8 ms·

The unstated premise behind your comment, and indeed this entire debate, is that there is only so much "room" for immigration in the US. This leads us to argume

The unstated premise behind your comment, and indeed this entire debate, is that there is only so much "room" for immigration in the US. This leads us to arguments about how large the quota should be, how it should be divided, etc. This is a flawed assumption. The US has nearly unlimited room to accept immigration, and on average every single immigrant we accept would increase the size of our economy. Immigrants are not a "drain on the system" that must be limited. Human brains are the single most valuable resource in the universe, and we should take as many as we can. Not only that, but the people who self-select to move their families across the world are the most motivated, entrepreneurial, and risk-seeking brains in the world. Our default assumption should be that the walls are down and the gates are open; only in extraordinary cases should we be sending anyone (regardless of skills) away at the border.

bokonist 12y ago
Yes, that is the premise. In my comment, I take the assumption of restricted immigration as a given, and then propose how the quota can be most sensibly allocated. There is a completely separate debate over how high or low that quota should be, or if there should be a quota at all. But that would deserve its own long thread.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
davidw 12y ago
Yes, see: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-optimal-number-of-immigrants.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-optimal-number-... But this is all politics, and as such it should probably be flagged.
sigzero 12y ago
"Our default assumption should be that the walls are down and the gates are open" Yeah, bull. Not even.
rayiner 12y ago
The U.S. has a fixed capacity to absorb immigrants while integrating them into our culture. In many places in the country, immigration is already too much, resulting in insular immigrant communities and tensions between immigrants and everyone else. Those are bad things. The unstated assumption underlying the assertion that "the U.S. has nearly unlimited room to accept immigration" is that culture, and institutions arising out of that culture, doesn't matter. That's false. Culture and institutions are what make the U.S. worth immigrating to in the first place. And I say this as an immigrant. My parents didn't leave their lives half a world away to come here for the weather.
- codegeek 12y ago
  "My parents didn't leave their lives half a world away to come here for the weather." Agreed. They probably came here for a better life and opportunity just like most immigrants. What is your point though ? Your parents immigrated here and now you think " immigration is already too much". I am not attacking you personally but trying to understand your point. What is this culture and institution that you talk about ?
  - fargolime 12y ago
    There is a point when immigration is too much. Resources are finite, defining an immigration limit to maintain a certain standard of living.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    My parents came here for various reasons, but one of the straws that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was my dad giving in to paying a bribe just to get telephone service installed at his house. Where I come from, Bangladesh, that is just how you do things. And the institutions you have to deal with were created by people who think that's okay. I think non-immigrants take for granted how amazing, and fragile, it is to have a society where you don't assume you'll have to pay a bribe to get your phone service installed. Or to be able to rely on institutions created by people who don't assume you'll have to pay a bribe to get your phone service installed. I'm not against immigration. I'm for preserving the virtues of American culture that you don't see in a lot of other places (even among the wealthier and more educated folks in other places): attitudes towards corruption, women, racism, homosexuality, the environment, entrepreneurship, risk, personal happiness, family relationships and hierarchy, etc.
happyscrappy 12y ago
You can probably fit more people in your house, who are you to say someone shouldn't move into those rooms?
kourt 12y ago
The current US population is 7 billion, US population is 300 million. How many of the 6.5 billion non-Americans do you think could be rapidly absorbed, both terms of infrastructure (roads, water, sewers) as well as housing, culture, and government subsidies? Your answer MUST be expressed a NUMBER, not some vapid BS platitude.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Just put skyscrapers everywhere! Cut down those national forests. Dam all the rivers. Build baby build!
- jxm262 12y ago
  Current "World" Populatation ftfy
fargolime 12y ago
Increasing the size of the economy isn't the best choice, though. We have too many people in the US as it is. More people, more money, more stuff isn't always better. (Using a throwaway since it seems most people think more people and skyscrapers and traffic and higher taxes to compensate for the dwindling resources is wonderful.) No, we don't have unlimited room, unless you're planning to not feed or provide water to these people long term.
- davidw 12y ago
  > We have too many people in the US as it is. Do you know how many children are born every day in the US?
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Not offhand, but how is that relevant?
    - davidw 12y ago
      If you want to complain about "too many people", don't you think babies factor into that, somehow?
      - fargolime 12y ago
        Sure they do. I didn't suggest otherwise.
- throwaway989834 12y ago
  > (Using a throwaway since it seems most people think more people and skyscrapers and traffic and higher taxes to compensate for the dwindling resources is wonderful.) Are you sure that's a throwaway? Take a look at my username. That's a throwaway!
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Ha! Yes, this account is for going against the hive mind. Maybe I'd get less downvotes if I had "throwaway" in the name? Hmmm.
logfromblammo 12y ago
The U.S. only has unlimited capacity for immigration if the composition of the immigrants already closely resembles the overall U.S economy and culture. If 100% of immigrants are neurosurgeons, that simultaneously gluts the domestic labor market for neurosurgery and creates shortages in all the other jobs that typically support neurosurgeons, down to the cafe baristas and hairdressers. What you want is to import the right immigrants at the right time. If you get an unbalanced mix, the economy will be disrupted as surely as a washing machine with socks on one side and jeans on the other. Limiting the absolute number per year allows the economy to adjust as the new participants come in. Being a little smarter about the different skill sets that come in would allow greater absolute numbers to immigrate and assimilate. But I don't particularly trust the bureaucracy to calculate the numbers that would provide the greatest overall economic benefits, either, so perhaps a stupider and simpler system that largely eliminates the need for bureaucratic decision-making would be best.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
> The unstated premise behind your comment, and indeed this entire debate, is that there is only so much "room" for immigration in the US. This leads us to arguments about how large the quota should be, how it should be divided, etc. No, the actual assumption is that the US wants to bias its flow of immigrants towards high-skilled, high-value people working in high-value-add positions. If human brains are a valuable resource, he is proposing that the government should issue visas to the best and brightest resources it can get.
PeterisP 12y ago
A rather obvious premise is that there is some limit of immigration that is in the best interest of current US citizens. Average human brains are not a scarce resource as seen by all practical evidence - globally, they're being manufactured at near-record numbers, they're a sustainable resource that we can make more in the future, they're not fully used (9 million of them unemployed) and we're okay with deliberately throwing away many of them (e.g. incarcerating 2 million). In addition, there is significant unequality between the regions of the world. Simply equalizing the global wealth per capita would be a very unwanted change for most of the first world, simply being pushed down to the average would be a catastrophic decrease. Equal opportunities for everyone worldwide would also hurt current first world citizens, who right now do have significantly above average opportunities. You can charge an order of magnitude more for the same job or service simply because you are here and "they" are not. It is rather obvious that there are some practical reasons why they would vote to preserve the status quo.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Arguably the incarcerated, and more tenuously then unemployed, are not "average human brains". I'm not sure I'd actually argue that but it seems worth addressing.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Incarceration is much more highly correlated to your parents income level than their genetics. Unemployment is primarily a skillset mismatch problem. Becoming a newspaper pressman looked like a solid career choice in 1995, not so much twenty years later when those 18 year olds are 38 and unemployed. Not foreseeing the rise of the internet is hardly strong evidence that their brains are defective.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "Incarceration is much more highly correlated to your parents income level than their genetics." Nothing requires any stipulation that these minds be genetically inferior.

