![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I talked about intra-country migration as a solution to USA poverty but stupidly forgot to expand this to international poverty. To wit:
The consensus is that at current levels, immigration grows the economies of the the destination nation, with low-skilled immigrants maybe having a slightly deleterious effect on high school drop outs. That's a shame for the high school drop outs, but they're actually quite well off compared to 3rd world potential immigrants, and I'm quite willing to buy them off with an enhanced safety net. So due to the non-zero sum nature of the economy, we can benefit literally everyone (on average) by increasing the immigration quotas and getting rid of bureaucratic hoops. How many other anti-poverty programs can save that?
Then there are the humanitarian aspects. I was pro open-immigration as an anti-poverty element before (and had already started drafting this post before getting distracted by something shiny), but then I was reminded that the lifestyle differences are not limited to multi-colored iPods. There were about 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1933. I hadn't realized until I watched Into the Arms of Strangers that there was a period where emigration was both possible and clearly a good idea. Germany wasn't the obstacle here- they were actively encouraging Jews to leave, albeit sans anything of value. But most countries wouldn't take them, citing competition for jobs with native workers.* England was the only country that would even take *children*, and only then if someone posted a non-trivial bond guaranteeing the child's eventual repatriation. One of the reasons cited for America's refusal to allow children in? It was against the laws of God to separate children from their families. I hope everyone who voted against the American Kindertransport spent the rest of their life knowing exactly the kind of suffering their antisemitism was responsible for.
It seems obvious to me that if people are so desperate they're willing to send their children off to unvetted strangers, we should probably just let the whole family in. But there are a lot of people in certain places who would send their children *now*, and I'm not forming a charity to bring them over. I'm not even doing much for open immigration, something that would benefit me personally (as an American skilled worker) at absolutely no cost, aside from thinking good thoughts about it. Free and open immigration has the potential to be the greatest force for ending human suffering and liberty ever, and I can't even find a charity I can donate to to support it.
Now, I'm willing to posit that the fact that immigration is a net good at current levels doesn't mean it's a net good for all levels. But it seems like, a bare minimum, maybe we could at least keep raising the limits until it stops benefiting us personally.
*Side note: 50-75% of German Jews did get out through various channels before the Holocaust, which was much higher than I thought. I nonetheless maintain that more would have left, and those that did leave would have suffered less, if the USA had an open immigration policy at the time. It wouldn't even have hurt us- we clearly on net benefited from Jewish immigration because most if not all were productive members of society and a few were outright geniuses.
The consensus is that at current levels, immigration grows the economies of the the destination nation, with low-skilled immigrants maybe having a slightly deleterious effect on high school drop outs. That's a shame for the high school drop outs, but they're actually quite well off compared to 3rd world potential immigrants, and I'm quite willing to buy them off with an enhanced safety net. So due to the non-zero sum nature of the economy, we can benefit literally everyone (on average) by increasing the immigration quotas and getting rid of bureaucratic hoops. How many other anti-poverty programs can save that?
Then there are the humanitarian aspects. I was pro open-immigration as an anti-poverty element before (and had already started drafting this post before getting distracted by something shiny), but then I was reminded that the lifestyle differences are not limited to multi-colored iPods. There were about 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1933. I hadn't realized until I watched Into the Arms of Strangers that there was a period where emigration was both possible and clearly a good idea. Germany wasn't the obstacle here- they were actively encouraging Jews to leave, albeit sans anything of value. But most countries wouldn't take them, citing competition for jobs with native workers.* England was the only country that would even take *children*, and only then if someone posted a non-trivial bond guaranteeing the child's eventual repatriation. One of the reasons cited for America's refusal to allow children in? It was against the laws of God to separate children from their families. I hope everyone who voted against the American Kindertransport spent the rest of their life knowing exactly the kind of suffering their antisemitism was responsible for.
It seems obvious to me that if people are so desperate they're willing to send their children off to unvetted strangers, we should probably just let the whole family in. But there are a lot of people in certain places who would send their children *now*, and I'm not forming a charity to bring them over. I'm not even doing much for open immigration, something that would benefit me personally (as an American skilled worker) at absolutely no cost, aside from thinking good thoughts about it. Free and open immigration has the potential to be the greatest force for ending human suffering and liberty ever, and I can't even find a charity I can donate to to support it.
Now, I'm willing to posit that the fact that immigration is a net good at current levels doesn't mean it's a net good for all levels. But it seems like, a bare minimum, maybe we could at least keep raising the limits until it stops benefiting us personally.
*Side note: 50-75% of German Jews did get out through various channels before the Holocaust, which was much higher than I thought. I nonetheless maintain that more would have left, and those that did leave would have suffered less, if the USA had an open immigration policy at the time. It wouldn't even have hurt us- we clearly on net benefited from Jewish immigration because most if not all were productive members of society and a few were outright geniuses.
