22 votes

Should we, in rich countries, open our borders to migrants, refugees and other immigrants?

Loads of people want to get to rich countries for various reasons:

The list is almost endless.

Should we, in countries not affected by such problems, accept these folks that want to get away for whatever reason?

71 comments

  1. [6]
    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    There are two ways this can go: a moral argument and an economic argument. I'm going to tackle the economic side first, because that's the easier one to quantify and wrestle with for me (and I see...

    There are two ways this can go: a moral argument and an economic argument.

    I'm going to tackle the economic side first, because that's the easier one to quantify and wrestle with for me (and I see a bunch of other responses focused on the moral cases for and against).

    Economically, most rich countries are in some form of a demographic dilemma. The birth rates in just about every rich country are so low that their populations are going to be shrinking soon if not already. To make up for these low birth rates, these countries will have to take in immigrants, who will keep the engines of an economy running without needing to make extremely painful cuts to programs that no longer have the population or tax revenue to support them.

    These countries, when looking around for the people who want to immigrate to their country, should be prioritizing the trained, the educated, and the easily-integrated (i.e., not necessarily going back home when the hardship's over). You want the folks who are planning on permanently settling in your land, not the ones that are leaving again in seven years. Rich countries should have no shortage of people who want to enter their country, so it's a matter of defining what you're looking for skills-wise and executing.

    This can leave a brain drain in the countries people are emigrating from, but that's the way of it. More room for mediocre people to succeed back home! The smartest and most educated left for a better life somewhere else. Sucks to suck.


    None of that was about refugees. That's somewhat intentional. Refugees are a class onto their own. They are fleeing something under threat of their lives and don't really have the option to go back home even if they wanted to. Economically, they're a bit of a mess. No one really wants to deal with refugees. There is often a sense of moral obligation that comes with providing people places to stay away from violence and persecution.

    In a case like Syria, it's pretty clear that it's a tough ask to take all the refugees that are looking for new homes in a safer place. You have to distinguish along several lines:

    1. How close is the place geographically from the place our refugee was dislocated from? Once you get a certain distance away, all options become roughly logistically identical, but there is a much lower logistical burden the closer to the person's home you are. This is crucial in situations with any scale (Syria).
    2. What was the reason the refugee was dislocated? Was it a specific threat ("I'm going to murder you for being gay/Muslim/a minority ethnicity/etc.") or a generalized threat ("my hometown is a warzone")?
    3. Can this person/family reasonably acclimate to a certain destination that other refugees might struggle with? (Do they have language skills or training that would help them in one country over another?)
    4. Are there resources in a certain area that might help refugees from certain locations over others? (Language learning, job training, etc.)

    The idea behind all of these questions is to suss out three big factors: where are people generally likely to coalesce, where are the refugees most likely to succeed in rebuilding some semblance of normalcy, and where is most likely to be able to build the refugees up for success?

    Rich countries probably do have some obligation to helping refugees in the most pragmatic sense because they have the most interest in maintaining a stable international order. The larger the refugee crisis, and fewer people helping to remedy it, then the larger impact you'll see in the stability of international relations (or lack thereof). We have seen quite a bit of waves over the Syrian refugee crisis politically across much of Europe, and I don't expect that is likely to ease any time soon. Part of the blame for the depth of that crisis' impact on European countries can be assigned to countries that have been more reluctant to offer aid themselves.

    25 votes
    1. BuckeyeSundae
      Link Parent
      Yes, I know I'm replying to myself. It's silly. But I had more thoughts. Forgive me. To expand a bit on this problem of "brain drain," in the US we have a looming problem of brain drain ourselves....

      Yes, I know I'm replying to myself. It's silly. But I had more thoughts. Forgive me.

      To expand a bit on this problem of "brain drain," in the US we have a looming problem of brain drain ourselves. We have been training a ton of foreign exchange students who then go home and become direct competitors of our companies here. That's not very strategically smart, economically. Now a conservative might look at something like that and go "well, then stop taking foreign exchange students! That ought to lower the price of university as there is less demand for it" except that universities are getting funding (if they're public) increasingly by the number of students attending, and if they're private, directly from the students. Those foreign exchange students pay, and they pay extra into a public school for not beign residents.

      It would be much better, given that we don't seem very interested in lowering the price of tuition for students seeking post-secondary education, to find a way to encourage people who get educated in the United States to stay in the United States. That would presumably extend to all those DACA recipients who are still in limbo, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, knowwhatimean, saynomore?

      Now you can do that through a lot of different ways. Give the educated non-citizens green cards conditioned on employment or something, provide a path to citizenship, increase the number of work visas or lower the requirements that companies have to prove if they try to hire non-citizens who were educated in the US, maybe fund that path to citizenship so people who want to become citizens and have already been living here for 12 years can not feel like we're treating them like recycled food products. Pick them all!

      16 votes
    2. [4]
      elf
      Link Parent
      Why though?

      You want the folks who are planning on permanently settling in your land, not the ones that are leaving again in seven years.

      Why though?

      1 vote
      1. [3]
        BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        That could be a topic all to its own, but the basic gist is that people who set up shop in your country planning on remaining there tend to have goals like helping contribute to local communities,...

        That could be a topic all to its own, but the basic gist is that people who set up shop in your country planning on remaining there tend to have goals like helping contribute to local communities, while more intermittent, temporary immigrants have less incentive to contribute to local communities. You effectively maximize the good that comes from the person immigrating to your country if they want to stay for life. Even if they don't eventually do so, the fact that they're coming planning to do so can drive a lot of helpful local investment.

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          elf
          Link Parent
          Someone who migrates just to work for a few years is contributing economically. They're filling a gap in the labor market, producing something for the community through their labor, spending part...

