Immigration and Naturalization

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Mon May 06, 2013 5:29 pm UTC

Why the heck is changing countries so hard?

To clarify, some definitions:

Immigration is moving from one country to another.
Residency is actually living in the country for long periods.
And Naturalization is the act of acquiring citizenship within a host country.

Naturalization is, by and large, extremely difficult. For developed countries, it's almost impossible. The U.S. is particularly draconian - it's basically restricted to wealthy, skilled and white. Even then, you're best off acquiring a lawyer to work through all the paperwork. Canada is similarly difficult.

The European Union varies, with so many countries to choose from, but typically, residency is required for citizenship. Residency permits are hard to get, and usually involve you having a job offer or highly specialized skills, or the capital to start up a business.

Opponents to immigrants often cite increases in crime, violence, economic costs due to welfare expenses. As I look at these arguments, though, I don't find the facts to back up the allegations. Mostly, the reasoning is based on emotional arguments, particularly fear. It's difficult to find good statistics for either side. It's also relatively easy to argue that through proper community outreach programs and formal programs to integrate new citizens into the country, these issues could be largely addressed before becoming problems, but as near as I can tell, no country has any such formalized program to induct new immigrants into the citizenry.

Historically, countries that take in more immigrants have tremendous positive effects on their economy. You could argue that the positive economy attracted more immigrants, or that they're just correlated, and not causative. Often, immigrants are used to fill in gaps in a labor market. But more importantly, they're people who are highly motivated to look for a better life for themselves and their families.

All the immigration policies run amok of the idea of 'freedom of movement' outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which was signed by just about every member nation of the UN. Article 13 pretty clearly states that people should have the right to leave any country. Every immigration policy that restricts immigration violates this article.

So why is everyone so afraid of immigration and naturalization? Is it really just xenophobia that runs that deeply in our collective society?

What are we going to do with immigrants when we no longer need them to fill the job market because we're automating labor jobs out of existence? Don't they still deserve the same opportunities as human beings, or will we just leave people in other countries to rot there because they're not our citizens?
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby sardia » Mon May 06, 2013 7:26 pm UTC

All immigrants migrate so that they too can fulfill the dream of preventing the next wave of immigrants from migrating in. The protestants did it to the Irish, the Irsh to the Catholics, and the Catholics to the Chinese, and now it's the Hispanic's turn. Soon you'll have african americans oppressing gay people...oh wait, that's happening now. In the future, we can expect the current Hispanic population to oppress others, probably further south latin countries or maybe white people.

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Frimble » Mon May 06, 2013 7:39 pm UTC

That's a very american centred view of immigration.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Derek » Mon May 06, 2013 8:07 pm UTC

While I agree that naturalization is much harder than it should be in the US, it's hardly "draconian". I'm pretty sure it's actually in line with what most other countries have, and countries like Japan have much stricter laws.

But there is definitely a lot of xenophobia and hypocrisy among the anti-immigration community.

sardia wrote:All immigrants migrate so that they too can fulfill the dream of preventing the next wave of immigrants from migrating in. The protestants did it to the Irish, the Irsh to the Catholics, and the Catholics to the Chinese, and now it's the Hispanic's turn. Soon you'll have african americans oppressing gay people...oh wait, that's happening now. In the future, we can expect the current Hispanic population to oppress others, probably further south latin countries or maybe white people.

The Irish were Catholic. I think you mean the Irish to the Germans and Eastern Europeans.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon May 06, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

Prior to WW1, concepts like passports weren't really required, and in peacetime, people mostly just walked across borders like it was no big thing.

The idea of this massive beaucratic engine that must churn through applications, while people wait for years to be approved is really sort of a modern conceit.

Hell, America had VAST influxes of refugees in it's past, and even post WW1, the process was pretty fast, and it mostly consisted of folks showing up to Ellis Island or the like, and just going through a brief bit with the examiner. With luck, he'd write your name down right.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Derek » Mon May 06, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Prior to WW1, concepts like passports weren't really required, and in peacetime, people mostly just walked across borders like it was no big thing.

The idea of this massive beaucratic engine that must churn through applications, while people wait for years to be approved is really sort of a modern conceit.

Hell, America had VAST influxes of refugees in it's past, and even post WW1, the process was pretty fast, and it mostly consisted of folks showing up to Ellis Island or the like, and just going through a brief bit with the examiner. With luck, he'd write your name down right.

On the other hand, the US had strict laws regulating how many people from what countries could enter, intentionally heavily biased towards western Europe and totally excluding some countries.

Our laws are definitely better now, but they're still too strict.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Mon May 06, 2013 9:41 pm UTC

Derek wrote:While I agree that naturalization is much harder than it should be in the US, it's hardly "draconian". I'm pretty sure it's actually in line with what most other countries have, and countries like Japan have much stricter laws.


That was kind of my point. The U.S. is very strict about who can naturalize in the U.S. If you adhere to the letter of the law, it's nearly impossible - and from what I can tell, most other developed countries have very similar. Why does all these political bodies universally want to make it so difficult to change your citizenship?

Frimble wrote:That's a very american centred view of immigration.


From what I could research, what I've found is this is true of most developed countries. If I'm mistaken, and it's much easier in the EU, do tell me. From what I could tell, one of the most lenient countries over there (Sweden), still requires that you:

1. Get a passport from your country, with associate background checks.
2. Apply for a visitor's visa to Sweden, also with associated background checks.
3. Get a long-term residency permit - which requires you either A. already be a long-term resident somewhere else in the EU already, B. be closely related or intending to marry someone in Sweden, or C. have proof of a standing job of at least 156,000 Krona (roughly $24,000 USD), accommodations already lined up, and be prepared to leave immediately if your job goes away.
4. Live there continuously for five years, and pass a credit, criminal and security check.

Yes, bad credit can ruin your chances for citizenship, during a 5 year period in which your employer basically has a sword hanging over your head if you screw up enough to get fired. These requirements are the sort of things that make me look at the laws and go, 'Wtf?' And this is the nicest country I know of. America's requirements are significantly more severe, starting with our quota system.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
Frimble
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:57 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Frimble » Mon May 06, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

@Savanik, Sorry that was aimed at sardia. I don't take issue with what you said at all.
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture.
"We need a reality check here. Roll a D20." - Algernon the Radish
"Should I marry W? Not unless she tells me what the other letters in her name are" Woody Allen.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby BattleMoose » Mon May 06, 2013 10:17 pm UTC

savanik wrote:From what I could research, what I've found is this is true of most developed countries. If I'm mistaken, and it's much easier in the EU, do tell me.


The USA is remarkable for how hard it is to emigrate to.

I have actually emigrated to Australia. Of course there were heaps of hoops I had to jump through and a tonne of administration and red tape that I had to navigate around but certainly all manageable.

