autocracies) to change is folly.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        So, why do you want to keep the substandard immigrants out and substandard citizens in, if it's not about satisfying the definitions?
        sokoloff 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.

by mrtksn 3y ago

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.)
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        We can rewrite definitions, don't worry too much about. I guess your motivation of keeping substandard immigrants out but substandard locals in doesn't come only from your desire to stick to the definitions, am I right? Because if that's your worry, it's very easy to resolve it by changing the definition through a legislative process.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        The policies don’t emerge from the definitions, but rather the definitions emerge from the policies. Changing the definitions and expecting the policies (which are the expressed will of the people in democracies or of the leaders in autocracies) to change is folly.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        So, why do you want to keep the substandard immigrants out and substandard citizens in, if it's not about satisfying the definitions?
        sokoloff 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.