          Someone who migrates just to work for a few years is contributing economically. They're filling a gap in the labor market, producing something for the community through their labor, spending part of the money they earn locally, and paying taxes to the local government. If the migrant is a single, working age individual, as a temporary economic migrant is likely to be, they're going to be paying more into funds for social services than they take out themselves. Someone who is going to have kids and retire in the country they move to is going to use up a lot more of these funds.

          And, while this point is somewhat dependent on the cultural and linguistic match up between the migrant and the country they're migrating to, migrants can and do contribute socially as well. While they do have less incentive to invest in a community long term, they have plenty of incentive to do so in the short term. They can make friends, join local groups, participate in local traditions, and generally share their culture with the local community.

          3 votes
          1. BuckeyeSundae
            Link Parent
            Absolutely. I am not saying the temporary migrant is not contributing, only that the migrant looking to permanently settle is likely to contribute more, and more meaningfully, to the community...

            Someone who migrates just to work for a few years is contributing economically. They're filling a gap in the labor market, producing something for the community through their labor, spending part of the money they earn locally, and paying taxes to the local government.

            Absolutely. I am not saying the temporary migrant is not contributing, only that the migrant looking to permanently settle is likely to contribute more, and more meaningfully, to the community within which they live. It's the same reason why home ownership is usually a thing local communities want to encourage, as it increases by its very nature the investment someone has in the local community.

            3 votes
  2. [2]
    Rabdomante
    Link
    This isn't a binary choice. It's not open borders or closed borders. Most borders are controlled borders, where some people can come through at certain conditions and others can't. The asylum...

    This isn't a binary choice. It's not open borders or closed borders. Most borders are controlled borders, where some people can come through at certain conditions and others can't.

    The asylum system must be protected and respected. It is a lifesaving mechanism and a moral backbone of the contemporary international order.

    Economic migration, which today often happens together with and on the same routes of as refugee flight, should be controlled based primarily on what is sustainable. It does no one good, including the migrants themselves, when a country takes in more than it can integrate into its society.

    At the moment, it seems to me that specifically African and Middle Easter immigration to Europe has reached the point where integration is failing to happen. Even the most harcore progressive and committed countries, like Sweden, are simply failing to integrate large portions of their migrant populations. It would already be unrealistic to expect all of Europe to adopt Sweden's outlooks and priorities; it's even more unrealistic to imagine that we can in short order all start doing even better than that standard.

    11 votes
    1. Zeerph
      Link Parent
      Whilst I agree, how do we judge when a country no longer is able to integrate newcomers? Also, if one country or another reaches their intake limit, how could other countries pick up the slack? Of...

      It does no one good, including the migrants themselves, when a country takes in more than it can integrate into its society.

      Whilst I agree, how do we judge when a country no longer is able to integrate newcomers?

      Also, if one country or another reaches their intake limit, how could other countries pick up the slack?

      Of course, this is all based on the assumption that migration, economic or otherwise, will not end anytime soon.

      2 votes
  3. [14]
    IncreaseTheDosage
    Link
    Rich countries should just stop starting new wars and exploiting poor countries and there won't be any refugees. Here, I'm primarily thinking of the biggest, bestest one with the best president...

    Rich countries should just stop starting new wars and exploiting poor countries and there won't be any refugees. Here, I'm primarily thinking of the biggest, bestest one with the best president ever. As for migrants, yes the borders should be open to them, since their number is small anyway (when there are no wars).

    7 votes
    1. [13]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      1.5 million Sudanese refugees would like to have a word with you! The ongoing civil war in South Sudan is purely an internal matter. When they're finished with you, 600,000 Rohingya refugees would...

      Rich countries should just stop starting new wars and exploiting poor countries and there won't be any refugees.

      1.5 million Sudanese refugees would like to have a word with you! The ongoing civil war in South Sudan is purely an internal matter.

      When they're finished with you, 600,000 Rohingya refugees would like to have their say. The ethnic cleansing in Myanmar is another purely internal matter.

      These are not the only examples: they're only the two that came to mind quickest. The major world powers aren't responsible for all the evils in the world!

      9 votes
      1. [12]
        IncreaseTheDosage
        Link Parent
        Of course. However, the evils they are responsible of, are the evils they can most certainly remedy, but they keep making them worse.

        Of course. However, the evils they are responsible of, are the evils they can most certainly remedy, but they keep making them worse.

        1. [11]
          elf
          Link Parent
          You can say that rich countries should just stop exploiting and destabilizing poor countries, but is that really likely to happen? Surely it's an easier task just to get rich countries to take in...

          You can say that rich countries should just stop exploiting and destabilizing poor countries, but is that really likely to happen? Surely it's an easier task just to get rich countries to take in more refugees.

          1. [10]
            Zeerph
            Link Parent
            What do you think of China's method of building infrastructure in countries that it wants to trade with and is it a better method than what, mostly, the West is doing?

            What do you think of China's method of building infrastructure in countries that it wants to trade with and is it a better method than what, mostly, the West is doing?

            1 vote
            1. [6]
              jgb
              Link Parent
              I think China's infrastructure projects are, by and large, quite a good thing. They are a bit neocolonialist - but that doesn't mean they should be considered evil. I'd like to think that, in the...

              I think China's infrastructure projects are, by and large, quite a good thing. They are a bit neocolonialist - but that doesn't mean they should be considered evil. I'd like to think that, in the 21st century, it's possible to have the benefits of colonialism (the Indian railway system springs to mind), without the horrific atrocities and abuses of human rights that characterised the original scramble for Africa. As I see it, you can criticise China's behaviour from an ethical standpoint all you like, but for sub-saharan Africa to develop someone needs to invest in it so that the foundations can be laid for functioning economies and effective governance. It's wrong to expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and the same is true of nations.

              3 votes
              1. [3]
                Zeerph
                Link Parent
                Why do you think the west has ceded that task to China?

                ... but for sub-saharan Africa to develop someone needs to invest in it so that the foundations can be laid for functioning economies and effective governance.

