4 ms·

In general, in the long term, immigration is vastly a net positive. The waves of migration from Europe in the early 20th century brought with them their share

by anateus 17y ago

In general, in the long term, immigration is vastly a net positive. The waves of migration from Europe in the early 20th century brought with them their share of crime and poverty. There was even a jewish mafia, but I'll stake that right against Feynman any day. In general, technology and education are the best contributions to productivity growth, which in turn is the best proxy we currently have to good living ("happiness economics" is a growing field that aims to produce a better proxy). These immigrants are making life better for everyone. Full disclosure: I have immigrated twice, about to get my US citizenship (passed the test, need to be sworn in). Probably not gonna win a nobel prize, but as an entrepreneur hope to be creating jobs.

geebee 17y ago
It always surprises me that people talk about "immigration" as if it's a binary field, either on or off. To me, it's all about degree. There's an ideal level of immigration - go too high over it, and it leads to overcrowding, social upheaval, displacement. Go too low, and a society stagnates. It's not just about numbers, of course, it's also about the type of immigrant. While it may be politically incorrect to say so, migrant farm workers who send most of their earnings home may very well result in a net loss, whereas highly educated workers result in a net gain. The issue is so intense in the US that I think it's productive to ask how you'd design an immigration system for a smaller country with lower population density. Right now, New Zealand has a population of about 4 mil and a land mass only a bit smaller than California. Would New Zealanders be better off if fifty million immigrants came into the country over the next 20 years? If not, how many immigrants would you consider to be ideal? It's not all about GDP - it's a beautiful country, essentially a giant national park, and that would be lost if they allowed mass immigration.

by anateus 17y ago

geebee 17y ago

It always surprises me that people talk about "immigration" as if it's a binary field, either on or off. To me, it's all about degree. There's an ideal level of immigration - go too high over it, and it leads to overcrowding, social upheaval, displacement. Go too low, and a society stagnates. It's not just about numbers, of course, it's also about the type of immigrant. While it may be politically incorrect to say so, migrant farm workers who send most of their earnings home may very well result in a net loss, whereas highly educated workers result in a net gain. The issue is so intense in the US that I think it's productive to ask how you'd design an immigration system for a smaller country with lower population density. Right now, New Zealand has a population of about 4 mil and a land mass only a bit smaller than California. Would New Zealanders be better off if fifty million immigrants came into the country over the next 20 years? If not, how many immigrants would you consider to be ideal? It's not all about GDP - it's a beautiful country, essentially a giant national park, and that would be lost if they allowed mass immigration.