What is an optimal immigration policy? \ stacker news ~culture

pull down to refresh

2058 sats \ 44 comments \ @kr 31 Jan culture freebie

I was reading this article examining Aristotle’s views on immigration today, and it got me thinking…

What does an optimal immigration policy actually look like?
Is there a one-size fits all framework that countries should be adopting?
Most countries seem to have their own unique immigration process and varying levels of hoops to jump through… why is this process not standardized?
Are there important criteria that countries are under-indexing on when considering which immigrants to allow in?
On average, do you think the barriers to immigration are too high or too low today?

As global populations level off, one would assume that would increase competition for immigrants across the globe, feels like this is an important discussion to be having now.

Bonus sats if you can not only tell me your preferred policy, but can also give me a counter argument for why you might be wrong!

view all related items

668 sats \ 9 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Jan

In my opinion, the best policy is one that is somehow related to the jobs available in the host country. Why might I be wrong? Because I'm not seeing the whole picture, and I'm sure I'm ignoring important aspects.

134 sats \ 8 replies \ @kr OP 31 Jan

this would certainly make labor markets more efficient if people could transcend national borders to fill in-demand jobs.

however, this introduces a cultural question of how to maintain the social fabric of a society when people are coming and going on a whim…

617 sats \ 3 replies \ @windward 31 Jan

however, this introduces a cultural question of how to maintain the social fabric of a society when people are coming and going on a whim…

Labor moving back and forth at a whim,'following the work' is how the US border historically worked until 1875 with the Page Act when they banned Chinese women specifically, and then eventually all Chinese people with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @kr OP 31 Jan

wouldn’t most of the labor during the late 1800s have been moving to the US and just staying?

i also think there is a societal cost to continually uprooting people, where they’re not just moving once but are constantly moving to the flow of new jobs in perpetuity.

490 sats \ 1 reply \ @windward 1 Feb

wouldn’t most of the labor during the late 1800s have been moving to the US and just staying?

In general yes, because the US wanted settlers out west - we offered land,work +political freedom (and sometimes straight payments to come over).

When it comes to our border with Mexico at the time - we end up having the Mexican American War it's just after that we setup the Immigration Act of 1891

we( being the US government) didn't track or care about the concept of immigration too much until non-white people tried to stay as well. And we also had the Mexican American War.

i also think there is a societal cost to continually uprooting people, where they’re not just moving once but are constantly moving to the flow of new jobs in perpetuity.

absolutely - but historically, labor has been easier to move than capital.

and if you think about it, constantly uprooting and moving to somewhere new in search of better is a pretty American thing to do.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 18 Mar

Labor is easier to move than capital?

I think it’s the opposite today. You don’t have to physically move capital

Capital needs to precede labor

Egg 🥚 vs chicken 🐓

240 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Jan

The job market would have to handle those fluctuations, but I agree that it would create some uncertainty, especially for small businesses.

141 sats \ 2 replies \ @kr OP 31 Jan

beyond the scope of business though, what happens to a community if/when they go from all speaking the same language and eating the same food and sharing similar values to interacting with different sets of languages, food, and values on a recurring basis?

imo humans aren’t very good at dealing with rapid change, i worry that could be a limiting factor to this idea

373 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 31 Jan

We should be selective in who we let in- people that share our values. I’m in the Philippines right now and almost everyone here speaks pretty good English, has great work ethic, Christian and loves american culture. They are also so poor and would kill for the opportunities in the US.

322 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 31 Jan

As long as people respect each other, I don't see difference as a negative factor, on the contrary. But as I said, there must be mutual respect. If someone who arrives does not respect the culture and way of life of the host country, there is only one way forward.

607 sats \ 5 replies \ @OT 31 Jan

I'd like to see what would happen if a country just completely opened the gates.

480 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 2 Feb

Svalbard allows anyone in who can prove they can support themselves due to a long standing international treaty.