                Why do you think the west has ceded that task to China?

                2 votes
                1. [2]
                  jgb
                  Link Parent
                  I honestly don't know. I think we should be investing more in development in sub-saharan Africa, but I guess in a democracy it's harder for governments to get away with investing massive amounts...

                  I honestly don't know. I think we should be investing more in development in sub-saharan Africa, but I guess in a democracy it's harder for governments to get away with investing massive amounts of money for a pay-off that might only come good several decades down the line.

                  2 votes
                  1. Zeerph
                    Link Parent
                    Here's an interesting article that visualises the US foreign aid budget for 2017. It seems that the U.S. gave a half-billion dollars to five different sub-Saharan African countries and around 100...

                    Here's an interesting article that visualises the US foreign aid budget for 2017. It seems that the U.S. gave a half-billion dollars to five different sub-Saharan African countries and around 100 - 200 million dollars to 12 more. But, "Most of the money given to those countries is funneled toward health initiatives, particularly HIV/AIDS treatment and research.", so it leaves a wide hole for someone else to fill.

                    In researching the issue, I found this paragraph from the Washington Post:

                    Chinese aid is different from Western aid: It is unconditional, meaning it comes with no strings attached. Western aid typically requires progress on the donor’s agenda, such as support for democracy, good governance, respect for human rights, and poverty reduction. President Xi’s visit to Zimbabwe is particularly striking as a counterpoint to Western countries’ relations with the country as the EU’s sanctions against Zimbabwe began in 2002 over electoral fraud and human rights abuses.

                    If that's the case, then sub-Saharan African countries would probably be more willing to accept no-strings attached aid. That way the money could be spent however they liked.

                    1 vote
              2. [2]
                havoc
                Link Parent
                Chinese projects employ Chinese workers and the companies gain long-term rights over the land, often disrupting local trade, especially in agriculture. It's handled no differently than the oil or...

                Chinese projects employ Chinese workers and the companies gain long-term rights over the land, often disrupting local trade, especially in agriculture.

                It's handled no differently than the oil or metal business by African leaders. And you know how well that is going.

                1 vote
                1. jgb
                  Link Parent
                  I'm sure there's a million and one ethical problems with what China is doing - but in my mind they are surely all outweighed by the fact that countries which historically have had effectively no...

                  I'm sure there's a million and one ethical problems with what China is doing - but in my mind they are surely all outweighed by the fact that countries which historically have had effectively no quality infrastructure are gaining state-of-the-art highways and rail links, which is almost immeasurably valuable, and will surely benefit them massively in decades to come. It's true - both the African leaders and the Chinese are in the business of bleeding the continent dry of natural resources - but at least China's approach will aid development rather than leaving the population as mired in poverty as ever.

            2. [3]
              elf
              Link Parent
              I mean I'm pretty sure China's infrastructure projects in foreign countries are more about finding uses for Chinese manufactured construction materials and making sure foreign resources can be...

              I mean I'm pretty sure China's infrastructure projects in foreign countries are more about finding uses for Chinese manufactured construction materials and making sure foreign resources can be exported efficiently to China than, say, helping the natives. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. The main problem is China potentially exacerbating corruption problems in those foreign countries.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                Zeerph
                Link Parent
                If that is the main problem should the West also be doing infrastructure projects in these countries in order to combat Chinese influence?

                The main problem is China potentially exacerbating corruption problems in those foreign countries.

                If that is the main problem should the West also be doing infrastructure projects in these countries in order to combat Chinese influence?

                1 vote
                1. elf
                  Link Parent
                  The west can do things like offer trade agreements, loans, aid money, military cooperation, or whatever, but require that the country receiving them makes a certain amount of progress in regards...

                  The west can do things like offer trade agreements, loans, aid money, military cooperation, or whatever, but require that the country receiving them makes a certain amount of progress in regards to human rights, freedom, fighting corruption, etc.

                  I don't know what the best method of doing this is, or to what extent it's even worthwhile to try to combat Chinese influence.

                  1 vote
  4. [3]
    goodbyebluemondays
    Link
    It is a double edged sword for many different reasons. Personally I am for migration, and I think that the overwhelming amount of people that wish to migrate are doing so simply for a better life....

    It is a double edged sword for many different reasons. Personally I am for migration, and I think that the overwhelming amount of people that wish to migrate are doing so simply for a better life. They might not be able to completely adopt the same cultural values as their peers that are born within the country, but their children will so long as you have a strong public educational system that is accessible to everyone.

    I think those that fear immigration (for some legitimate reasons) especially mass migration, fear their core values dissipating as a result. If they are also worried about the loss of jobs than blaming the migrants is incredibly misdirected. The reality is there is a fine line that must be balanced to insure both survival as well as the vitality of countries. For instance one can easily look at Japan and how their country is literally dying as a result of their desire to severely restrict immigration. On the other hand one can also look at the Roman Empire and how allowing massive groups of goths into their empire contributed to their demise. The problem with the Romans however was they treated the goths they allowed in like absolute shit resulting in the goths revolting against them.

    Migration works, but it has to be done well. There should already be a structure in place that allows people in general to have access to better services to allow them to thrive and prosper. Providing these same services to immigrants can create significant assimilation, potential and progress. While some immigrants have been responsible for crimes, the massive majority just want to live decent lives and on top of that many go on to provide incredible contributions to society as a whole .

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      Zeerph
      Link Parent
      Their core values seem to include being exclusionary, with a general distaste for anyone that is slightly different from them. One of my favourite examples of this, is from the U.S. state of...

      fear their core values dissipating as a result

      Their core values seem to include being exclusionary, with a general distaste for anyone that is slightly different from them.

      If they are also worried about the loss of jobs than blaming the migrants is incredibly misdirected

      One of my favourite examples of this, is from the U.S. state of Georgia, where they passed an immigration bill to free up jobs for Georgian residents, but then realised that no one had the skills or desire to do farm work.