My visa was granted largely on my education and qualifications. I obtained my permanent residency VISA before entering Australia and it got approved 2-3 months of submitting. And I am treated as a citizen in nearly every way and only have to wait 4 years to actually become a citizen. There are no requirements on my visa at all. (Except maybe for violent crime, I honestly haven't bothered checking)

Australia, as has most of Europe, has some very socialistic policies, unemployment, healthcare and more. There is a very real cost to the economy by people who depend on government grants and draw on health services.

Basically, if Australia is very confident that you will be a functional member of society, educated, with valuable skills that are in short supply, integrate into the society and be a contributer to the economy, you can get in. It really does come down to economics.

On the contrast, if you are unskilled and without tertiary education, you have just about no chance of emigrating to any developed country. Again, economics.

Still, there is a very large difference between the immigration policies of the USA when compared to other developed countries.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Mon May 06, 2013 10:55 pm UTC

My family has immigrated from Hong Kong to Canada and we are now naturalized Canadian citizens. I'm just curious as to why OP thinks the process of naturalization is impossible... considering that there has been a strong and growing number of people successfully immigrated to Canada:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/ ... ary/01.asp

Furthermore, Economic theories do point out that Nations needs population (labour force) to grow, and the two was of population growth is Birth and Immigration. Most developing countries do have very low or even negative natural growth rate (death rate > Birth rate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... rowth_rate

I do believe that the leaders of most developed nations knows it is important to attract quality immigrants as a way to increase its competitiveness in the global economy.

On that note, It is also important for nations to successfully attract quality immigrant into their nations (Wealthy/Skilled/or Both) as well as filter out undesirable applications. This is especially true in a world post-9/11 where terrorist group can seeks to infiltrate western countries and conduct terrorism on its soil.

i.e: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontar ... orism_plot
i.e: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-ministe ... 28961.html

So in that sense, your assessment is partially correct: Nationals only desire wealth and skilled immigrants (but not necessary white or any skin color.) to increase the well-being of their own nations, and will make attracting those high quality people a priority. I do not see anything unreasonable in this fact. Government owe their constituent a duty to improve their Jurisdiction ; government do not owe anything to anyone outsider of their governance.

All the immigration policies run amok of the idea of 'freedom of movement' outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which was signed by just about every member nation of the UN. Article 13 pretty clearly states that people should have the right to leave any country. Every immigration policy that restricts immigration violates this article.


Do note that it states that 'people should have the right to leave any country', it didn't say that they should have the right to enter, or grant residences, into any other country of their choice. To further elobrate, that clause is mostly for giving rights for citizens to flee oppressive regimes without being hindered or detain by said government. (i.e. Student involved with the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 fleeing from China after governement suppressed it... with tanks.)

So while there is still a xenophobic attitude on recent immigrants, the 'draconian' process of immigration is quite necessary to ensure the applicants will be a positive, non-radical, contributing member of their new society.

What are we going to do with immigrants when we no longer need them to fill the job market because we're automating labor jobs out of existence? Don't they still deserve the same opportunities as human beings, or will we just leave people in other countries to rot there because they're not our citizens?


I believe that being a citizen in a nation is a privilege and not a right. It is not entirely unreasonable for a government to restrict and only allow people that'll contribute to their society to live in their country. No person ever have a 'right' to live anywhere in the world. If you are politically suppressed by government in your country of origin... you can always apply for refugee status.
Last edited by Nylonathatep on Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Fire Brns » Tue May 07, 2013 2:46 am UTC

Derek wrote:
sardia wrote:All immigrants migrate so that they too can fulfill the dream of preventing the next wave of immigrants from migrating in. The protestants did it to the Irish, the Irsh to the Catholics, and the Catholics to the Chinese, and now it's the Hispanic's turn. Soon you'll have african americans oppressing gay people...oh wait, that's happening now. In the future, we can expect the current Hispanic population to oppress others, probably further south latin countries or maybe white people.

The Irish were Catholic. I think you mean the Irish to the Germans and Eastern Europeans.
We did have the Protestants stopping the French Catholics fleeing from the civil war in their country that was caused by them helping out the Protestants in their civil war from coming over here. Reason number one on the list of why Adams was a despicable bastard.

The biggest problem with American immigration is that we let the same amount of immigrants in from every country regardless of how many immigrants want over. Hypothetically we could have equal amounts of Mexican and Lichtensteiners immigrants in a year if both maxed out their allowed quotas. There needs to be an established mathematical formula for allowable immigrants from a country within a year if there are going to be these boundaries.

For example in ten seconds I made up this: A=(X/Y)(1+1Z)

where:
A is the current year's allowable limit
X is the number of applications that were submitted in the previous year
Y is total allowable immigrants the previous year
Z is economic growth as a percentage of GDP

Yes it's terribly flawed as a matter of mathematics alone but it's still better then the current system.
(I really think all laws involving arbitrary number values should be discerned like this)
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Chen » Tue May 07, 2013 11:49 am UTC

savanik wrote:Naturalization is, by and large, extremely difficult. For developed countries, it's almost impossible. The U.S. is particularly draconian - it's basically restricted to wealthy, skilled and white. Even then, you're best off acquiring a lawyer to work through all the paperwork. Canada is similarly difficult.


As Nylonathatep said, immigrating to Canada is not all that difficult. My fiancee is in the process of becoming a permanent resident now. Yes there was a lot of paperwork but it certainly didn't require a lawyer to go through. Once she becomes a permanent resident she just needs to pass a test and be in the country for a certain amount of time before she can be naturalized.

Regardless of this, I'm not sure why you expect the process to be so simple. Even in the US there are social safety nets in place. In more socialist countries even moreso. You want to limit the people who require these and thus screening people before letting them into your country is pretty important. There are advantages to being a citizen of a developed country. A bit callously, you want to keep the "quality" of your population high, which means ensuring your immigrants are well vetted.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 07, 2013 4:04 pm UTC


Opponents to immigrants often cite increases in crime, violence, economic costs due to welfare expenses. As I look at these arguments, though, I don't find the facts to back up the allegations.

I don't know for other countries, but here in the Netherlands crime statistics are pretty strong. Somewhat over half of all prisoners was born outside the country, compared to 10% of the popeulation. Of the remaining prisoners born in the Netherlands, a relatively high fraction are children of immigrants with a Dutch nationality, though the exact statistics on this are more vague. Similar ratios apply to other crime-related numbers.

Presumably and hopefully, this is a passing phenomenon. At some point, Americans stopped asking for limits on Italian immigration, and instead started to make nostalgic movies about mobsters. But that took several generations.