However that's the thing: the real problem with unrestricted migration is it'll overwhelm social safety nets. Svalbard is ensuring that won't happen with that policy, and the fact it's a freezing cold place in the Arctic that few want to move to.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Social safety nets for sure.

Look at Denver today. Hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kr OP 31 Jan

are there any historical examples of this?

it does seem more likely to happen moving forward as the total pool of immigrants available around the world declines.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 1 Feb

Probably everywhere about 200 years ago.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

USA had mostly open immigration until 1914

659 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 31 Jan

Two possibilities:

(a) Do away with minimum wage + all entitlement programs + public education (and associated taxes). Thereby unchecked immigration can't economically destroy the country. In this scenario you don't really need to manually set limits since if there are no free handouts, there is no reason to walk across Mexico.....

(b) Another possibility is to simply sell citizenship. It should be set at an appropriately high price (250K?). For those unable to purchase outright, it could be financed over a 20yr period. This automatically solves several problems of the above, as "deadbeats" would simply not emmigrate

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr OP 31 Jan

interesting.

the pricing of citizenship would certainly make the whole process simpler, but you might end up with a country full of rich people who desperately need labor to run their businesses and can’t get enough of it.

i suppose financing would solve some of that, but i think it still is a bit too simplistic to create a robust, diverse, prosperous country.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Gary Becker wrote about this in 2005: green card auctions.

250k is not expensive when you compare it to the cost of a house or college or university.

Australia had a similar policy: immigrants had to demonstrate financial independence, in other words, one million dollars in assets and liquidity

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Sell green cards too. I like the way you think

481 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 31 Jan

Take the government out of the equation to prevent the forceful transfer of resources from natives to immigrants, as this only creates very bad incentives with a disastrous outcome for natives, immigrants, and their respective countries.

597 sats \ 0 replies \ @ablunderfilledlife 31 Jan

An optimal immigration policy must be based on national principles and values, and for that same reason, the hoops and process should be different

On a separate note--this is certainly a popular time for people in cowboy hats (yours truly excluded) to be talking about immigration.

https://m.stacker.news/14454

534 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 31 Jan freebie

I believe the question by itself cannot be answered because immigration policy, welfare policy, and public safety are all intricately linked.

For example, I think people would be much more open to free immigration if they weren't receiving welfare benefits and if local law enforcement was sufficient to prevent any increased risk of crime.

On the other hand, when taxpayer funded welfare benefits are going to these immigrants who haven't paid into the system and when and if immigration contributes to crime, then people will want a tightened immigration policy.

But to me, I think the average westerner devalues their own culture too much. I speak as someone of Asian descent and thus having no historical ties to western culture: It would be really sad to me if Germany or France one day became a muslim-majority country. Not because I hate muslims, but because I think something of value would have been lost: a unique German or French cultural identity that had persisted for many thousands of years but now can no longer be seen.

Of course, cultures are always undergoing flux so this argument isn't definitive. Nevertheless, because I think the average westerner devalues their own culture too much, I would generally support more restrictive immigration policies in western countries. In that sense, while I don't know what the optimal immigration policy is, the first derivative points me towards more restrictions in western countries.

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 1 Feb

I'm from African descent, and first generation migrant in the west, and I so much agree with all the above.

Having grown in a very diverse country, I perfectly understand the pitfalls and problems associated with diversity. Arguably, almost all post-colonial African (political) issues can be linked to their ethnic diversity, and I see the same problems coming to the West as well.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr OP 31 Jan

i think you’re onto something here.

i’m canadian, and i would have a hard time identifying many of the things that makes canadian culture unique.

maybe this is a result of north america being settled so recently, and having so many converging cultures pour in at once.

a few generations from now, it might be easier to identify american or canadian culture at a glance.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 1 Feb

No, it's the result of you being so immersed in your own culture (I guess). I am sure if you go live somewhere else for a long period of time, it'll become more clearer to you what is distinctive about Canadian culture. (I've live in Canada for a while, and I can tell you that there are many things that make Canadian culture unique.) 🙂

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr OP 1 Feb

this could be a bias for me, i have lived in some pretty remote places in america but haven’t spent long periods of time on other continents

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Hockey night and don cherry

514 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 31 Jan

Depends on the average age of the populous of a nation, birth/death rates, need for professionals, skilled, non skilled workers, availability of jobs, housing, food.