      3 votes
  5. [5]
    RespectMyAuthoriteh
    Link
    If rich countries allow the most motivated to come stay, what happens to the countries they left behind? Would it not make more sense to incentivize those people to stay and improve the conditions...

    If rich countries allow the most motivated to come stay, what happens to the countries they left behind? Would it not make more sense to incentivize those people to stay and improve the conditions in their home countries with support from rich countries for things like new schools, microloans, solar power, clean water technology, etc.?

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      geosmin
      Link Parent
      The latter is much more difficult, exponentially more so from the position of the immigrated to country, and takes years if not decades to implement. Even assuming everything there goes well, what...

      The latter is much more difficult, exponentially more so from the position of the immigrated to country, and takes years if not decades to implement. Even assuming everything there goes well, what about present immigrants?

      Initially I really liked your argument but it seems to dodge a present situation for a future idealistic hypothetical.

      Por que no los dos?

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        RespectMyAuthoriteh
        Link Parent
        You have to start working toward a lasting solution at some point. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

        You have to start working toward a lasting solution at some point.
        "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

        5 votes
        1. elf
          Link Parent
          You should look into the demographic transition model. Essentially it says that countries grow in population during their initial development, as death rates fall but birth rates stay the same,...

          You should look into the demographic transition model. Essentially it says that countries grow in population during their initial development, as death rates fall but birth rates stay the same, but eventually those birth rates fall to match the death rates and the population peaks.

    2. elf
      Link Parent
      The countries they left behind get remittances that amount to far more than rich countries are ever going to be willing to provide. The immigrants gain skills and knowledge in their new countries,...

      The countries they left behind get remittances that amount to far more than rich countries are ever going to be willing to provide. The immigrants gain skills and knowledge in their new countries, and many of them will return to start businesses or enter government, accelerating the development of their home countries.

      1 vote
  6. [7]
    ContemplativePanda
    Link
    All countries have immigration policies. I assume most of them take in a certain number of immigrants each year. I'd just like to put that out there so we can differentiate between illegal and...

    All countries have immigration policies. I assume most of them take in a certain number of immigrants each year. I'd just like to put that out there so we can differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants.

    Personally, I think legal immigration that fits into the scope and ideals of the country is good. Each countries can support different levels of immigration and have different philosophies to their immigration policies. This is within their right and they should never feel forced to open their borders more than they want. Just because they are rich countries doesn't obligate them to open their borders suddenly for everyone else.

    5 votes
    1. [6]
      elf
      Link Parent
      The US had basically no immigration restrictions for a hundred years. And the immigration restrictions it put into place after that? I doubt you can find many defenders today of the Chinese...

      The US had basically no immigration restrictions for a hundred years. And the immigration restrictions it put into place after that? I doubt you can find many defenders today of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Early 20th century immigration acts were essentially designed to keep the US as white as possible. Though Catholics and Jews weren't particularly desired, white or not. Rounding up Mexicans (most of whom were US citizens) and forcibly deporting them to Mexico with no due process is probably not a great look. The 1965 immigration bill would reform the system into something, well, less racist, but its supporters still felt the need to stress (falsely) that it wouldn't change the ethnic makeup of the US. So, I think we should recognize what those immigration philosophies and ideals of the country often are in practice.

      3 votes
      1. [5]
        ContemplativePanda
        Link Parent
        I did say in my original post that the philosophies and ideals of the country should set immigration policy. Whether those policies are moral or not is a whole different topic of discussion. I...

        I did say in my original post that the philosophies and ideals of the country should set immigration policy. Whether those policies are moral or not is a whole different topic of discussion. I never said to bar immigrants due to racism. All I am saying is some countries may want lots of immigration, some may want very few and only the best of the best. Regardless, that is their right.

        1 vote
        1. [4]
          elf
          Link Parent
          I'm sorry if I implied you wanted to bar immigrants due to racism; I don't think your original post said anything of the sort. However, you do believe that countries have a right to set their...

          I'm sorry if I implied you wanted to bar immigrants due to racism; I don't think your original post said anything of the sort. However, you do believe that countries have a right to set their policy as they will, regardless of how well or how poorly they use that right?

          1. [3]
            ContemplativePanda
            Link Parent
            Ah sorry I read too much into the acts you stated, my bad. I do believe it is the right of any country to set immigration policy as they so choose, yes. A country is a home for it's citizens. And,...

            Ah sorry I read too much into the acts you stated, my bad. I do believe it is the right of any country to set immigration policy as they so choose, yes. A country is a home for it's citizens. And, just as I have free reign to decide who enters my home for my own reasons I believe countries should be able to do the same. Whether or not they do so to their detriment is entirely up to them.

            1. [2]
              elf
              Link Parent
              Rather than asking more annoying questions about the basis for that belief, I'm just going to state a bunch of possible objections to it. First, I think by grouping together the citizens of a...

              Rather than asking more annoying questions about the basis for that belief, I'm just going to state a bunch of possible objections to it.


              First, I think by grouping together the citizens of a country as an autonomous decision making unit, you are devaluing the individual. A person can decide who enters their home, of course, but a country is not a home and a citizenry is not a person. Now, I'm a believer in democracy and government and think it's all well and good for a group of people to come together and collectively make a decision about the group. But, that group has no particular right to make decisions for those outside of the group.
              Now I'm going to go off on a tangent for a bit. You, as a, lets say, Canadian, have an expectation that you should be able to live anywhere, and work for anyone within Canada (assuming you have the means, you get hired, etc.) Manitoba's provincial government isn't able to say "oh we'll only let a thousand Quebecers in this year, don't want the whole province speaking French." You, the Canadian, have probably taken this ability for granted. If the provinces actually did start putting restrictions up, it would probably severely mess up Canada's economy. So, the Manitobans don't have any right to protect their borders, so to speak. But, the Canadian government also can't control where you live (given local zoning, that you aren't a criminal, etc.) If the Trudeau... OK I just looked up on wikipedia that Canada used to have a pass system to keep Indians on reservations, so maybe this argument isn't quite valid, but I hope we can both agree that the Canadian government was infringing on the Indian's rights when they put this system in place.
              I guess where this is going is that it feels arbitrary that your right to free movement extends across the Manitoba-Alberta border but not the Alberta-Montana border (those places border, right?) If you view your right of movement as existing "in nature" then it's strange they should only extend to borders that don't exist "in nature." If you view the right as being granted by a government, then it's strange that an international organization wouldn't be able to create an international right of movement.