Edit: removed a part because I found too much conflicting information to be sure.
Last edited by Zamfir on Tue May 07, 2013 6:21 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

fifiste
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby fifiste » Tue May 07, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

As a government representing my constituents I am responsible mainly to them.
Why should I risk the quality of life of my existing citizens so that random-ass people all from over the world would have easier time to come and settle within my borders.
If I am to have any say in what kind of new people are going to settle within my borders I'd try to make the best that they are healthy,wealthy, with applicable skills/professions, and comfortable with current laws and customs.
As opposed to poor, unskilled and at odds with local culture as is and also requiring expensive medical assistance.
Bringing the latter ones in would just mean that my existing population will have to keep on paying for their dole, (or education to actually qualify for job later on), pay for their medical cost etc. (or not pay for either and have a desperate new citizen starving or dying probably turning to crime?).
It comes down to rather pragmatic - will these new additions to our population be gain or drain. Understandably this might mean quite some filtering procedures - and of course they will make it more complicated for you to immigrate - but it would be plenty naive to decide that THEY should take the complications and risks and costs on their shoulders while YOU are the one trying to move in to their country.*


*They might even to so IF they deem you an ASSET enough - so they might offer scholarships free residence cards etc. to skilled specialists etc.
I want to say that's the main calculus - you shouldn't be surprised that you are not automatically welcome and you need to prove yourself - when you are not already determined to be actually useful to the people you want to join. You could ask the same about clubs/companies/foot-ball teams - why to they have to ask for random-ass people coming to join them to prove if they are any good?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby sardia » Tue May 07, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

fifiste wrote:As a government representing my constituents I am responsible mainly to them.
Why should I risk the quality of life of my existing citizens so that random-ass people all from over the world would have easier time to come and settle within my borders.
If I am to have any say in what kind of new people are going to settle within my borders I'd try to make the best that they are healthy,wealthy, with applicable skills/professions, and comfortable with current laws and customs.
As opposed to poor, unskilled and at odds with local culture as is and also requiring expensive medical assistance.
Bringing the latter ones in would just mean that my existing population will have to keep on paying for their dole, (or education to actually qualify for job later on), pay for their medical cost etc. (or not pay for either and have a desperate new citizen starving or dying probably turning to crime?).
It comes down to rather pragmatic - will these new additions to our population be gain or drain. Understandably this might mean quite some filtering procedures - and of course they will make it more complicated for you to immigrate - but it would be plenty naive to decide that THEY should take the complications and risks and costs on their shoulders while YOU are the one trying to move in to their country.*


*They might even to so IF they deem you an ASSET enough - so they might offer scholarships free residence cards etc. to skilled specialists etc.
I want to say that's the main calculus - you shouldn't be surprised that you are not automatically welcome and you need to prove yourself - when you are not already determined to be actually useful to the people you want to join. You could ask the same about clubs/companies/foot-ball teams - why to they have to ask for random-ass people coming to join them to prove if they are any good?

This is incredibly shortsighted, and thankfully not how the US operates. How do you know who's gonna be a benefit or drain? If a physics professor has the flu, do you not let him in? Can we do the reverse and kick out subpar citizens? There's a bunch of old fogies I'd like to kick out.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 07, 2013 6:32 pm UTC

@ sardia, how is that 'not how the us operates'? The Us has preferential immigration rules for people with money and specific skills, and all kinds of tests for immigrants about familiarity with US customs and laws, and medical tests.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Tue May 07, 2013 7:08 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I don't know for other countries, but here in the Netherlands crime statistics are pretty strong. Somewhat over half of all prisoners was born outside the country, compared to 10% of the popeulation.


That's fairly interesting - I wasn't aware of that. I suppose that the U.S. crime statistics are highly skewed due to our policy decisions. A disproportionate percentage of them (about half) are black, and 20% of all prisoners are in on drug offenses. Hispanics (whether citizens, immigrants or immigrant descent) make up only 18%1 of the population.

A very small percentage are in federal prisons due to immigrations violations. Of those, fully half are only in prison only due to our immigration laws.
Last edited by savanik on Tue May 07, 2013 7:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Tue May 07, 2013 7:11 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:My family has immigrated from Hong Kong to Canada and we are now naturalized Canadian citizens. I'm just curious as to why OP thinks the process of naturalization is impossible...


I have a friend who successfully immigrated from the U.S. to Canada to get married to his love of his life - it involved him having to hire a specialized immigration lawyer, about two years of paperwork, and several thousands of dollars in expenses, both in application and lawyers fees. He's quite happy now that he's up there, but he wouldn't have been able to do so without the resources he had from a good job and good education.

I am not saying that the process is impossible - I'm saying that, for the average citizen, it's very difficult, if not completely unrealistic, to be able to leave your country of origin. In America, only 30% of our citizenry has a Bachleor's degree.1 If having a high school diploma is not sufficient for a skills-based immigration, you have disqualified 70% of all U.S. citizens to start with. Fully 14.5% are unemployed or underemployed2 - these people cannot afford the costs associated with immigration, even if they have the skills. Figuring out how many people above that 14.5% can't afford it because they don't have enough discretionary income is a much more complicated question. I would argue that it's at least 20%, and probably closer to 40% if you include the costs of actually changing your location.

Part of my argument is that it's very much a case of kicking people while they're down. These are the sorts of people who could most afford to have more opportunities open to them, but they're de facto trapped in their country by economics of their home state and the high costs associated with moving anywhere else.

Do note that it states that 'people should have the right to leave any country', it didn't say that they should have the right to enter, or grant residences, into any other country of their choice.


I can see that interpretation - however, if you're leaving one country, then unless you intend on becoming a Pirate On The High Seas in international waters forever, you have to enter another country. You can't 'have the right to leave' if you don't have the right to enter anywhere else. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

I believe there is actually one country - Uruguay, if memory serves - that allows anyone to come into the country without reservations or visas. Without the means to get to Uruguay, though, that fact becomes moot.

It is not entirely unreasonable for a government to restrict and only allow people that'll contribute to their society to live in their country.


If you're a diverse developed country, anyone can contribute on some level. The U.S. has illegal Mexican immigrants that contribute to our economy just fine in the construction and agricultural industry, but don't receive social services. We have tech support that's outsourced to India, doing jobs that Americans would normally perform, but they can't immigrate here. Heck, there's a lot of students from other countries that could be productive American citizens, even some with college educations, but we won't let them immigrate. If we do, we certainly won't let their uneducated parents over. How is a European high-school graduate less productive than your average American high-school graduate?

To put it bluntly, if we're going to take such a Malthusian approach to population management and say that unproductive people don't deserve to be citizens, why don't we just deport all these unproductive unemployed people to Mexico? If you want to take the tack of only people producing more than they consume deserve to stay, well, then we've got whole states that we ought to kick out of the union.3

I agree that it's unrealistic to assume that we would be able to provide the current level of social services to everyone if we allowed unfettered immigration. Adjustments would likely have to be made. But to say that we can't afford to provide them is a matter of priorities. We could buy a few fewer high-tech fighter aircraft.

