No way a welfare state, democracy and open borders go together. Open borders isn’t going to be costless for existing residents.
The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
True, if you don’t have the concept of community. If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
This is where xenophobia comes from, nevermind the fact that however slice it (unless counting military action/colnialism as immigration, like you do) 'community members' are more likely to commit acts of violence on other community members than non-members.
> From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
This is a rich example to use given what you're arguing for. Colonizers weren't immigrants, they were colonizers. Blaming the original inhabitants' border control (in a world where borders were very different than the ones we have today) for colonialism, and conflating modern-day migration with colonization, is disgusting.
Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.
- spread of disease
- erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures
- erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture
- identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines)
Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance.
I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.
Cross-border population movements are a potential vector for disease transmission. Just look at the Google Scholar results from some similar searches, especially [1] and [2]. Casting objective physical science concerns as some sort of subjective expression of xenophobia is unhelpful to mitigating or solving real problems.
[1]https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2000/000...
It’s hard to imagine how much use it would be; an active fever is only one indicator of whether someone is carrying an infectious illness, so such a test will lead to many false positives and negatives.
I'm fine with a sober discussion about the economic and moral pros/cons of immigration, and about fair and humane means of controlling immigration.
But this line of argument seems like a red herring.
I guess they are easy to miss, they just look like camcorders on tripods, usually, but the checkpoints themselves and their purpose are usually clearly marked.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-27/a-thermal-camera-syst...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30523865/ns/technology_and_science...
The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
It's just not a serious part of the discussion, and it is likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
To clarify, the body-heat scans aren't "some people at some border crossings", they are literally every human who walks through the gate at most airports, including Incheon, Taipei, Narita, BKK, and Noi Bai (Hanoi). Usually just before the immigration checkpoints.
>>>The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
Handbook on Migration and Security, pg 320: "The spread of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic...was facilitated by human mobility."[1]
Or look at the quarantines during the 2009 influenza pandemic[2]. Entire hotels quarantined and cruise ships diverted.
>>>likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
I'm not trying to paint foreigners as "unclean". I AM a "foreigner". I'm an African-American living in Japan. I know exactly what being treated as an unclean underclass is like. I'm nevertheless able to rationally assess that the country's robust immigration controls are likely a major contributing factor to managing the assimilation rate of other cultures in order to maintain national stability.
But instead of responding with well-sourced and rational debate points you've instead lept to implications that I must just be a xenophobe who hates brown people.
[1]https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=ZP6lDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#Infection_co...
That's not what I thought or meant; I was referring more broadly to the motivations of many of the people who make this a primary focus of their anti-immigration argument, not accusing you personally of this.
To summarise my thoughts on this:
- The topic of immigration is one I've wrestled with and debated for well over a decade, since it became a big issue in Australia, and I've generally been the one railing at open-borders advocates, asking in exasperation "how does this work economically?"
- These days I don't get emotionally invested in positions on immigration, as it's an issue that's too big and complex for any strong opinion I might form to make any difference (and I've literally made myself sick by getting too emotionally invested in things in the past so I now take care to avoid doing that about any political issue).
- That said, my position on open-borders policies is that it sounds like a nice idea but the onus is on advocates to articulate a way in which it can work, economically and practically, and I haven't heard anyone do so convincingly.
- My objection to the focus on disease-spread as a risk of immigration it's just not a convincing argument, due to the fact that it's a concern that applies pretty much equally to tourism and authorised immigration [1], and it exposes the proponent to accusations of xenophobia - justifiably in many cases.
In short: I'm on the side of those who are skeptical about uncontrolled immigration; I just want all the arguments in the discussion to be convincing, and to avoid being derailed by arguments over xenophobia, which is inevitable when people cry "disease!" in the context of immigrants.
[1] I understand those prosecuting the argument above are focused on the risk of immigration that doesn't go through any kind of checkpoints where vetting can take place; but there are versions of open-borders systems that can still require passing through checkpoints and undergoing health checks if necessary.
The CDC literally has policies about who can be admitted to the U.S. as an immigrant or refugee based on their health status[1], including whether or not they are carrying a communicable disease (such as TB).
This unsubstantiated inference about other people's intentions is misguided at best, and disingenuous at worst.
[1]https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/medical-exa...
It is a risk, one that we can and do take into consideration. Anyone seeking to be a permanent resident in the U.S. is required to have certain vaccinations. That requires a certain level of border and immigration control to enforce.
Having a well-functioning medical system is good, but won't help much if your dealing with the spread of disease that isn't easily treatable. Or rather, quarantine is part of a well-functioning medical system. And yes, shutting down travel to/from certain countries experiencing a serious epidemic has been a real consideration in the past.
Look, I'm not saying "shut down the borders". All I'm saying is that completely open borders are impractical and ignores real risks.
The economic argument for free migration is identical to the one for free trade[1].
Do you find it hard to take free trade advocates seriously?
[1]https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/