              My second objection is that I think a "freer" immigration policy leads to better outcomes for everyone involved. I generally argue more from utility than from rights (which is why I'm not as much of a libertarian as I sounded like in the first part.) Instead of going into detail I'm just going to link this pdf and we can debate further if need be.


              I remember having a third objection but I'm kind of tired so

              2 votes
              1. ContemplativePanda
                Link Parent
                I agree that fundamentally it makes more sense to allow immigration to and from your country for the reasons you stated. However, I don't think that means that countries shouldn't be able to lock...

                I agree that fundamentally it makes more sense to allow immigration to and from your country for the reasons you stated. However, I don't think that means that countries shouldn't be able to lock down their borders if they want to.

                Traveling within your country is one thing. I definitely think if I live within a country I should be able to go where I please as long as I'm not a criminal, going places I shouldn't be, etc. Otherwise, restriction of my free movement inside of a country in which I'm a citizen is definitely bad.

                However, moving to a different country in which I'm not a citizen and they don't know who I am or what my intentions has to have some level of regulation. That's why I say that each country should be able to decide for themselves how strict or lenient they wish to be. I'm not saying that they SHOULD be strict, just that they have the ability to be.

                1 vote
  7. [8]
    beryl
    Link
    OP seems ignorant of history. Could've framed this question better.

    OP seems ignorant of history. Could've framed this question better.

    4 votes
    1. [4]
      teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      My immediate thought was @Hypnotoad has an alt. OP hasn't participated in the discussion either.

      My immediate thought was @Hypnotoad has an alt. OP hasn't participated in the discussion either.

      3 votes
      1. BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        Eh, I think the difference is really big when you look at user histories. Even a cursory look through their history shows this user almost exclusively engaging in meaningful debates. What seems...

        Eh, I think the difference is really big when you look at user histories. Even a cursory look through their history shows this user almost exclusively engaging in meaningful debates.

        What seems more likely is that we need to start asking each other to narrow these discussion topics somewhat. In this case, for instance, we could be talking about immigration in terms of DACA, brain drain, moral obligations to find a place for refugees, the incredibly bureaucratic, frustrating, bordering-on-dehumanizing immigration processes of some countries, the fear some people have that accepting too many people from other countries and cultures risks upending your own to accommodate them, travel bans, and the list goes on. Each one of those topics would be interesting to discuss in detail. The burden is probably too much on commenters when we're dealing with a broad or vague discussion question.

        I'd really like to see us refraining from accusing people of being alts of banned users. That really has explosive potential to undermine good discussion. If more people were to do that, there would begin to be a rather pervasive culture of paranoia where it really shouldn't be.

        9 votes
      2. Zeerph
        Link Parent
        Sorry, I fell asleep ... I didn't realise I was that tired. Besides, I like to see where the conversation goes and participate from there.

        Sorry, I fell asleep ... I didn't realise I was that tired.
        Besides, I like to see where the conversation goes and participate from there.

        4 votes
      3. NamelessThirteenth
        Link Parent
        That's a bit unfair. If you look at OP's history you can see that he actively participates unlike Hypnotoad. Lets not start pointing fingers at everyone and saying "That's Hypnotoad!".

        That's a bit unfair. If you look at OP's history you can see that he actively participates unlike Hypnotoad. Lets not start pointing fingers at everyone and saying "That's Hypnotoad!".

        4 votes
    2. [3]
      Zeerph
      Link Parent
      It was difficult to make a post about the topic without trying to push the discussion one way or another, so I settled for that. Do you have any suggestions about how to better frame the...

      It was difficult to make a post about the topic without trying to push the discussion one way or another, so I settled for that.
      Do you have any suggestions about how to better frame the discussion while still trying to be as unbiased as possible?

      3 votes
      1. [2]
        BuckeyeSundae
        Link Parent
        So first I want to say thank you for taking this criticism in stride. There was not a lot of context to it, so it would have been super easy to ignore it. As for what you could do in future...

        So first I want to say thank you for taking this criticism in stride. There was not a lot of context to it, so it would have been super easy to ignore it.

        As for what you could do in future discussions to better frame debates, I would try to keep a couple principles in mind:

        1. Is my question open-ended? Open-ended questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. In this case, you might have framed a question of moral obligation to accept refugees as: "What moral relationships should stable, resource-rich countries have with refugees fleeing from hostile environments?" No one can answer just "yes" to that question and still make sense.
        2. Is my topic narrow enough to discuss? What I mean here is just about every topic can be framed broadly enough to encompass most other topics. It can be appealing to ask these super broad questions to implicitly survey the community for their feelings, but a better discussion point would probably be grounded in a less broad question. We don't have to get super technical here. Just make an effort to narrow discussion a bit and you'll probably do fine. If you noticed in that prior bullet point, I slipped in this suggestion without even thinking about it by limiting immigration to discussion solely to the moral question of a relationship between people fleeing for their safety and the places that might be able to take them.
        3. The bonus question for your concerns, re:lacking bias: Can people of varying ideological backgrounds interact with my question on their terms? This is quite subtle, but the point I'm trying to make here is you can have a starting point for discussion that lays out your feelings a bit too, as long as you're being dispositionally neutral enough that people who might disagree with you aren't being shamed or something.
        4. The question I like to ask myself before posting any discussion topic is Could I be persuaded to feel differently about this topic? It's clear to me that you had this starting point when making this discussion too, so I'm really just putting this out there for other people who come across this comment chain looking for advice.