Or hey, we could train some of the immigrants in welding and have them help build said fighters. Some basic levels of education for immigrants could, in very short order, make them highly productive members of society.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Zamfir » Tue May 07, 2013 7:29 pm UTC

@savanik, how do propose it should work instead? Countries should allow anyone in as resident? Or as full citizen? What if a 100 million people apply?

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Tue May 07, 2013 10:08 pm UTC

Zamfir: While certain stats does prove that there's a higher crime rate in foreign immigrants in provety... it might not be politically wise or correct to point that out.

Sardia: Most developed-Nations have immigration process that filters out undesirable applicants. While the reverse can also happen (deportation, revoking citizenship) it is rare and can only be exercised under extreme circumstances. If Canada can't even deport Omar Khadar, the child solider that joined a terrorist group, engaged in combat against Canada and its allies, and killed a U.S Military Medic, I doubt anyone you know deserves to have their citizenship revoked. It's also part of they reason why the immigration procedure is so strict... once you get them in, it's hard to kick them out.

Savanik: I understand that you are frustrated and upset with the immigration system in the western world. I have distant relatives that study abroad in Canada, but can't stay because they can't find a job after the gradurated and their Visa expired. So yes, I'm in complete agreement that for an average person in the world, it is extremely difficult to apply for citizenship to developed countries... is there any reason for it to be the contrary?

There's is a saying that in America, everyone is an immigrant. So while it maybe true that a low percentage of American have higher education... at some point, they or their ancestors have already undergone the process of immigration to America and as such should not be held in the same scrutiny as to who are applying for citizenship now. Either them, or their ancestors have contributed to their nations in the past and as long as they continue to fulfil their obligations as citizens of their nation (which is not a lot: Pay your taxes, Obey the Laws, Vote (???)) their status as citizen should not be questioned.

Part of my argument is that it's very much a case of kicking people while they're down. These are the sorts of people who could most afford to have more opportunities open to them, but they're de facto trapped in their country by economics of their home state and the high costs associated with moving anywhere else.


Part of the answer is that the world isn't fair to begin with (or isn't what you'll interpret as 'fair'), and that neither the world, and especially the western world, do not owns you the chance or the right to be a citizen of their nation. Its a bit harsh... but that's reality... nations want quality people and the capital they bring with them; they also want to ensure that the person thrives in their new life and not be a burden of their new society.

I can see that interpretation - however, if you're leaving one country, then unless you intend on becoming a Pirate On The High Seas in international waters forever, you have to enter another country. You can't 'have the right to leave' if you don't have the right to enter anywhere else. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.


As I've stated before in my post... people being displaced either by natural disasters or political upheaval can apply for refugee status. Also the current Dalai Lama is in exile from the Republic of China since 1959 and he certainly has rights and even invitation to enter anywhere in the world... to claim otherwise is being obtuse.

If you're a diverse developed country, anyone can contribute on some level... snipped


I do not claim to have a full understand of the immigration policies in U.S. but as you've stated above, those Mexican immigrants are illegal. Those tech support jobs in India also share the same similarities: not only do they not require social support from the U.S, they are also not subjected to minimal wage and thus make it part of the reason for their attractiveness as labour force.

I agree that it's unrealistic to assume that we would be able to provide the current level of social services to everyone if we allowed unfettered immigration. Adjustments would likely have to be made. But to say that we can't afford to provide them is a matter of priorities. We could buy a few fewer high-tech fighter aircraft.


I'll say its actually quite unrealistic to assume that the western world could, and in fact should provide everyone the benefit of being a citizen of their nation... nevermind the fact that the U.S itself is trillion dollars in debt. Perhaps you've also underestimate the cost of social welfare for a U.S citizen... there's a good reason why everyone wants to immigrate to U.S in the first place, right? (or Canada, which provides free healthcare) Finally, would there be any incentive for a government of a nation, any nation, to prioritize between relaxing its immigration standards at the cost of its citizens own welfare? And it is 'fair' to those that's already a citizen of that nation?


I'm also curious as to what's your country of origin, Savanik, and why you are so desperate trying to emigrate from it.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Trasvi » Wed May 08, 2013 1:44 am UTC

savanik wrote:I can see that interpretation - however, if you're leaving one country, then unless you intend on becoming a Pirate On The High Seas in international waters forever, you have to enter another country. You can't 'have the right to leave' if you don't have the right to enter anywhere else. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.


You have the right to quit any job you have. That doesn't mean you have the 'right' to be accepted in to any other place of employment you choose. A country's government is in many ways just a big corporation.
Of course you can have the right to leave (otherwise it would be a form of slavery or captivity) but you need somewhere to accept you. Many countries have humanitarian/refugee intakes, not just based on skills/education: but at the same time, if a country had to accept everyone no matter what, places like the USA, UK, Australia would be overflowing with immigrants who would be out of work, draining the government coffers and using up whatever resources were there.

It sucks, but that's life.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby sardia » Wed May 08, 2013 2:04 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:@ sardia, how is that 'not how the us operates'? The Us has preferential immigration rules for people with money and specific skills, and all kinds of tests for immigrants about familiarity with US customs and laws, and medical tests.

While you are correct on these grounds, the US also has had waves of pretty open immigration. In addition to the preferences for the highly skilled, they also have exceptions for refugees, a lottery system, and discounted entry for families. The idea that immigrants should only be viewed for what they have to offer right now is pretty short sighted, and not valid.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Wed May 08, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:@savanik, how do propose it should work instead? Countries should allow anyone in as resident? Or as full citizen? What if a 100 million people apply?


It's not really that complicated - define precisely what it means to be a resident and a citizen, and then apply that definition across the board, without quotas, lottery systems, or special treatment.

If you want to be a citizen, then as Nyarlathatep said, you need to be able to participate meaningfully in your society. Pay taxes, don't commit horrible crimes - that should be a pretty low bar. If there's an official language, you should probably demonstrate that you can communicate with others. Beyond that, I don't see a period of residency as a horrible requirement. In most cases, it's just that becoming a resident is terribly difficult.

If you want to be a resident, I would simply say that you need to understand the laws and customs of the country you're trying to enter. If you're an American trying to move to Iran, there are some important cultural differences you should be aware of before trying to live there. While there, you need to obey the laws and pay any taxes you owe. That's pretty much it.

And if a hundred million people apply, then wherever there coming from has to be bad enough that the world will be better off with them not being there. We have a responsibility to them as human beings to help them as we would help each other. Everything else is just a resource allocation problem.

Nylonathatep wrote:Part of the answer is that the world isn't fair to begin with (or isn't what you'll interpret as 'fair'), and that neither the world, and especially the western world, do not owns you the chance or the right to be a citizen of their nation.


