5 ms·

Yes, it was. Of course, things were hardly equal before the change as well. So we have one unequal situation vs. an unequal action. Given an unequal situati

Yes, it was. Of course, things were hardly equal before the change as well. So we have one unequal situation vs. an unequal action. Given an unequal situation that favors people in my country, vs. an unequal action that favors people not in my country, I choose the former.

temujin 12y ago
It's way more asymmetric than that. The US government is in a better position to work for Americans' interests than those of foreigners; the Mexican government has a comparative advantage in working for Mexican citizen interests, etc. Just like how you are better at spending money for yourself than for others (and the Soviet Union collapsed largely because it tried to ignore this law of nature). All existing proposals by the open borders crowd for the US with political traction are severely negative-sum for this reason. (I've seen a few ideas from them which are not, but they have essentially zero chance of being implemented.) If one wants to devote themselves to helping foreigners today, there are far, far better ways, like training/employing them in their home countries, or working toward constructive political change there.
- grinnbearit 12y ago
  (I'll paste a comment I made somewhere else here) I understand your morals could be different from mine but heres how I see it. A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you? For an extreme example, would you rather be a Chinese Foxconn employee or an unemployed American. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance ) Edit: If Exit is not longer an option for a citizen, that only leaves Voice and Loyalty and Voice doesn't have a great track record in these countries.
  - temujin 12y ago
    This has nothing to do with exit, and suggesting otherwise implies bad faith on your part. (The exception is if you've literally never read anything like the remainder of this paragraph. In that case, you can demonstrate good faith by admitting here that your argument was faulty, and countering similar faulty "exit" arguments from open borders advocates in the future.) You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you, and it's blindingly obvious that changing this state of affairs would destroy some of the best companies. Right of exit, which I support, is protected by refugee treaties and free world military power. A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach. And your "Chinese or Indian citizen" example actually counters your own argument. Both countries have far too many people for the US to absorb, and both have also succeeded for the last three decades at raising living standards for their native people by more than would be possible via any achievable amount of brute-force migration to the US (though they have a lot more to do). Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time. And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me. With all that said, I do support loosening restrictions on migration when doing so is actually positive-sum, and I think Chinese and Indian student immigration to the US frequently qualifies. But right now there's no way to push for that without simultaneously pushing for far-more-negative-sum policies.
    - grinnbearit 12y ago
      > You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you Thats a fair argument, however I don't think "freedom to leave" would mean much if you couldn't leave a company because no other company would hire you and your only other option would be to starve. Its why food stamps and unemployment make sense. On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean? > A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach. > Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time. We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is. In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race. i.e. 2 similar individuals who are both skilled, both want to work and are both being hired should not be treated differently depending on which state controls their passport. On the other hand geographical distance, cultural ties etc are obviously valid points of difference. ----- > And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me. An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India. Edit: temujin is right, restating I'd rather be unemployed in the US than employed as a low level Foxconn employee in China

temujin 12y ago

It's way more asymmetric than that. The US government is in a better position to work for Americans' interests than those of foreigners; the Mexican government has a comparative advantage in working for Mexican citizen interests, etc. Just like how you are better at spending money for yourself than for others (and the Soviet Union collapsed largely because it tried to ignore this law of nature). All existing proposals by the open borders crowd for the US with political traction are severely negative-sum for this reason. (I've seen a few ideas from them which are not, but they have essentially zero chance of being implemented.) If one wants to devote themselves to helping foreigners today, there are far, far better ways, like training/employing them in their home countries, or working toward constructive political change there.

grinnbearit 12y ago
(I'll paste a comment I made somewhere else here) I understand your morals could be different from mine but heres how I see it. A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you? For an extreme example, would you rather be a Chinese Foxconn employee or an unemployed American. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance ) Edit: If Exit is not longer an option for a citizen, that only leaves Voice and Loyalty and Voice doesn't have a great track record in these countries.
- temujin 12y ago
  This has nothing to do with exit, and suggesting otherwise implies bad faith on your part. (The exception is if you've literally never read anything like the remainder of this paragraph. In that case, you can demonstrate good faith by admitting here that your argument was faulty, and countering similar faulty "exit" arguments from open borders advocates in the future.) You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you, and it's blindingly obvious that changing this state of affairs would destroy some of the best companies. Right of exit, which I support, is protected by refugee treaties and free world military power. A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach. And your "Chinese or Indian citizen" example actually counters your own argument. Both countries have far too many people for the US to absorb, and both have also succeeded for the last three decades at raising living standards for their native people by more than would be possible via any achievable amount of brute-force migration to the US (though they have a lot more to do). Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time. And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me. With all that said, I do support loosening restrictions on migration when doing so is actually positive-sum, and I think Chinese and Indian student immigration to the US frequently qualifies. But right now there's no way to push for that without simultaneously pushing for far-more-negative-sum policies.
  - grinnbearit 12y ago
    > You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you Thats a fair argument, however I don't think "freedom to leave" would mean much if you couldn't leave a company because no other company would hire you and your only other option would be to starve. Its why food stamps and unemployment make sense. On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean? > A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach. > Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time. We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is. In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race. i.e. 2 similar individuals who are both skilled, both want to work and are both being hired should not be treated differently depending on which state controls their passport. On the other hand geographical distance, cultural ties etc are obviously valid points of difference. ----- > And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me. An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India. Edit: temujin is right, restating I'd rather be unemployed in the US than employed as a low level Foxconn employee in China