"Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third". Is there any hope or path for the third world to improve? Must the end state of this situation be that the third world be nothing but vacant land containing only the skeletons of the immobile?
"Tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty" is reminiscent of Sam Kini…
"Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third". Is there any hope or path for the third world to improve? Must the end state of this situation be that the third world be nothing but vacant land containing only the skeletons of the immobile?
"Tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty" is reminiscent of Sam Kinison's "move to where the food is" bit. You hint at some limiting principle, "This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified". But,
the rare reasonable restrictionist claim of "larger offsetting costs" are too often scoffed at and ignored via policies. "But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible. Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger..." If something is ignored and unaddressed, that doesn't make it invisible. If the "larger offsetting costs" aren't addressed, what is the appropriate mood of the payers of that cost? The most promising way for the pro immigrationist to change the mood of restrictionists would be to put the offsetting costs front and center - put a number on them and recognize who is paying. There's a collectivist vibe in not allowing for some anger for those paying that cost, if it exists.
"Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third". Is there any hope or path for the third world to improve? Must the end state of this situation be that the third world be nothing but vacant land containing only the skeletons of the immobile?
"Tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty" is reminiscent of Sam Kinison's "move to where the food is" bit. You hint at some limiting principle, "This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified". But,
the rare reasonable restrictionist claim of "larger offsetting costs" are too often scoffed at and ignored via policies. "But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible. Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger..." If something is ignored and unaddressed, that doesn't make it invisible. If the "larger offsetting costs" aren't addressed, what is the appropriate mood of the payers of that cost? The most promising way for the pro immigrationist to change the mood of restrictionists would be to put the offsetting costs front and center - put a number on them and recognize who is paying. There's a collectivist vibe in not allowing for some anger for those paying that cost, if it exists.