bokonist 12y ago

Yes, that is the premise. In my comment, I take the assumption of restricted immigration as a given, and then propose how the quota can be most sensibly allocated. There is a completely separate debate over how high or low that quota should be, or if there should be a quota at all. But that would deserve its own long thread.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

davidw 12y ago

Yes, see: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-optimal-number-of-immigrants.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-optimal-number-... But this is all politics, and as such it should probably be flagged.

sigzero 12y ago

"Our default assumption should be that the walls are down and the gates are open" Yeah, bull. Not even.

rayiner 12y ago

The U.S. has a fixed capacity to absorb immigrants while integrating them into our culture. In many places in the country, immigration is already too much, resulting in insular immigrant communities and tensions between immigrants and everyone else. Those are bad things. The unstated assumption underlying the assertion that "the U.S. has nearly unlimited room to accept immigration" is that culture, and institutions arising out of that culture, doesn't matter. That's false. Culture and institutions are what make the U.S. worth immigrating to in the first place. And I say this as an immigrant. My parents didn't leave their lives half a world away to come here for the weather.

codegeek 12y ago
"My parents didn't leave their lives half a world away to come here for the weather." Agreed. They probably came here for a better life and opportunity just like most immigrants. What is your point though ? Your parents immigrated here and now you think " immigration is already too much". I am not attacking you personally but trying to understand your point. What is this culture and institution that you talk about ?
- fargolime 12y ago
  There is a point when immigration is too much. Resources are finite, defining an immigration limit to maintain a certain standard of living.
- rayiner 12y ago
  My parents came here for various reasons, but one of the straws that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was my dad giving in to paying a bribe just to get telephone service installed at his house. Where I come from, Bangladesh, that is just how you do things. And the institutions you have to deal with were created by people who think that's okay. I think non-immigrants take for granted how amazing, and fragile, it is to have a society where you don't assume you'll have to pay a bribe to get your phone service installed. Or to be able to rely on institutions created by people who don't assume you'll have to pay a bribe to get your phone service installed. I'm not against immigration. I'm for preserving the virtues of American culture that you don't see in a lot of other places (even among the wealthier and more educated folks in other places): attitudes towards corruption, women, racism, homosexuality, the environment, entrepreneurship, risk, personal happiness, family relationships and hierarchy, etc.