I respectfully disagree. You are correct that the world isn't fair - the world, being non-sentient, lacks any sort of moral sense. Even Darwinism is simply a consequence of natural laws. It's not a moral imperative for things to evolve to be better - it's just how that natural process works. This doesn't mean that we, as humans, cannot hold moral principles.

Just because our societies act in this way currently does not mean that this is a moral way to behave, or that we should continue to uphold this system as correct. If there is a way to structure it so that it's better for everyone, then we, as humans, can become better than what we currently are.

Nylonathatep wrote:I'll say its actually quite unrealistic to assume that the western world could, and in fact should provide everyone the benefit of being a citizen of their nation... nevermind the fact that the U.S itself is trillion dollars in debt. Perhaps you've also underestimate the cost of social welfare for a U.S citizen... there's a good reason why everyone wants to immigrate to U.S in the first place, right? (or Canada, which provides free healthcare) Finally, would there be any incentive for a government of a nation, any nation, to prioritize between relaxing its immigration standards at the cost of its citizens own welfare? And it is 'fair' to those that's already a citizen of that nation?


The costs of welfare in the U.S. are quite well documented, though there's some argument over whether benefits for former U.S. soldiers should be counted as a 'military' expense or as a 'social' expense. There's other costs that most people ignore - maintaining infrastructure, enforcing laws, and other such services that makes up a society. The reasons that most people don't pay any attention to them are that they don't scale very much with population, they're not a significant percentage of expenses, and they're not very attention-grabbing.

If you were to drop 100 million people into the United States, even as just residents, there would be a significant amount of social upheaval in the short term. But in the long term, as these people develop their lives, get jobs, purchase the things they need and want in their lives, the nation would be better off - higher GDP, more productivity, more consumer demand. They would also bring new ideas and culture. Between all these benefits, before too long, they would be able to provide for themselves and contribute to society as a whole.

It's not that I want to leave my country. I want other people to be able to have the benefits that exist here, and I think that this nation would be better off for having more people in it. But above all of those reasons, I feel we have a moral obligation to help others - particularly where all we have to do is give them the opportunity to change their life.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nem » Wed May 08, 2013 4:59 pm UTC

savanik wrote:So why is everyone so afraid of immigration and naturalization? Is it really just xenophobia that runs that deeply in our collective society?


Resources are X, demands are Y - why share? I don't think it's xenophobia necessarily, though doubtless that's a part of it. I just think that people don't see what possible good immigrants will do for them. I don't really think many people would have trouble sleeping at night if the majority of the world's non-western population was exterminated - as long as they weren't responsible - it'd seems like it would be easier for most people if the potential immigrants you're thinking about just didn't exist. And if you look at it in that way, the absence of free movement isn't particularly surprising. Why would you want someone whose existence you didn't care for on your front door?

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed May 08, 2013 5:47 pm UTC

savanik wrote:And if a hundred million people apply, then wherever there coming from has to be bad enough that the world will be better off with them not being there. We have a responsibility to them as human beings to help them as we would help each other. Everything else is just a resource allocation problem.


...Except that we really don't have a responsiblity as human beings to help each other. That's the recurring theme that many posters have been pointing out. We don't have a obligation to aid another human being for free; nations do not have any obligations to let everyone into their country to enjoy their social benefits... but they do in certain circumstances like taking refugees and for them it is sufficient enough.

savanik wrote:I respectfully disagree. You are correct that the world isn't fair - the world, being non-sentient, lacks any sort of moral sense. Even Darwinism is simply a consequence of natural laws. It's not a moral imperative for things to evolve to be better - it's just how that natural process works. This doesn't mean that we, as humans, cannot hold moral principles.

Just because our societies act in this way currently does not mean that this is a moral way to behave, or that we should continue to uphold this system as correct. If there is a way to structure it so that it's better for everyone, then we, as humans, can become better than what we currently are.


While I do applaud your idealogy in spirit, the scenrio you've desire does not conform to the realities of the world. In a perfect world everything is free, there is no conflict, and the wealth of the world is divided equally as well as labour. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

You can continue to appeal your argument to emotion and believe that the world should be what you've wanted it to be... but until you've realized that the current system, like immigration laws, actually makes sense in the current world and therefore its best to work with the system then against it... you will never be satified.

Edit: It's also interesting that you've consider moral ... The US Population in 2012 is about 316 million people. Base on your morals stance: it is right to let 100 million people into a country at the disadvantage of the 316 million people that was already there in the first place?

savanik wrote:If you were to drop 100 million people into the United States, even as just residents, there would be a significant amount of social upheaval in the short term. But in the long term, as these people develop their lives, get jobs, purchase the things they need and want in their lives, the nation would be better off - higher GDP, more productivity, more consumer demand. They would also bring new ideas and culture. Between all these benefits, before too long, they would be able to provide for themselves and contribute to society as a whole.


The Theory of Economics would say that scenrio you've stated will likely not happen.
1) an Influx of 100 million people into the U.S will further increase the unemployment rate as well as put more strain into its social system. Jobs simply cannot generate faster then this sudden influx of immigration.
2) Because there's less wealth to go around... the standard of living will dramatically decrease as more people demands equal amount of goods available.
3) How would Jobs generate in the system? Both in the long and short run... job creation and a nation's GDP has no correlation with population size (Otherwise India, the country with the largest world population, would have the highest GDP... and that is not the case). While a higher population size does increase consumption... most of US's consumption is imported from outside the states which leads to a deeper trade deficit.
4) One important part of the equation that you've neglected to say is that the US had just came out of a recession and with trillion dollars in debt. The shock of having 100 million population suddenly would just outright kill the country.
5) Finally to quote John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run we are all dead."


savanik wrote:The costs of welfare in the U.S. are quite well documented, though there's some argument over whether benefits for former U.S. soldiers should be counted as a 'military' expense or as a 'social' expense. There's other costs that most people ignore - maintaining infrastructure, enforcing laws, and other such services that makes up a society. The reasons that most people don't pay any attention to them are that they don't scale very much with population, they're not a significant percentage of expenses, and they're not very attention-grabbing.


That's funny considering that the example you've listed scales quite naturally with population.... more people = more cops, more social services (food stamps), more infrastructure maintainance because there is more wear and tear...

savanik wrote:It's not that I want to leave my country. I want other people to be able to have the benefits that exist here, and I think that this nation would be better off for having more people in it. But above all of those reasons, I feel we have a moral obligation to help others - particularly where all we have to do is give them the opportunity to change their life.


Japan has actually the lowset immigration rate and actively discourage any immigration into their island nation and there's a good reason why they do so considering their lack of natural resource and high population density in urban areas. Hopefully you can see reasons and consider that not all immigration yields positive results and that no nations is obligated to have an open door immigration policy.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 08, 2013 6:23 pm UTC

According to economic theory, the extra 100m people will increase the economy, not decrease.