        I'm sure there are other good practices to follow. These are the big four I try to keep in mind.

        5 votes
        1. Zeerph
          Link Parent
          It took me a little while to actually find a constructive reply where I didn't feel like I was overly sarcastic, but I still felt I should probably at least try to engage the user to find out why...

          So first I want to say thank you for taking this criticism in stride. There was not a lot of context to it, so it would have been super easy to ignore it.

          It took me a little while to actually find a constructive reply where I didn't feel like I was overly sarcastic, but I still felt I should probably at least try to engage the user to find out why they felt the way they did.

          Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and I will keep them in mind for the next topic. In lieu of a save feature, I'll leave it in the unread notifications section.

          3 votes
  8. [8]
    eladnarra
    Link
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the additional restrictions some countries put on disabled/chronically ill immigrants. Canada is the example I know the most about; here's an older article on...

    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the additional restrictions some countries put on disabled/chronically ill immigrants. Canada is the example I know the most about; here's an older article on the subject. Recently the Canadian government loosened the restrictions somewhat, increasing the cost threshold.

    As of April, Canada is planning to phase out the policy entirely, but the same principle is at work elsewhere-- not wanting to let in people who will be too burdensome on the social safety net, particularly the health system. For example, Australia's migration act is exempt from the disability discrimination act, and there is a monetary threshold. The US is considered more lenient, but there's still the factor of whether someone is likely to become a "public charge."

    Individual stories of people being rejected under these policies are often portrayed sympathetically, especially if the one being rejected is a child. But this idea of undue burden on the country is the same one that you see at work in claims that undocumented immigrants in the US are accessing social benefits. And many of the arguments against specific rejections based on disability are based on their ability or their family's ability to somehow make up for their drain on the system.

    3 votes
    1. BuckeyeSundae
      Link Parent
      Yeah, I think it makes sense to treat disabled migrants as any other migrant. That is, to not pay any particular attention to the fact the migrant is disabled and to focus instead on whatever...

      Yeah, I think it makes sense to treat disabled migrants as any other migrant. That is, to not pay any particular attention to the fact the migrant is disabled and to focus instead on whatever criteria anyone else would have to pass to get in.

      I think we overthink this shit. It's really not that hard. Disabled does not mean skill-less or unable to integrate. Disabled people face enough barriers just meeting the normal barriers to entry. There is no need to add additional ones on account of their disability.

      3 votes
    2. [6]
      elf
      Link Parent
      I'm more in favor of restrictions on immigrants who can't work or will require a large investment from a country's healthcare system than I am other restrictions. Obviously this sucks for the...

      I'm more in favor of restrictions on immigrants who can't work or will require a large investment from a country's healthcare system than I am other restrictions. Obviously this sucks for the people rejected, but having no such restrictions creates some bad incentives. Allowing immigration is good, and having a strong welfare system is also good, but allowing immigrants in who are going to be reliant on that welfare system puts those two goods at odds.

      Though maybe in practice the number of disabled or ill immigrants is low enough that this isn't really a problem.

      1. [5]
        eladnarra
        Link Parent
        What sort of bad incentives does it create? The examples I linked were disabled kids and adults who were rejected despite otherwise fitting immigration requirements (either through their family or...

        What sort of bad incentives does it create?

        The examples I linked were disabled kids and adults who were rejected despite otherwise fitting immigration requirements (either through their family or their own job). It's not as if removing medical restrictions would create a new immigration category based on disability that would allow people to immigrate solely to "take advantage" of the system. They'd still have to meet whatever requirements already exist for that country.

        I am firmly against such medical restrictions, and I think that countries that have them and also signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities aren't living up to it. (Canada and Australia signed and ratified it; the US only signed.) Article 18 states, emphasis mine:

        Article 18 – Liberty of movement and nationality

        1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others [...]

        2 votes
        1. [4]
          elf
          Link Parent
          I guess I'm not super familiar with the laws in question. Removing the medical restrictions in Canada is probably a good idea since the potential immigrants need to meet the other requirements in...

          I guess I'm not super familiar with the laws in question. Removing the medical restrictions in Canada is probably a good idea since the potential immigrants need to meet the other requirements in the first place.

          The bad incentives are going to crop up more as you head towards an open borders situation. If people can choose where to live and work freely, a person more dependent on social services will want live in a country that provides a greater level of assistance, while a person less dependent on social services will want to live in a country that has lower taxes and worse social services. This disincentivizes countries from creating a stronger welfare system, since increases in welfare are going to be partially offset by the resulting change in population to one more dependent on that welfare. Weakening the welfare system is incentivized for a similar reason.

          1. [3]
            eladnarra
            Link Parent
            Ah, I see. I'm not entirely convinced that this would be the case even with more open borders, for a couple different reasons. (But this is just conjecture, since I don't think we have any...

            The bad incentives are going to crop up more as you head towards an open borders situation. If people can choose where to live and work freely, a person more dependent on social services will want live in a country that provides a greater level of assistance, while a person less dependent on social services will want to live in a country that has lower taxes and worse social services.

            Ah, I see. I'm not entirely convinced that this would be the case even with more open borders, for a couple different reasons. (But this is just conjecture, since I don't think we have any relatively-open international borders to look at.*)

            The first is that social services is a very broad category. I imagine there would be at least some healthy, abled people who want to live in a country where a sudden illness or disability wouldn't throw them immediately into poverty (or kill them). Stronger welfare systems also generally come with things such as better-funded educational systems, which would be a draw for people.

