Just skimmed it. His "argument" seems to be an emotional appeal that poor people in poor countries can improve their lives by moving to Western countries. This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for.<p>Poor countries are almost always poor because of the populations contained within--and if it's from some other cause, such as communism in China, then the resolution to poverty does not require migration, and in fact suggesting migration as a solution is plainly foolish in such cases.
> So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been blinded to the fact that it’s morally indefensible to divide the people on Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely out of their control.<p>This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of course, the author does not want to make this argument directly, because doing so would actually make the counterarguments more obvious, so the focus is instead based on emotion.<p>The second problem with the "free migration solves everything" hypothesis is that the wealth and health of a nation exist as a direct consequence of the existence of the barriers, both political and cultural, rather then some arbitrary geographic accident. Moving people from poor to rich nations does not do anything to help make the poor nations less poor; it only risks the problems coming over with the people.
I have been thinking about this a lot since living in what was then still the Third World (Taiwan, with visits to Hong Kong and to China when China was still very poor) in the 1980s. Today, Taiwan is wealthy, and is on track to be one of the richest countries in the world by 2050.[1] Taiwan is far from having open immigration so far, but it has taken in tens of thousands of guest workers from other, poorer countries in Asia, and is a bit unusual in having a big phenomenon of "foreign brides."[2] Free movement of people into Taiwan doesn't yet match the former rather vigorous movement of people out of Taiwan into the United States, but it is increasing, and all around the world the countries that are especially welcoming to immigrants are largely also countries that gain in prosperity over time.<p>As the article correctly points out, just more than a century ago in the United States, many people worried that HUGE rates of immigration from non-English-speaking countries would be dangerous to this country. They were wrong. Both my maternal grandparents were born in the United States, but their schooling was conducted entirely in the German language. My paternal grandmother was also born in the United States, and attended school only in English, but she attended church services in the Norwegian language and spoke Norwegian at home. Even the descendants of languages less closely cognate to English than those have grown up to be English-speakers just like me. This is not a problem. The strength of the United States (as the article points out) was established in the era when the United States had essentially no restrictions on immigration. I wouldn't mind bringing back those days. If other countries didn't try the same policy, the United States would just grow faster at their expense.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889</a><p>[2] <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg-brides15" rel="nofollow">http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg-brides15</a><p><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304198004575171232326284928" rel="nofollow">http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023041980045751712...</a>
A country can have open borders or a social safety net, not both. If you choose the latter, you're effectively denying the existing population the services they have already paid for, for themselves and their offspring, through their taxes.<p>So, in an open border society, it would make no sense to pay taxes because they wouldn't give you as a tax payer anything.<p>For this reason, global corporations who want zero tax rates and the supply of the entire world's population to hire from and effectively pay slave wages, and these "progressives" are united in their wish to dismantle the welfare state.
Seems nuts to use South Africa as a case study for the potential success of opening borders, when it's in the grip of massive xenophobia against immigrants from upper Africa (that has already resulted in a number of murders).<p><a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic-attacks-2015-china-issues-travel-warning-amid-ongoing-anti-1891845" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic-attacks-2015-...</a>
This article, to the extent it makes a valid argument at all, is not an argument for open immigration. It's an argument for removing barriers to adoption of children in poor countries by parents in rich countries. Extending that (valid) point to a claim about open immigration in general is not justified.<p>Also, I find at least one factual howler in the article: the claim that South Africa after the end of apartheid has been a stable country.
Something worth pointing out here: apart from the EU, there isn't even open immigration among rich countries. A Swede, (or Briton or Canadian) can't just decide to pack his things up and come to work in the US (though the visa waiver program for tourists is pretty sweet). There are still visa hoops to jump through, paperwork to be done. It's easier, if you're a rich-country-citizen, to move to another rich country, but by no means a done deal.<p>It's hard to make a logical argument that immigration controls exist purely for economic reasons; social services and weather apart, Sweden (or the UK or Canada) and the US have comparable standards of living and levels of English proficiency. None of the arguments against allowing unchecked immigration from poor countries to rich (education, overwhelming public services, falling wages etc) apply in this scenario and yet (again, apart from the EU), open immigration between roughly equally developed countries doesn't exist.