The economy is Y = A(N^(a))(K^(1-a)), where Y is total output, A is 'technology', N is number of workers, K is capital, and a is a number, usually agreed to be .3, that represents how much labor vs capital improves the economy. Technology is weird, basically anything other than the value of capital and the number of workers that affects the economy. Could be better trained workers, could be healthier eating habits, could be new refining processes.

Per person the economy will be less until Kapital increases to comparative levels as before. In the very long run, the GDP per capita will be higher, as a more varied workforce is more productive than a homogenous workforce. Plus, the rate of technological improvement is faster with more people available as scientists (part of why I have extreme hatred for most forms of racism and sexism; that gay black trans woman you fired could've discovered a new antibiotic, you asshat!)

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed May 08, 2013 6:45 pm UTC

CorruptUser: Y = A(N^(a))(K^(1-a))


While I agree with the formula... (It's actually a formula I'm studying for my CFA level 2 exam :) ) Savanik's scenrio is to bring everyone in without quotas, lottery systems, or special treatment.

That means that for one, 100 million immigrant =/= 100 million labour force since we let everyone in indiscriminately. Now how much of that 100 million immigrants would actually be part of the labour force would be another hypothetical question... but even without that... remember the quation includes the alpha and alpha minus 1, which signifies the marginal return of labour and capital. So even if a sufficient amount of labour is introduced into the system... the return of the increasing labour force will be decreasing ... and again the hypothetical question, in plain language, is if the extra additional labour force is worth the cost of society.

Do keep in mind that a nation's productivity is not measured by GDP alone, but by GDP per capita

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_per_capita

TL DR: Simpily put, you can add 100 million people into a nation, but while the overall GDP will improve, the GDP per person (measurement of productivity and by extention, the standard of living) might not improve.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 08, 2013 6:56 pm UTC

If you read the whole post you'd see I said GDP per capita decreases.

In the short run.

Jobs are not a scarce commodity to be hoarded. When someone takes a job paying $50k, they also spend $50k and employ someone else, who then spends another $50k, and so on. The issues keeping unemployment high are all the various barriers to entry, such as labor laws, union contracts, minimum wage, the social welfare system (means testing is arguably terrible), and other things. Not all of these are necessaroly bad; ancient times had unemployment rates near 0 but they were hardly a worker's paradise.

How much each job PAYS (in real, not nominal) is more based on capital.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed May 08, 2013 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed May 08, 2013 7:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If you read the whole post you'd see I said GDP per capita decreases.


Per person the economy will be less until Kapital increases to comparative levels as before. In the very long run, the GDP per capita will be higher, as a more varied workforce is more productive than a homogenous workforce. Plus, the rate of technological improvement is faster with more people available as scientists (part of why I have extreme hatred for most forms of racism and sexism; that gay black trans woman you fired could've discovered a new antibiotic, you asshat!)


I'll like to respond to your post in full context... and you've stated that in the long run the GDP per capita will be higher.

Even then I'll like to request more evidence that a more varied workforce is more productive then a homogenous workforce. According to PPP and the theory that its derive from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production ... y_frontier

It is important for countries to specialize and trade for produced that need by does not produce.

Also i'm not sure if there's a correlation between higher population and technological innovation... again otherwise India would be the most technological advance nation in the world!!! (Sacrasm: an increase in educated population will certain have correlation when technological advances... again... that's certain a reason why certain immigrants is more desirable over others.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 08, 2013 7:23 pm UTC

1) Tech advancement in the world today is based more on the people outside your country than in it; while in ancient times each nation had to invent the wheel independently, sort of, today if someone discovers a new drug virtually all nations have access to the new drug.

2) A more varied skillset will push out the production possibilities frontier, increasing the range available where an economy is Pareto efficient. The United States issue up of various immigrant groups that had very different skillsets. Would the US be better off with 300m Irish firemen, or Irish firemen, Jewish doctors, German engineers, etc? To say nothing of the extra utility that you get from having Italian, Chinese and Indian food instead of only one.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 08, 2013 8:04 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:According to economic theory, the extra 100m people will increase the economy, not decrease.

The economy is Y = A(N^(a))(K^(1-a)), where Y is total output, A is 'technology', N is number of workers, K is capital, and a is a number, usually agreed to be .3, that represents how much labor vs capital improves the economy. Technology is weird, basically anything other than the value of capital and the number of workers that affects the economy. Could be better trained workers, could be healthier eating habits, could be new refining processes.

Per person the economy will be less until Kapital increases to comparative levels as before. In the very long run, the GDP per capita will be higher, as a more varied workforce is more productive than a homogenous workforce. Plus, the rate of technological improvement is faster with more people available as scientists (part of why I have extreme hatred for most forms of racism and sexism; that gay black trans woman you fired could've discovered a new antibiotic, you asshat!)


Workers are not the same as people. Workers(especially educated, productive ones) are typically welcomed. Non-workers generally are not.

Additionally, you may want to prove that a varied workforce is more productive than a homogenous workforce. Given that there are nearly infinite variables over which variation can happen, I suspect it's very, very easy to demonstrate that sometimes homogenity is desirable. For instance, in language. It's a helluva lot easier to run a workforce in which everyone speaks the same language than one in which everyone speaks a different one(maximal diversity).

So, from an economic perspective, selecting to favor those who are most productive is extremely rational. This becomes increasingly more important as you offer more social benefits. If you have completely open borders and offer excellent benefits to non-workers, you will get a lot of immigrants who have a negative net contribution. The broke elderly person is unlikely to contribute much, if anything to GDP in relationship to consumption. Now, if you have no social benefit programs, this isn't really a concern, but developed countries typically have at least some.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed May 08, 2013 8:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Tech advancement in the world today is based more on the people outside your country than in it; while in ancient times each nation had to invent the wheel independently, sort of, today if someone discovers a new drug virtually all nations have access to the new drug.


Most African people do not enjoys the same level of technological advance most developed nations have that improved their standard of living... they certain do not have Iphones and computers in their homes.... so while it is sound in theory... it does not conform to reality. (Also what does this have to do with the origional argument??? If you are saying that the technological level of any nation is equal... then again it does not reflect on the reality of this world.)

CorruptUser wrote: 1b)Jobs are not a scarce commodity to be hoarded. When someone takes a job paying $50k, they also spend $50k and employ someone else, who then spends another $50k, and so on. The issues keeping unemployment high are all the various barriers to entry, such as labor laws, union contracts, minimum wage, the social welfare system (means testing is arguably terrible), and other things. Not all of these are necessaroly bad; ancient times had unemployment rates near 0 but they were hardly a worker's paradise.