            Secondly, even with complete freedom of movement, moving is hard, especially if you're disabled or seriously ill. You have to either leave your support system or bring them with you. You're also leaving your doctors, who you likely spent years finding and working with. This means you will have to quickly find new ones who are also willing to continue your current treatment plan without disrupting it, which is not guaranteed. There's also dealing with the bureaucracy of changing or signing up for health insurance and/or healthcare systems, as well as whatever benefit systems you require. Plus, before you even consider moving, you have to first have the resources to move or be able to save up, which is hard when maximum federal disability benefits are below the poverty line and you can't save more than $2,000 (as is the case in the US).

            These types of factors come into play even when moving between states in the US, where we have freedom of movement. And in a scenario with countries that have different levels of support, someone living in a country that provides less support who wants to move to a country with more support will have an even harder time overcoming these barriers.


            *EDIT: When I posted this I immediately thought of the EU, but I don't know nearly enough about how that works to apply it to this. I think each country treats benefits and such differently? And I know in the UK there are people who complain about migrants coming over to take advantage of benefits like the NHS, but that sounds like fear-mongering to me so I don't know if that's supported by actual evidence.

            1 vote
            1. [2]
              elf
              Link Parent
              Ok I looked more into it and now I'm pretty sure you're more right than I am. Labor mobility just isn't that high, even if there're no legal restrictions involved. Plus, as you said, people who...

              Ok I looked more into it and now I'm pretty sure you're more right than I am. Labor mobility just isn't that high, even if there're no legal restrictions involved. Plus, as you said, people who don't currently need strong welfare systems have good reasons to desire them anyhow.

              I looked into the UK thing a bit. It looks like visitors and non-EEA (European Economic Area) migrants need to pay some frees to get access to certain NHS services. So, immigrants from within the EU should be able to use the NHS freely. These guys seem to think that European migrants contribute positively overall to the NHS. Also, I don't think they're accounting for lower labor costs from European migrants being employed by the NHS. It seems like with brexit the UK is having a bit of a problem with NHS workers leaving.

              2 votes
              1. eladnarra
                Link Parent
                Yeah, from what I've head, even just the uncertainty of Brexit before anything is finalized is causing people to leave. (I'd argue that's a somewhat predictable response, but maybe some Leave...

                Yeah, from what I've head, even just the uncertainty of Brexit before anything is finalized is causing people to leave. (I'd argue that's a somewhat predictable response, but maybe some Leave folks like this result?)

                Anyway, sorry for the late reply, but thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts on this. I tried my best to reply without being too defensive. (I'm chronically ill and these sorts of restrictions might apply to me, so it's a bit personal.) Your explanation of what you meant by "bad incentives" was something I hadn't really considered, so even though I ultimately disagreed with it, it was helpful for me to think about the issue from a different perspective. :)

                1 vote
  9. [12]
    panic
    Link
    If money can travel between countries without a visa, why can't people?

    If money can travel between countries without a visa, why can't people?

    2 votes
    1. [11]
      ContemplativePanda
      Link Parent
      Because money is an object that alone does no harm? And the government doesn't want anyone coming into their country and staying for as long as they want for any reason?

      Because money is an object that alone does no harm? And the government doesn't want anyone coming into their country and staying for as long as they want for any reason?

      4 votes
      1. [6]
        elf
        Link Parent
        You say "anyone" and "any reason" here. What people do you think governments should be excluding and what are the acceptable reasons for immigrating?

        You say "anyone" and "any reason" here. What people do you think governments should be excluding and what are the acceptable reasons for immigrating?

        1 vote
        1. [5]
          ContemplativePanda
          Link Parent
          Governments should be able to bar people for a variety of reasons. -If they can't take care of their own citizens they don't need more -If they want to accept only the best people to increase...

          Governments should be able to bar people for a variety of reasons.

          -If they can't take care of their own citizens they don't need more
          -If they want to accept only the best people to increase competitiveness
          -Simply maintain stricter regulations on who gets to come live in and benefit from their rich nation
          -Quotas
          -etc.

          So in theory governments could decide to take in very few of the highest quality people so they can continue to provide care and benefits for all of their citizens while still attracting talent. Or, maintain strict immigration policies simply to make sure they are bringing in good people for security purposes and such. Or simply because they don't want people. Who is anyone to say it is your right to go live in someone elses country? You have to earn it somehow, that's their country.

          1. [4]
            elf
            Link Parent
            Let's accept for now that a country has every right to control its borders and define its immigration policy as it likes. I think it's a more interesting and more tractable problem to consider how...

            Let's accept for now that a country has every right to control its borders and define its immigration policy as it likes. I think it's a more interesting and more tractable problem to consider how you would advise a country (imaginary, your own, or otherwise) to set its immigration policy. We can consider what policy would benefit the country's inhabitants the most or what policy is the most moral (perhaps you think those are the same thing!)

            If they can't take care of their own citizens they don't need more

            What defines when a country isn't able to take care of their own citizens? If a country can't take care of their own citizens, should it also discourage its citizens from having children? (Assuming it could go about this in an ethical way.)

            If they want to accept only the best people to increase competitiveness

            What do you mean by "increase competitiveness?" I think a lot of US farmers would argue that letting in lots of Central American immigrants would increase the competitiveness of US agriculture.


            I'm sorry (well not actually, but let's pretend) that I'm asking so many tricky questions, but I think it's necessary in order to discuss the topic and more than a surface level.

            1 vote
            1. [3]
              ContemplativePanda
              Link Parent
              I respect your desire to understand my opinion and be able to engage in meaningful discussion with me. Ask away! My arguments have been that the country should be able to set its immigration...

              I respect your desire to understand my opinion and be able to engage in meaningful discussion with me. Ask away!

              My arguments have been that the country should be able to set its immigration policies how it pleases. Whether to its benefit or it's detriment, it should have that right. If I was to be put into a position of setting immigration policy, I'm afraid I am not in a good position to speak in that currently without doing some research first.

