4 ms·

"By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty." That's a bit of a leap. "Can you

"By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty." That's a bit of a leap. "Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument that people from Detroit shouldn't be allowed to move to San Francisco to take a better job, because they'll steal jobs from and drive down the wages of SF natives? What's the difference?" Probably the fact that Michigan and California are 2 states within the US and whilst America is protectionist (as are most sovereign nations) against other countries when it comes to labour (with few exceptions like the EU), there are laws that prevent this kind of protectionism between states.

Swizec 12y ago
> Probably the fact that Michigan and California are 2 states within the US And yet, until just 20 years ago, you couldn't move from Germany to France for similar reasons. You had to get a work visa. Just because they weren't part of the same union, even though they are neighbouring countries and you could literally commute from Germany to work in France (or vice-versa) every day if you wanted to.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
evanpw 12y ago
> That's a bit of a leap. If someone lives in India, they are likely to have a standard of living below what would be considered poverty level in the United States. If you actively prevent them from taking a job that would take them out of poverty, how else would you describe that? > Michigan and California are 2 states within the US This is my point. Why is it morally okay to exclude people from India, but not people from Detroit?
- hackerboos 12y ago
  > If someone lives in India, they are likely to have a standard of living below what would be considered poverty level in the United States. If you actively prevent them from taking a job that would take them out of poverty, how else would you describe that? And thus placing an American in poverty in the process. You've displaced their job and gave it to an Indian who is paid less (so the article suggests). Less federal income tax, less state tax and it's not unreasonable to assume that a portion of the paycheck will be returned to India. This is why we have foreign aid budgets and charities. People do care and want to give, but what you're suggesting is not the way to go about it. > This is my point. Why is it morally okay to exclude people from India, but not people from Detroit? Morally it's not OK. Agreed. Even economically it's possible, but not without severely driving down US living standards. Politically though, it's a disaster.
jqm 12y ago
It's more than a leap because it implicitly states that the only way a citizen of India can avoid poverty is to come to the US, and I'm pretty sure there are no shortage of wealthy Indians who became so without immigrating.
- evanpw 12y ago
  Absolutely. I don't mean that it's true on a case-by-case basis, only on average. If you force a large number of Indians who want to move to the US to stay in India, then you will keep a large-but-not-quite-as-large number of people in (relative) poverty.
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    I don't get it. Are you saying it is ok to force an American into poverty so an Indian can get out of poverty?

Swizec 12y ago

> Probably the fact that Michigan and California are 2 states within the US And yet, until just 20 years ago, you couldn't move from Germany to France for similar reasons. You had to get a work visa. Just because they weren't part of the same union, even though they are neighbouring countries and you could literally commute from Germany to work in France (or vice-versa) every day if you wanted to.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

evanpw 12y ago

> That's a bit of a leap. If someone lives in India, they are likely to have a standard of living below what would be considered poverty level in the United States. If you actively prevent them from taking a job that would take them out of poverty, how else would you describe that? > Michigan and California are 2 states within the US This is my point. Why is it morally okay to exclude people from India, but not people from Detroit?

hackerboos 12y ago
> If someone lives in India, they are likely to have a standard of living below what would be considered poverty level in the United States. If you actively prevent them from taking a job that would take them out of poverty, how else would you describe that? And thus placing an American in poverty in the process. You've displaced their job and gave it to an Indian who is paid less (so the article suggests). Less federal income tax, less state tax and it's not unreasonable to assume that a portion of the paycheck will be returned to India. This is why we have foreign aid budgets and charities. People do care and want to give, but what you're suggesting is not the way to go about it. > This is my point. Why is it morally okay to exclude people from India, but not people from Detroit? Morally it's not OK. Agreed. Even economically it's possible, but not without severely driving down US living standards. Politically though, it's a disaster.

jqm 12y ago

It's more than a leap because it implicitly states that the only way a citizen of India can avoid poverty is to come to the US, and I'm pretty sure there are no shortage of wealthy Indians who became so without immigrating.

evanpw 12y ago
Absolutely. I don't mean that it's true on a case-by-case basis, only on average. If you force a large number of Indians who want to move to the US to stay in India, then you will keep a large-but-not-quite-as-large number of people in (relative) poverty.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  I don't get it. Are you saying it is ok to force an American into poverty so an Indian can get out of poverty?