Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

Just to add some rationale.. this is probably the coolest Economist article I've read in the last few months. It highlights some of the greatest aspects of brand America and why opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad thing.

I think encouraging a policy of significantly increasing US immigration to people unlikely to cause a drain on the public system should override more selective policies like the "startup visa," as further general immigration can only continue to help America's cause.

View on HN

I disagree that this article highlights "why opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad thing." The article strongly supports immigration, which is to be expected from the economist, but I'd say it expresses no opinion on unlimited immigration, other than to mention that "No rich country allows unlimited immigration".

I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant" because it does not adopt the unique policy of unlimited immigration.

I'm also a little surprised to see the economist describing immigration as a ponzi scheme, even if they do call it one that works. Ponzi schemes always appear to work for the first few iterations.

> I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant"

The USA is anti-immigrant, not because it doesn't open the floodgates, but because it has zero organized system with which to import foreign talent that is needed domestically. You have policies to allow existing immigrants to sponsor family members, and a myriad of other methods by which people that the country has no dire need for get in, while talented people demanded by local industries are locked out.

In this way the US is far, far, far behind every other developed western nation.

There's a big gap between "has zero organized system" and "anti-immigrant"! I agree that other countries have a more rational system based on national self-interest - take fewer immigrants, make sure they're the most productive ones, profit. Hey, if I were New Zealand, I'd be selective too. Their country is essentially a beautiful national park. A few top scientists isn't going to hurt anything, and it'll help. But opening the floodgates would be a terrible idea.

That said, I absolutely disagree that this makes the US "anti-immigrant." In some ways, it makes the US more pro immigrant - we're more likely to give people a chance to prosper who wouldn't otherwise have had it. Sure, we'd benefit more by only allowing in top engineers, physicians, lawyers, and bankers, would would that really make us pro-immigrant?

Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?

This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic exercise.

>"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?"

Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole world may experience a net benefit as well.

On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is necessary for subsistence.

The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line. If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism.

To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our immigration policies.

I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes it smart", not "what makes it right".

Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's immensely pro-immigrant.

Regardless if it's "right" or not, it's likely more valuable to the country. On the other hand, being able to bring the family might further increase the value of a skilled immigrant.

> opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad thing

Easily another hundred million people would move here if they could. That would be disastrous.

Would it? It might be, but I'd be interested to see the rationale. There's plenty of empty housing stock across the country that needs filling (and house values that most Americans would love to float upwards again) and the more people who live in the country, the bigger market for products, and the bigger the economy (though not necessarily higher in per capita terms at first).

I'd be interested to see the rationale

If you imported 100 million Einsteins and Catherine Zeta-Jones', then the positives of mass immigration would be fairly obvious. The negatives, less so. But even when the quality of immigrants is high, you have issues. For instance, there are large numbers of Chinese in Malaysia, the Philippines, etc, and they are exactly what you'd think you'd want: They're smart, hard-working, entrepreneurial. The effect, however, is resentment and affirmative-action-style laws against them. They certainly improve the GDP of the geographic areas they live in, but it's the per capita rundown of that GDP that matters to the natives. European immigration to America really did improve the place a lot, unless you're on a reservation. It's not unusual.

In practice, however, you aren't going to get your dream migrants, but a hit-and-miss assemblage. Entrepreneurs and professionals, yes, but also servants for the UMC and peasants for big agra and chicken-packers for Tyson, as well as criminals and parasites.

There's plenty of empty housing stock

Think twice when you say, essentially, "Well, we have shit to sell so let's import some customers." Very bad thinking there. The houses were built by companies making a bet on future demand. They bet wrong. It is absolutely unacceptable to manipulate demographics (and keep prices far too high) in order to backstop a gambler.

When people immigrate to the US, they don't settle down in the middle of Montana or Nebraska. They go to the already crowded areas such as New York, California, Texas, and Florida. Are you going to force them to move to the desolate areas where KKK sentiment is high?

