[grinnbearit]

(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 )

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]

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]

> 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]

> On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean?

Ordinary self-interest and the existence of >200 independent countries make it very likely that someone who just wants to be a contributor to any country that'll take him/her will find somewhere to go, even if it's not his/her first choice. Refugee treaties cover the corner case.

> 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.

Then the argument is over, at least for the next decade or two. Sweden's experience provides the last bit of evidence necessary to demonstrate that open borders policy, as currently understood, leads to worse outcomes in Western countries than more moderate immigration policy.

I support research into better implementations of open borders, and if people like you act quickly, it might not be too late to correct e.g. Sweden's worst mistakes and arrive at something simultaneously more open and more functional there than current US policy. But this cannot be morally done without citizen consent, and you have no chance of getting that in the US in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, I'll do what I can to help Chinese live better lives back in their home country, and I encourage others to do the same for India and other poor countries. And I'll vote for free trade and related policies. Because those courses of action, unlike open borders, are actually effective at reducing global poverty today.

> 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.

You wrote employed in China vs. unemployed in the US, not unemployed in [China/India] vs. unemployed in the US. You're now backtracking, as you should.

[temujin]

As for your restatement, it no longer has anything to do with immigration policy, since there are plenty of "high level" Chinese native employees at Chinese companies. I'd also choose unemployment over a low-level job at a place like Walmart.

[grinnbearit]

Ah but unemployment where is the question, I'd (probably) want to be a low level Foxconn employee than unemployed in China. I certainly would rather be a low level Indian labourer than unemployed in India.

And its about the morality of allowing open immigration.

For example, I morally support the unification of Korea, even though it would be quite bad for South Korea but at the moment its horrific for the people of North Korea.

[jimbobimbo]

I'm an immigrant (Europe) and I don't have issues with US not making it easier for me to immigrate. Neither I nor my ancestors built this country, paid taxes (well, until I came here), etc., so it's hard to blame the country for anything that it didn't do for me.

[grinnbearit]

I don't understand what you mean by blame the country, this is pretty much a discussion about morals and is therefore subjective.

I believe that individuals separate from their ancestors? Saying its their fault for being born in a different country seems quite uncharitable, similar to blaming people for being born into poverty or a particular race.

These potential immigrants want to be productive members of a new society, they can't even get a chance to immigrate if they aren't able to work, they're willing to leave behind their culture and families and take on fairly exploitative contracts just for the chance of giving themselves and their families a better life.

I believe it is immoral to make this difficult

Do you feel differently?

[jimbobimbo]

I think, there's nothing wrong with the country to put their citizen before foreigners. Citizen pay taxes and work for overall good of the country, so it's logical at the very least.

I'm saying this as an immigrant myself. I wish the path to citizenship would be faster and easier (and I've seen people stuck for 10+ years on H1, while having kids and buying houses), but I have to respect decisions, the country the gave me a chance, made.

I'm not sure about "their fault for being born in a different country" - I've never made this statement.

[dropit_sphere]

From the age of 18 to 25 I was registered for the Selective Service. I have been paying taxes my entire life. Don't I deserve to reap the benefits of the society I maintain more than someone who hasn't done so?

And if I don't, I may just stop maintaining it. There's an alternative to Voice and Exit: Disengagement.

[eli_gottlieb]

>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?

"Just an individual" sweeps an immense bunch of important facts under the rug. Countries do not acquire their standard of living merely by luck: their economies grow through systematic planning and coordination.

At the margins, moving one individual between countries does not appear to have a large systemic impact. However, moving entire classes of individuals between countries usually results in one country dumping its externalities on another, thus misaligning the entire economic mechanism and resulting in deadweight losses as various ways to grow and improve get ignored.

A simple example: why should taxpayers in Germany, say, subsidize the training and education costs necessary to produce labor for American companies? The American firms are capturing a positive public-good externality from the Germans while dumping a negative externality (deskilling) on their fellow Americans. Since the externality producers in both countries are failing to capture the costs and benefits of their own productive activities, this is systematically unfair by definition (in the sense that "capitalist unfairness" consists of paying the costs and reaping the benefits of one's own activities).

[grinnbearit]

A few issues with this

1) Is the German education contract implicit? In India if you attend an army subsidised school [1] you are liable to serve in the army which is an explicit part of the contract. Do you believe that some/all subsidised/free education a state provides has a similar implicit contract? If not, should it be made explicit?

2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans? Isn't having a more skilled workforce (possible future citizens) positive? If you're arguing for labour protection because of wage competition there are arguably better ways to go about it than preventing competition from better skilled talent. Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.

3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force? Perhaps by making it more appealing for them to stay.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Medical_College,_P...

[eli_gottlieb]

>1) Is the German education contract implicit?

It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.

>2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans?

No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).

>Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.

That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.

>3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force?

The German government doesn't use force to prevent Germans from leaving: they're in the Schengen Zone. Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.

[grinnbearit]

> It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.

I'm not sure you saw my related example, German education may be subsidised/free but I don't think it comes with any strings attached. If being restricted to work in Germany after studying there is expected that should be made explicit. I have never heard something similar mentioned in any discussion on subsidised education, to me this is quite insidious.

> No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).

> That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.

If America can spend less on education and still end up with better skilled people (and better products) this still feels like a net win. Why is this bad?

> Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.

I'm quite sure i'm missing the moral point. I'll try to summarise what I've got so far.

In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race.

You're argument (?)is that this immigration of skilled workers is negative for both countries, the country that subsidised their education and the country that receives the new workers.

I don't see how this is the case, it seems like a net positive for the country receiving the immigrants and the subsidised education responsibility should be an explicit part of the contract otherwise its a hidden, unadvertised cost.

[yummyfajitas]

This is an argument I find semi-convincing, and not solely because the economics is wrong ("deskilling" isn't an externality and education is not a public good).

Suppose that integration of black Americans also allows them to produce negative externalities and consume positive ones produced by white Americans. For example, suppose black Americans are disproportionate consumers of welfare and producers of crime.

If externalities are your true justification (rather than a post-hoc rationalization), then we should segregate black Americans as well. Do you favor this, contingent on circumstances?

Your example of Germany is interesting, given that the GDR did in fact prevent emigration in order to make sure the state didn't lose it's investment in human capital. So if the US opens it's borders, the Germans can just rebuild their wall.