Liberalization of international investment and trade since WWII have been justified in part to promote peace through economic connection. While the article focuses on human rights and social justice, liberalization of global immigration would arguably have the same impact.<p>There's another issue that makes open global immigration more attractive to wealthy nations. Free investment and trade move jobs to nations with competent workers who demand less pay, leaving behind industrial decline and unemployment. Open global immigration would ameliorate that.
Arguing that citizenship laws are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them is the left wing equivalent of the right wing argument that taxes are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them.
Open borders will never happen, because it would bankrupt rich countries (sadly, it appears that the recent wave of African refugees in the Med are heading for Northern European welfare states for this reason). Also, there are many people who lack the aptitude and desire to leave their first-world home countries-they will simply be out-competed by migrants (most third world migrants who open little shops tend to employ people from the home country rather than locals).<p>There are ways to help poor third world countries:
1) focus on ameliorating eradicating the worst forms of preventable suffering. Bill Gates is doing this. Improve childhood nutrition to reduce stunting.
2) Trade with them. While Europe and the U.S. were bailing out their banks, South African corporations have been getting rich selling satellite TV, cellphone services and introducing chain supermarkets to Africans. You see, they want the same things that the rest of us have. Invest in their countries and make a profit. That will help them in the medium-long term.
Very good article. His argument definitely makes sense on an individual level. When I was in living in France, I wondered why it was impossible for me to buy a house and live there permanently. It was only because of artificial borders. It didn't make sense.<p>However, on a population wide basis, it is a different story. The article uses refugees and oppressive governments (exceptions to the rule) in order to make his argument. A tactic I distrust. He does make a good point about the EU, although I think the jury is still out on that one.<p>I believe we should have more immigration in the US. However, we limit immigration for a reason. And the reason is too many people at once burden the infrastructure. We can only build so many freeways, schools, and hospitals at once. So, a large influx of immigrants will cause traffic, crowded classrooms, and long waits in the emergency rooms. Anyone who lives in LA can tell you this is the case since California has had a rapid population primarily driven by immigrants.
The problem with open migration is that then those with the means (even limited ones) get up and leave, leaving the rest even poorer. As a very loose analogy, think of it as evaporative cooling; it results in a net loss for the source.<p>Instead of short-term fixes (which include distributing food, clothes, etc.) I would hope that Western countries would actually help build up the infrastructure in these poor countries, and let them run their own affairs.<p>And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, stop propping up dictators all across the world, if that means our gas is $0.05 cheaper or our phones are $.25 cheaper.
The title takes on a striking significance about 3/4 of the way through the article. I bet most readers won't see that coming. I sure didn't.
Does it need an argument?<p>To me, open borders are an obvious thing to strive for.<p>The only reason not to have them is as a sort of hack to hold together systems that are going to fall apart eventually anyway (e.g. welfare systems that treat people differently based on a bit of land they were born on).<p>It really seems to me that the only argument against is basically 'I deserve my wealth'.<p>Can people not see how ridiculous the current scenario is? Westerners are basically superhumans, welcome almost anywhere, with a bunch of money that allows them to basically go colonial if they decide to leave.<p>Just be honest with yourself. You can be hypocritical and vote against it whilst accepting that it makes sense.<p>Similar example: meat production, especially battery hens etc. It is mind blowingly obviously a cruel and bad thing to do. You can accept that and still eat meat. You don't have to lie to yourself and others and pretend that you have a 'different opinion' or whatever.<p>I use and buy leather. I know that it is not morally a nice thing to do. But I am human, I have vices, I am imperfect. What I refuse to do is somehow pretend that it makes sense or is kind or rational or should be done.
In the US there are states which would benefit from high immigration as opposed to the more popular coastal states.<p>I wonder if there is some way to use this as a way to ease some immigration laws.
Lets me guess - it's really really good for all the poor people from impoverished, war-stricken countries?<p>Or if you want a daily dose of extreme left-wing nonsense, subscribe to The Guardian or your country's equivalent.