Sorta... Economist call this the Money Multiplier... a person has $50k income, their choice is to either save or spend... Saving increase the amount of capital available, while Spending means another person receiving that money... and so on... The Central Bank can increase jobs with this tool by printing out money and thereby A) increase the amount of capital available, and B) create more job because people have more cash to spend.. and will have incentive to spend them because the value of their cash is down (That is actually call the phillips curve) however stimulus like that is not substainable because the bank can't print of money forever. as well as the stimuls losing its effect as more the population anticipated this policy (See the 1970 stagflation.)

To digress... it's the amount of money available to the economy that's creating the job and not the other way around (availabity of capital, but even that's not substainable The long term aggregate demand is actually a vertical line )and the real value of money is derived from increasing productivity... you can't put the cart before the horse and say jobs create more jobs and therefore your nation increase in wealth. There is a limited amount of jobs as there are supply and demand for labour in any economy.


CorruptUser wrote: 2) A more varied skillset will push out the production possibilities frontier, increasing the range available where an economy is Pareto efficient. The United States issue up of various immigrant groups that had very different skillsets. Would the US be better off with 300m Irish firemen, or Irish firemen, Jewish doctors, German engineers, etc? To say nothing of the extra utility that you get from having Italian, Chinese and Indian food instead of only one.


In your example... the increase in range is due to increase in labour force only. The reason as to why nations seeks specialize is that a 1:1 trade off between the production of two good does not exist (fix cost, externalities, etc) and therefore the most optimual method of production, given constant labour and capital, is to "do one thing really really well". What that means for developed countries is their economies have moved beyond manufacturing and manual labour and should focus their capital on more technolgical and knowledge base production.... hense another reason for prioritizing skilled labour with higher education in their immigration policy.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Derek » Wed May 08, 2013 9:36 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:The Theory of Economics would say that scenrio you've stated will likely not happen.
1) an Influx of 100 million people into the U.S will further increase the unemployment rate as well as put more strain into its social system. Jobs simply cannot generate faster then this sudden influx of immigration.
2) Because there's less wealth to go around... the standard of living will dramatically decrease as more people demands equal amount of goods available.

Unemployment rate will increase, but the number of jobs will not decrease, in fact it will almost certainly increase. Likewise, the amount of wealth would increase, while wealth per capita would decrease.

On a global scale, you would probably see an increase in both jobs and wealth per capita, since the immigrants are moving to places that give them more opportunities.

Most African people do not enjoys the same level of technological advance most developed nations have that improved their standard of living... they certain do not have Iphones and computers in their homes.... so while it is sound in theory... it does not conform to reality. (Also what does this have to do with the origional argument??? If you are saying that the technological level of any nation is equal... then again it does not reflect on the reality of this world.)

This is mostly due to a lack of wealth/capital. The people who do have money can get iphones and computers in Africa, but very few people have the money.
Last edited by Derek on Wed May 08, 2013 9:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby savanik » Wed May 08, 2013 9:37 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:
CorruptUser wrote: 2) A more varied skillset will push out the production possibilities frontier, increasing the range available where an economy is Pareto efficient. The United States issue up of various immigrant groups that had very different skillsets. Would the US be better off with 300m Irish firemen, or Irish firemen, Jewish doctors, German engineers, etc? To say nothing of the extra utility that you get from having Italian, Chinese and Indian food instead of only one.


In your example... the increase in range is due to increase in labour force only. The reason as to why nations seeks specialize is that a 1:1 trade off between the production of two good does not exist (fix cost, externalities, etc) and therefore the most optimual method of production, given constant labour and capital, is to "do one thing really really well". What that means for developed countries is their economies have moved beyond manufacturing and manual labour and should focus their capital on more technolgical and knowledge base production.... hense another reason for prioritizing skilled labour with higher education in their immigration policy.


Even with a focus on a technological and knowledge economic base, there's always garbage to be taken out. With an excess of low-end labor, you're freeing up people to better themselves through education and training so they can participate in the knowledge market. Immigrants also think about problems in different ways. Knowledge markets are more efficient with a diverse base of ideas to draw on, and injecting new culture into the system is one of the most efficient ways to draw in new information.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed May 08, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

savanik wrote:Even with a focus on a technological and knowledge economic base, there's always garbage to be taken out. With an excess of low-end labor, you're freeing up people to better themselves through education and training so they can participate in the knowledge market. Immigrants also think about problems in different ways. Knowledge markets are more efficient with a diverse base of ideas to draw on, and injecting new culture into the system is one of the most efficient ways to draw in new information.


Given the fact that the US unemployment rate for Feb 2013 is at 7.7% with 12 million people unemployed (along with the current economic situation in the United States), should policy maker in the United States allow unhindered and unrestricted immigration into their country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployme ... ted_States

Hypothetically, no population can specialized to the point of producing only a single good/service... however the current situation is that there's a shortage of jobs in America at any level and the open door immigration policies is unwise.

The process of excess labour transforming to high end production is a situation in the long run for a growing economy (As observed during the industrial revolution and recently in Asia)... which is definately not the case for North America in the forseeable future.

Derek wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:The Theory of Economics would say that scenrio you've stated will likely not happen.
1) an Influx of 100 million people into the U.S will further increase the unemployment rate as well as put more strain into its social system. Jobs simply cannot generate faster then this sudden influx of immigration.
2) Because there's less wealth to go around... the standard of living will dramatically decrease as more people demands equal amount of goods available.

Unemployment rate will increase, but the number of jobs will not decrease, in fact it will almost certainly increase. Likewise, the amount of wealth would increase, while wealth per capita would decrease.

On a global scale, you would probably see an increase in both jobs and wealth per capita, since the immigrants are moving to places that give them more opportunities.


When did I say the number of job will decrease? but on a global scale, the developed nation's GDP per capita will decrease, while the wealth in the nation that people left would increase (those immigants would transfer cash back into their native country), which brings us back to the question... why would a developed nation want to take in all that immigration to decrease their GDP per capita???

Most African people do not enjoys the same level of technological advance most developed nations have that improved their standard of living... they certain do not have Iphones and computers in their homes.... so while it is sound in theory... it does not conform to reality. (Also what does this have to do with the origional argument??? If you are saying that the technological level of any nation is equal... then again it does not reflect on the reality of this world.)

This is mostly due to a lack of wealth/capital. The people who do have money can get iphones and computers in Africa, but very few people have the money.


The obvious solution is to transfer capital to those developing countries so they can raise their production and standard of living... instead of having people migrate into developed countries.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 08, 2013 11:26 pm UTC

The issue with the unemployment in the US is more due to monetary policy and a lack of the proper skillsets than due to just "too many workers not enough jobs". There is plenty of work to do, just not the right skills to do it. This is in part because over the past decade, blame whoever you want, the economy was geared around producing houses with no real value. When the bubble finally burst, you had hundreds of thousands of people trained in construction and the fields that support construction, but no construction projects. That would've been a perfect time to fix up the failing infrastructure in the US, what with hundreds of thousands of carpenters and welders and so forth out of work.

