This is reasonable. Emigration is happening in multiple countries and they are all offering different deals, and so it's a dynamic game with different effects on different players. Our current system is let people who don't respect rules in, or patient and people with the ability to and luck to get through the bureaucracy seems like we'r…
This is reasonable. Emigration is happening in multiple countries and they are all offering different deals, and so it's a dynamic game with different effects on different players. Our current system is let people who don't respect rules in, or patient and people with the ability to and luck to get through the bureaucracy seems like we're not playing the best strategy. I take Brian's moral arguments seriously, and wish to live in a world in which people can move more freely, but you need to acknowledge that some folks have negative value and one goal of our system is to ensuring we have as few of those as possible. One by not letting them in, and two through creating a united culture that makes it makes it unlikely people born here become negative in terms of value.
My synthesis of Bryan and Garret jones is we can let as many people as possible who produce positive value, as long as we can create rules that accomdiate growth easily.
The other issue with Bryans arguments is that it justifies colonialism. Would Mexico be as rich as the US if we just took over and imposed our rules instead of theirs? If yes than immigration isn't needed, if no, then why would you assume immigration of their entire population add value? You can't have it both ways. I can see some ways to reslove this, but not many
Your last paragraph is an interesting thought on this, a framing I'd never really thought about. I'd profer it goes beyond colonialism even to flat out annexation and a moral duty towards invasion, i.e. to your point, if Mexicans would be better living in America, and America as well, we should just invade Mexico and make them a 51st state as it would be be a win/win for all.
Mexico is already composed of 31 states, and it wouldn't make much sense to have a single state that is more than 3 times more populous than California, so probably the 51st through 81st states. Mexicans would be almost 40% of the Senate and almost 30% of the House of Representatives and electoral votes for President. So how much would the post-annexation country be similar to the pre-annexation country, and how much would it be similar to Mexico as it is now? So colonialism is probably more justifiable.
This is reasonable. Emigration is happening in multiple countries and they are all offering different deals, and so it's a dynamic game with different effects on different players. Our current system is let people who don't respect rules in, or patient and people with the ability to and luck to get through the bureaucracy seems like we're not playing the best strategy. I take Brian's moral arguments seriously, and wish to live in a world in which people can move more freely, but you need to acknowledge that some folks have negative value and one goal of our system is to ensuring we have as few of those as possible. One by not letting them in, and two through creating a united culture that makes it makes it unlikely people born here become negative in terms of value.
My synthesis of Bryan and Garret jones is we can let as many people as possible who produce positive value, as long as we can create rules that accomdiate growth easily.
The other issue with Bryans arguments is that it justifies colonialism. Would Mexico be as rich as the US if we just took over and imposed our rules instead of theirs? If yes than immigration isn't needed, if no, then why would you assume immigration of their entire population add value? You can't have it both ways. I can see some ways to reslove this, but not many
Your last paragraph is an interesting thought on this, a framing I'd never really thought about. I'd profer it goes beyond colonialism even to flat out annexation and a moral duty towards invasion, i.e. to your point, if Mexicans would be better living in America, and America as well, we should just invade Mexico and make them a 51st state as it would be be a win/win for all.
Mexico is already composed of 31 states, and it wouldn't make much sense to have a single state that is more than 3 times more populous than California, so probably the 51st through 81st states. Mexicans would be almost 40% of the Senate and almost 30% of the House of Representatives and electoral votes for President. So how much would the post-annexation country be similar to the pre-annexation country, and how much would it be similar to Mexico as it is now? So colonialism is probably more justifiable.
Open Borders Advocates: I have given you a bunch of chocolates as a gift. It is impolite not to eat them all.
Me: I'm badly allergic to certain nuts, so I'm just going to eat the ones without them.
Open Borders Advocates: Bigot!
Longer version: https://www.academia.edu/38936607/The_Liberal_Defense_of_Immigration_Control