happyscrappy 12y ago

You can probably fit more people in your house, who are you to say someone shouldn't move into those rooms?

kourt 12y ago

The current US population is 7 billion, US population is 300 million. How many of the 6.5 billion non-Americans do you think could be rapidly absorbed, both terms of infrastructure (roads, water, sewers) as well as housing, culture, and government subsidies? Your answer MUST be expressed a NUMBER, not some vapid BS platitude.

fargolime 12y ago
Just put skyscrapers everywhere! Cut down those national forests. Dam all the rivers. Build baby build!
jxm262 12y ago
Current "World" Populatation ftfy

fargolime 12y ago

Increasing the size of the economy isn't the best choice, though. We have too many people in the US as it is. More people, more money, more stuff isn't always better. (Using a throwaway since it seems most people think more people and skyscrapers and traffic and higher taxes to compensate for the dwindling resources is wonderful.) No, we don't have unlimited room, unless you're planning to not feed or provide water to these people long term.

davidw 12y ago
> We have too many people in the US as it is. Do you know how many children are born every day in the US?
- fargolime 12y ago
  Not offhand, but how is that relevant?
  - davidw 12y ago
    If you want to complain about "too many people", don't you think babies factor into that, somehow?
    - fargolime 12y ago
      Sure they do. I didn't suggest otherwise.
throwaway989834 12y ago
> (Using a throwaway since it seems most people think more people and skyscrapers and traffic and higher taxes to compensate for the dwindling resources is wonderful.) Are you sure that's a throwaway? Take a look at my username. That's a throwaway!
- fargolime 12y ago
  Ha! Yes, this account is for going against the hive mind. Maybe I'd get less downvotes if I had "throwaway" in the name? Hmmm.

logfromblammo 12y ago

The U.S. only has unlimited capacity for immigration if the composition of the immigrants already closely resembles the overall U.S economy and culture. If 100% of immigrants are neurosurgeons, that simultaneously gluts the domestic labor market for neurosurgery and creates shortages in all the other jobs that typically support neurosurgeons, down to the cafe baristas and hairdressers. What you want is to import the right immigrants at the right time. If you get an unbalanced mix, the economy will be disrupted as surely as a washing machine with socks on one side and jeans on the other. Limiting the absolute number per year allows the economy to adjust as the new participants come in. Being a little smarter about the different skill sets that come in would allow greater absolute numbers to immigrate and assimilate. But I don't particularly trust the bureaucracy to calculate the numbers that would provide the greatest overall economic benefits, either, so perhaps a stupider and simpler system that largely eliminates the need for bureaucratic decision-making would be best.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

> The unstated premise behind your comment, and indeed this entire debate, is that there is only so much "room" for immigration in the US. This leads us to arguments about how large the quota should be, how it should be divided, etc. No, the actual assumption is that the US wants to bias its flow of immigrants towards high-skilled, high-value people working in high-value-add positions. If human brains are a valuable resource, he is proposing that the government should issue visas to the best and brightest resources it can get.

PeterisP 12y ago

A rather obvious premise is that there is some limit of immigration that is in the best interest of current US citizens. Average human brains are not a scarce resource as seen by all practical evidence - globally, they're being manufactured at near-record numbers, they're a sustainable resource that we can make more in the future, they're not fully used (9 million of them unemployed) and we're okay with deliberately throwing away many of them (e.g. incarcerating 2 million). In addition, there is significant unequality between the regions of the world. Simply equalizing the global wealth per capita would be a very unwanted change for most of the first world, simply being pushed down to the average would be a catastrophic decrease. Equal opportunities for everyone worldwide would also hurt current first world citizens, who right now do have significantly above average opportunities. You can charge an order of magnitude more for the same job or service simply because you are here and "they" are not. It is rather obvious that there are some practical reasons why they would vote to preserve the status quo.

dllthomas 12y ago
Arguably the incarcerated, and more tenuously then unemployed, are not "average human brains". I'm not sure I'd actually argue that but it seems worth addressing.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Incarceration is much more highly correlated to your parents income level than their genetics. Unemployment is primarily a skillset mismatch problem. Becoming a newspaper pressman looked like a solid career choice in 1995, not so much twenty years later when those 18 year olds are 38 and unemployed. Not foreseeing the rise of the internet is hardly strong evidence that their brains are defective.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "Incarceration is much more highly correlated to your parents income level than their genetics." Nothing requires any stipulation that these minds be genetically inferior.