We currently have a shortage of skilled nurses, and as the baby boomers retire, the shortage is only going to get worse. How many nurses and cooks and caretakers would 50m retirees need? More than we have.

Many societies have had near 0 unemployment. Many places were so desperate for workers they kidnapped them. They were generally not societies you would want to live in.

We as a society DO have every right to refuse people entry. Personally, I would evaluate every potential immigrant thusly; if the total utility change for everyone already in the country would be positive (that is, the immigrant is a net benefit for the country), then bring hem in. If not, get lost. I don't care if the immigrant benefits more than the rest of society loses, gas ass or grass; no free rides. We want the poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, not freeload.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Nylonathatep » Thu May 09, 2013 1:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The issue with the unemployment in the US is more due to monetary policy and a lack of the proper skillsets than due to just "too many workers not enough jobs". There is plenty of work to do, just not the right skills to do it. This is in part because over the past decade, blame whoever you want, the economy was geared around producing houses with no real value. When the bubble finally burst, you had hundreds of thousands of people trained in construction and the fields that support construction, but no construction projects. That would've been a perfect time to fix up the failing infrastructure in the US, what with hundreds of thousands of carpenters and welders and so forth out of work.

We currently have a shortage of skilled nurses, and as the baby boomers retire, the shortage is only going to get worse. How many nurses and cooks and caretakers would 50m retirees need? More than we have.


I'm not a US Citizen and can't say I'm an expert in its current situation. There has been many theories as to how the US can economically recover and yours are as good as any. The question then, relating back to the original argument by the OP, is "How would an open door policy regarding Immigration solves the problem in the US economy?"


Many societies have had near 0 unemployment. Many places were so desperate for workers they kidnapped them. They were generally not societies you would want to live in.


Again, not arguing with you on that one... economic theory states that a true zero unemployment is not possible/sustainable/desirable... fictional and Structural are natural part of the work force and its cyclical unemployment that economist seeks to eliminate.

We as a society DO have every right to refuse people entry. Personally, I would evaluate every potential immigrant thusly; if the total utility change for everyone already in the country would be positive (that is, the immigrant is a net benefit for the country), then bring hem in. If not, get lost. I don't care if the immigrant benefits more than the rest of society loses, gas ass or grass; no free rides. We want the poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, not freeload.


We are in completely agreement here in regards to being selective in the immigration process. The OP, however, state that the process of immigration are 'draconian' and for the wealthy, skilled and white.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101907#p3349066

and that developed nations should allow immigrants in without without "quotas, lottery systems, or special treatment".... and that citizens of developed nations "have a responsibility to them as human beings to help them as we would help each other".... and the "moral way" is to throw out our current immigration system that's in place so that "for everyone, then we, as humans, can become better than what we currently are."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101907#p3350864

I've always been arguing in the position that developed countries needs immigration, but it is in the nation's best interest to attract quality immigrants as a way to increase its competitiveness in the global economy.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101907#p3349327

fifiste
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby fifiste » Thu May 09, 2013 6:40 am UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:We are in completely agreement here in regards to being selective in the immigration process. The OP, however, state that the process of immigration are 'draconian' and for the wealthy, skilled and white.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101907#p3349066
and that developed nations should allow immigrants in without without "quotas, lottery systems, or special treatment".... and that citizens of developed nations "have a responsibility to them as human beings to help them as we would help each other".... and the "moral way" is to throw out our current immigration system that's in place so that "for everyone, then we, as humans, can become better than what we currently are."

I also chip in the agree bunch here.
also to repeat one OP-s points, that I have I think different view on.
and that developed nations should allow immigrants in without without "quotas, lottery systems, or special treatment".... and that citizens of developed nations "have a responsibility to them as human beings to help them as we would help each other


I do think that is really nice and cool from a country to take in whoever want's to come. On the other hand I really really don't think that they have any obligations! And even that they shouldn't have.
I would be an excessively nice guy if I'd go around and proclaim to every bum and hobo that they are welcome to bunk in my apartment - but I do not think that every person who does not do exactly that ... is an awful wretched human being. Or if not evil then shortsighted for asking people moving into his apartment if they can afford to take a share in paying rent and utilities. Also I think that as long as my apartment is not packed full of bums I'd seem a tad hypocritical when demanding that some other group of people should accept just about anyone to join them no questions asked.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby Outchanter » Sun May 19, 2013 7:11 am UTC

The funny thing is that there are poor parts of the US that are comparable to certain third world countries, yet nobody blinks an eye at a poor American moving to the big city to seek their fortune.

Imagine a computer science (masters) graduate from Kentucky decides to work in Silicon Valley, only to be told "sorry, you need a California visa for that. They cost $2000."

Well no problem, the job opportunities are worth more than that, so our graduate applies. So he can work now, right? Not so fast ... because of the booming economy, more than 10000 applicants from other states have applied for California visas, and the yearly quota is 5000. California uses a random lottery to select the lucky entrants. Our hero wins! 6 months of visa processing later, he begins his job at Bigcorp. Maybe if he works hard enough they'll sponsor him for permanent California residence (the temporary work visa he just won is only good for a maximum of 6 years, after which he can't get another unless he leaves California for at least a year ... and then starts the visa process over from scratch, including making it through another lottery.)

After a while he decides that rather than work in Bigcorp's Suburban office, he'd like to work at their Coolcity office. Same position, same company; he gets permission from his boss to transfer. Easy enough right? Not so fast ... his California visa is tied to his job location. Changing the location requires filing an amendent that, like the initial visa, costs $2000 and takes months to process.

Sounds silly? Names and numbers slightly changed, this is pretty much happening as we speak.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Immigration and Naturalization

Postby elasto » Sun May 19, 2013 11:02 am UTC

You may be interested to know that's more or less how China operates internally.

It has all the issues raised here: It has relatively wealthy, industrialised regions while 90% of it remains as poor as any third world country, with people living on a few dollars a day. The rich regions could no more cope with a mass influx than the West could cope with mass immigration, so huge and expensive bureaucratic barriers are put in place preventing people migrating from one province to another. Physically, people can move around, sure - there's no passport controls internally any more than there is between States - but you can't buy a house or even open a bank account without the right permits and residency documents. It's probably equally difficult to get an above-board job (though admittedly most labour here is unreported).

It might seem harsh, but, realistically, infrastructure can only change relatively slowly. It takes time to build new road and rail systems, new hospitals, power stations and water treatment plants. We can argue the West would be better off increasing its intake, and that might well be correct, but in the real world immigration simply has to have some restrictions for everyone's sake - even the immigrants.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ivnja and 7 guests