[yummyfajitas]

Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.

That's because you are viewing it through the lens of status rather than economics. I'm not proposing to raise anyone's status, I'm simply proposing to give them the opportunity to earn for themselves 24/7 running water and electricity, decent housing, schools for their children (where the teachers actually show up), etc.

I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves.

Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?

[angersock]

We've got hundreds of thousands--if not millions--here in the United States that need the same sort of help, and that they ought be prioritized before we reach out to help others.

On a related note, are you familiar with Lifeboat Ethics ( http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_et... )? It's an interesting issue I'd run across in a ethics course a few years ago--seems relevant here.

[tptacek]

Chris is telling you that compared to the lives of a huge number of South/Southeast Asians, even those living "below poverty" in the US are wealthy; by and large, the American poor can expect electricity, running water, shelter, some form of nourishment, and even school for their children. The poorest people in India have none of this.

From another vantage point, as a health economist recently said: vis a vis access to health care, you're better off as a homeless person in the United States in 2012 than President Dwight Eisenhower was during his term of office. Meanwhile, the rural poor of Asia are probably still nowhere nearly as well off as Ike was. They still die of polio.

[angersock]

Right, that part I parsed without issue.

I'd rather see no homeless people on the street (a decently-sized problem in my part of the US) than more homeless people who are still better off than they would be in their old nation.

I'm unconvinced that there exists some sort of moral imperative that we need to seek the suggested path instead of working towards only temporary frictional unemployment and better care for everyone currently in our nation.

[tptacek]

Which way are you taking your reasoning here? If it's moral reasoning, then surely it's better to take a deal that creates a net benefit to our economy in exchange for giving hundreds of thousands of people running water, electricity, and schools for their children. If it's rational reasoning, surely it's better to take whichever deals provide a net benefit to our economy.

[angersock]

I'm using rational reasoning--I'm getting different results from you folks because I believe I'm looking at other factors (societal stresses due to wealth distribution, overburdened school systems, convoluted healthcare system, etc.) that would serve to confound your good intentions.

[yummyfajitas]

The only "help" I'm proposing is that we allow people to live and work in the US for willing employers.

I don't favor prioritizing the millions of people in the US who already suffer the problem of not being allowed to live and work here - illegal immigrants have already demonstrated a willingness to break our laws.

[angersock]

Wait wait wait... you don't favor helping out the illegal immigrants who are already here with not being allowed to live and work? Because they immigrated without dealing with the broken system?

But we need to bring in still more people who by definition are a worse fit to our country? What?

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm rather baffled by your stance. Illegals are often victims of arbitrary laws, much like recreational drug users.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion in email further if you'd like.

[tptacek]

I don't agree with a lot of what Chris says, but the logic he's using is pretty clear.

There are millions of willing potential immigrants living terrible lives in dire rural poverty without access to running water, antibiotics, or electricity, for whom lives in the United States mowing lawns and cleaning bathrooms would be a dramatic step forwards in quality of life, and an immeasurable improvement for the prospects of their children.

Therefore, it makes sense for us to simultaneously improve millions of lives and staff millions of menial jobs with low-cost labor, as it's a win-win for both sides: a net benefit to our economy, and a gigantic quality of life boost for the laborers.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of people already residing in the United States who came here illegally. We have virtually no signals on the suitability of most potential immigrants to life in the US, but the one signal we have from illegal immigrants is "willingness to break the law".

I do not agree with this point for a variety of reasons but it is not a hard point to understand.

[EliAndrewC]

That signal seems a poor proxy for something we can measure more directly. If what we care about is "do illegal immigrant break laws more often than legal immigrants and/or more often than the general population" then we have decades of immigration and crime statistics we can use to answer that question. If they don't, then citing "willingness to break our laws" is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

[hnriot]

I think the point was that immigration laws are still laws, even if you (or someone) doesn't believe they are good laws.

However, your point is quite correct, if one subtracts the immigration law from the equation how do the statistics stack up. A more complex picture will likely emerge as it does whenever statistics are quoted, for example is the root cause immigration or poverty caused by the status.

[angersock]

It's not that it's a hard point to understand: it's that it lacks all bearing in reality and policy.

Go back to the original point:

  "Another major issue is the fact that millions of people from the poorest places on earth (I'm not talking about wealthy nations like Mexico here) could be lifted from poverty. The vast majority (i.e., >95%) of India lives in what would be considered dire poverty in the US. Upper class individuals in the poshest suburbs of Mumbai suffer living conditions comparable to the poorest housing projects in the US. All we need to do to lift them from poverty is allow them to enter the US and provide us cheap medical services, clean our houses and the like."

This is nonsense--the idea that somehow transplanting these people to the US will magically create wealth. "Aha!" we say," This fellow was in the top quartile of his former economy--let us bring him into the United States so he may be worth more as a member of our top quartile!". That's rubbish.

Moreover, the "cheap medical" bit isn't correct. It's not labor shortages that are causing all the runaway costs in healthcare, and to pretend that bringing over physicians will somehow improve our situation (without explicitly saying how) is just wishful thinking.

There is still more issue with "Oh, well, they can do menial jobs and suchlike, and clean our houses." We already have folks for that--normal immigrants and illegals, no less--and additionally it creates yet more lower class issues. The problems we have with the economic gap here persist and are worsened by this sort of thinking, regardless of any absolute scale of poverty.

And then, the signals bit.

If you want to talk about signals, observe the point--however odious it may be--that a reliable signal we have from the poor is that they both are unskilled enough not to be desirable additions to our economy and irresponsible enough to continue breeding and voting. I can support this signal however you'd like with a straight face.

Signals, sir, are whatever you interpret them to be, regardless of origin or intent.

Compare that with another signal from illegals here--that they care enough about quality of life, for themselves and their children, that they'll willingly do whatever it takes to become part of the economy and community (note that I did not say citizenry, as they do not use official channels to becomes citizens).

~

All this annoyance aside, I'd much rather see an attempt to upgrade their countries and societies in place than flood our own lower classes with more immigrants, especially if we can't even come to terms with existing problems like our resident illegal alien population.

The fact that the two of you have made such observations about the illegal immigrants tells me that we've a ways to go before we should even consider helping out people abroad.

[yummyfajitas]

This fellow was in the top quartile of his former economy--let us bring him into the United States so he may be worth more as a member of our top quartile!". That's rubbish.

How so? The reasoning seems quite clear. A skilled developer currently working at some shitty Indian company might be allowed to create value for millions of people at Google.

It's not labor shortages that are causing all the runaway costs in healthcare, and to pretend that bringing over physicians will somehow improve our situation (without explicitly saying how) is just wishful thinking.

Higher supply -> lower price. Less scarcity. Simple enough. Why do you feel this wouldn't help?

You seem to feel that there will be no gains from trade due to immigration. Can you explain this claim?

As for your concern about poor people voting, I share this concern. These are issues to work out. I generally favor excluding immigrants and their children from the welfare state and voting, and taking immigration from a diverse set of countries with high assimilatability. But these are implementation details, not a reason to scrap the whole idea.

Incidentally, the only reason I favor deporting our current illegals is an instrumental reason. We need more immigration, but we also need to control it carefully (as you note, it can be dangerous). If we fail to enforce our existing laws, we create incentives for breaking our current (and future) laws.

[tptacek]

There is a huge labor shortage in the health care industry.

It's hard to take seriously the "lower class problems" that are created when you move someone from a place with no running water to a place with free public schools.

I don't agree with the "signals" thing, but you didn't make an argument against it, you just got huffy.