              I believe that if a majority of it's citizens are in poverty, lack basic essentials (health care, internet - if you consider this an essential, in this day and age I do -, food, water, clothing, shelter, etc.) or are crime ridden than there is no need to funnel more people into that mess. That is, of course, up to the country to decide. I don't believe any country should be able to tell its citizens what they can and can't do in terms of reproduction, but discouraging children would likely be a good idea in this scenario.

              I was speaking about bringing in students to top universities to claim talent early on and use it for jobs like engineering, business, math, science, etc. to make a country more competitive in those regards. That was just what I had in mind.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                elf
                Link Parent
                I think it makes sense to limit immigration in the case where there's some limited resource that potential immigrants would be taking up. If a country is in the middle of a famine, letting in...

                I think it makes sense to limit immigration in the case where there's some limited resource that potential immigrants would be taking up. If a country is in the middle of a famine, letting in impoverished people is just going to exacerbate that famine. However I think in practice it's rare for resources to be limited in this way. If land is limited the country can urbanize. If water is limited the country can encourage people to use less, move towards less water intensive forms of agriculture (or away from agriculture altogether and just import food,) or create desalination plants. If food is limited (in the long term, this doesn't apply to a short term famine), you can use more land or people for agriculture, spend more importing food, or invest in more efficient methods of agricultural production.

                I think an important point is that when people move, it's almost always going to be to improve their lives in some way. If many people in a country are in poverty, and the government of that country isn't providing for them, consider the people who would want to move there despite this. They're either moving out of even worse poverty, or they think they can start or join some productive venture in the country (which would likely lead to better prospects for those in poverty.) In either case, the immigrant is providing for themselves, since the government isn't able to, and is possibly helping to lift others out of poverty. So there's going to be a net gain in well-being from this movement, and more likely than not a net gain in well-being just among the original population of a country.

                So, I think if a majority of a country's citizens are in poverty, limiting immigration isn't going to help, and expanding immigration won't hurt the country. I think it's likely more immigration will likely help the country, and this will definitely help the world over all.

                1. ContemplativePanda
                  Link Parent
                  I definitely agree with you that there are rare cases in which those sorts of circumstances would crop up. I do believe that the government, in deciding immigration policy, should try and factor...

                  I definitely agree with you that there are rare cases in which those sorts of circumstances would crop up. I do believe that the government, in deciding immigration policy, should try and factor in whether the immigration ends up bettering the country in some way or not, because they are allowing the immigrants to better themselves through their country.

                  It certainly may be a net positive to allow immigration, I don't know enough statistics or anything to argue otherwise. I just feel that any country should be able to choose how to enforce its borders whether or not that ends up hurting it or helping it is all. Sort of like how any of us in the United States and most modern countries can choose where/when to work and how to live, and that may end up leading us to debt and hurting us or helping us if we choose wisely.

                  1 vote
      2. [4]
        panic
        Link Parent
        Rich foreigners can do harm by spending money. For example, Vancouver passed a bill to limit the foreign investment that was damaging their housing market. In the other direction, when companies...

        Rich foreigners can do harm by spending money. For example, Vancouver passed a bill to limit the foreign investment that was damaging their housing market. In the other direction, when companies spend their money on overseas labor instead of paying local immigrants, they help foreign economies grow instead of their own.

        1. [2]
          elf
          Link Parent
          Locals can damage the housing market by requiring developers to build parking spaces and preventing developers from building tall buildings. Both of these mean housing is costlier and the city is...

          Locals can damage the housing market by requiring developers to build parking spaces and preventing developers from building tall buildings. Both of these mean housing is costlier and the city is less efficient.

          1 vote
          1. panic
            Link Parent
            Yeah, I agree that locals typically do more damage (both economically and culturally). I was just arguing that money isn't an inert substance—it can be even more of an agent of change than...

            Yeah, I agree that locals typically do more damage (both economically and culturally). I was just arguing that money isn't an inert substance—it can be even more of an agent of change than individual people can.

            1 vote
        2. ContemplativePanda
          Link Parent
          So then it sounds like the flow of money should be controlled by countries to do good for the country just as the flow of people should be controlled by countries to do good for the country. Thus,...

          So then it sounds like the flow of money should be controlled by countries to do good for the country just as the flow of people should be controlled by countries to do good for the country. Thus, proper immigration policies are a must.

  10. elf
    Link
    Yes.

    Yes.

    1 vote
  11. [5]
    est
    Link
    Take women and children, train the men to fight to take their home back!

    Take women and children, train the men to fight to take their home back!

    1 vote
    1. [4]
      Zeerph
      Link Parent
      Why can women not be trained to "take their home back" as you put it?

      Why can women not be trained to "take their home back" as you put it?

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        est
        Link Parent
        Because according to UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, women and children need more protection.

        Because according to UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, women and children need more protection.

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          Zeerph
          Link Parent
          I went and read what you cited. Let me quote some of it. The key point in the document is that women and children who are in a war zone should be protected. What I'm asking is, why women who are...

          I went and read what you cited.

          Let me quote some of it.

          respect for human rights and on basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts

          Attacks and bombings on the civilian population, inflicting incalculable suffering, especially on women and children ... shall be prohibited, and such acts shall be condemned

          All forms of repression and cruel and inhuman treatment of women and children ... committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories shall be considered criminal.

          The key point in the document is that women and children who are in a war zone should be protected.
          What I'm asking is, why women who are not in a war zone can't also be trained to "take their home back", again, as you put it?

          1. est
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            First of all that what I said is just my random thought. To answer your question, that really depends individually. I think if women or children are capable and with a strong will to risk their...

            First of all that what I said is just my random thought. To answer your question, that really depends individually. I think if women or children are capable and with a strong will to risk their lives, with sufficient preparations, they can do what they wish if they absolutely have to.