I haven't looked closely at immigration policy all over the world so couldn't tell you which country is best at it but generally governments are pretty bad at everything they manage so maybe there isn't a good example out there.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr OP 31 Jan

i agree with a lot of this take, i wonder if there are examples of large companies that have figured out how to effectively grow and move people around the organization at scale.

not a perfect correlation to immigration policy, but maybe there are some good lessons there.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Companies vet and interview applicants.

Do countries vet and interview immigration applicants?

480 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 31 Jan

Every country is different, and is at a different stage as well.

Some require more workers in specific areas, others need young people, there might be a preference in the type of people they're looking for, etc.

It's like looking for a roommate, but in a massive scale.

445 sats \ 0 replies \ @zarko 31 Jan

i'm pro-immigration and anti-invasion

2 different things

46 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 1 Feb

I don't know what's optimal, but letting people in as tourists while not letting them conduct business or seek employment is fundamentally anti-Austrian.

Trading fiat for a night at a hotel or a meal at a restaurant is no different to trading fiat for labour or trading time for fiat.

240 sats \ 0 replies \ @herschel 31 Jan

Hey, never forget how "twice as good for half as much" worked out so well. LOL.

280 sats \ 2 replies \ @Krv 1 Feb

Ideally, an immigrant should need to be invited or sponsored by a citizen, who takes on the responsibilty for the immigrant until the immigrant proves to be a net benefit to the community.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Feb

I think this is basically right. The optimal policy would most closely resemble what would exist in a free society that respects private property rights.

It's illegitimate for the state to prevent me from inviting someone to visit or to work for me, but an uninvited person has no abstract right to enter other people's property.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 1 Feb

Immigration should be community based, not the entire country.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @StoneCodlHodl 1 Feb

A policy where immigrants are banned from ever being a citizen if they entered the country without permission - a visa or green card. And they are not able to become citizens for a minimum of 5 years (a trial period). And they or their married spouse must have held a job for the majority of this time.

And communicating in English, within those 5 years is required, or they are not eligible. I wouldn't move to another country and expect citizenship if I can't communicate with my countrymen and women.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

Yes

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @kurszusz 1 Feb

I will share with you my opinioin, but it will be an unpopulaire opinion. No problem, I take responsibility for it. So... In my opinion does not exist an optimal immigration policy which is valid for all countries. In this way to most countries have their own and unique immigration policy it is good, but not enough. About a standardizes process: I think the most useful it would be, if an international organization about immigration to maximize the number of immigrants for each country, based on their population, and this proportion to be maximum 5%. In my humble opinion, if more than 5% of a country's population are immigrants, national policy does not work properly. I'm definitely convienced, that actual barriers to immigration are extremely lows.

So...my opinion in subsections:

maximum 5% immigrants on each country, based on their population
countries to adopt just this upper limit, they can to refuse to accepts immigrants
actual barriers are too lows.

You all can see (hopefully no one of you has experienced it physically) what happening right now in the most European countries...I don't like this, and I'm sad that this can happen. I'm not racist, I never judged based on sex, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, etc...but what is a lot is a lot...

But to not talk just about negativity, and bad things... we can see the case of Germany from 1970's years... The Türkish immigrants were much more than 5% of the population if Germany...and all worked well...indeed what's more...they provided a lot of help in the recovery of the German economy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Mar

I agree with setting limits, 5 percent is reasonable, maybe 1 percent.

10 percent is too high.

USA is over 30 percent if you include undocumented

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @orangecrush 1 Feb

Guest workers with no naturalization rights.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 1 Feb

Get rid of all welfare programs and i think immigration issues solve themselves