City infrastructure would be stretched to the breaking point. There is already too much traffic in some areas with no solution in sight. It is also unwise to turn all your possible arable land into farms. States like California have experienced water shortages that aren't going to be magically fixed with a couple million workers, they are going to get worse.

Of course speaking to the entrepreneur crowd here none of this matters to you personally because it would be to your advantage to be able to exploit foreign labor, make your millions, and then move to the suburbs or emigrate to a tax haven before the situation gets out of hand.

On this point, you are very wrong. There are large immigrant communities all through the Midwest, Great Lakes, and plains states. And if that isn't good enough, we have another tool in our box. We can find incentive's (or simply create regulations) to encourage immigrants to specific locations.

I do find your jaded anti-entrepreneurial comment to be unnecessarily vicious and ignorant though.

On this point, you are very wrong. There are large immigrant communities all through the Midwest, Great Lakes, and plains states.

I am wrong? Where is your proof, or did you just pull this idea straight from thin air as I find many HN readers doing these days to support their delusions?

Here is my proof.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/maps/TF...

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/i...

So you are going to compare 3-5% foreign born population as something significant compared to 17-26% in areas like Florida and New York? Keep in mind that the total population in a state like New York is several magnitudes larger than these "Midwest" and "Great Lakes" states.

The illegal immigration chart points out that the only great lakes state on the top 10 immigrant states is Illinois which is unsurprisingly home to the massively crowded city of Chicago. None of the other types of cities you state rank in the top 10 where the last 10 is a measily 2%. Compare this with California (25%), Texas (14%), or Florida (8%), and there is simply no comparison.

We can find incentive's (or simply create regulations) to encourage immigrants to specific locations.

Ok, you and your unproven incentives can magically force immigrants to move into jobless areas where xenophobia is high. Great logic.

I do find your jaded anti-entrepreneurial comment to be unnecessarily vicious and ignorant though.

How is it vicious and ignorant? This is the logical conclusion, and knowing other entrepreneurs like myself, this is the current evaluation of the system. The system does not favor native employees.

Next time I suggest checking your reasoning before making unsubstantiated claims, despite how badly you want your beliefs to be true.

Why so angry?

You just made my claim for me. %5 is nothing to sneeze at. Further, the US is more than a "top 10" list. You cannot simply discard vast portions of the country because they don't appear in the top 10 list and thusly don't support your argument.

Meanwhile, why would all new immigrants will automatically go to the largest existing community? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Has someone conducted a poll asking potential immigrants where they'd like to be, and found that these are the most likely states?

Regarding xenophobia, Texas has a significant immigrant population and is also anecdotaly considered a very xenophobic state. Can you resolve your claim that immigrants won't go to xenophobic areas with the reality that is Texas? How about Southern California, which has struggled with race and immigration fears for over a decade?

And what kind of person suggests that the entire inner corridor of the US is xenophobic anyway? Are you seriously claiming that every town from Ohio to Nevada to Louisiana to Idaho is xenophobic? That is a stunningly offensive, unfounded, and unsupportable argument.

"Next time", I suggest not lecturing others about "next time" in the middle of a conversation. It implies that you believe you have "won" the conversation (which, being a reasonable person having a reasonable discussion, you wouldn't do, right?), it doesn't make you sound like a particularly pleasant person, and it doesn't add to the conversation.

Why so angry?

Because you just called me "very wrong", as well as "unnecessarily vicious and ignorant".

%5 is nothing to sneeze at.

It appears that you didn't even bother to read. Illinois is home to Chicago, home of one of the largest cities in the US. There is nothing rural about it not to mention having one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

Meanwhile, why would all new immigrants will automatically go to the largest existing community? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I presented to you 2 pieces of evidence from the US government, while all you have done is produced anecdotes and refusals to believe the facts. By now it is clear that you are trying very hard to ignore all the evidence, so I am done conversing with you.

It would cause quite the housing/employment bubble at first, and I wouldn't want to be there when the immigration flood stops and the bubble bursts. Slow, incremental changes are easier to adapt to (in a lot of relevant ways), and that's probably the best reason immigration is currently throttled -- although it doesn't justify how quotas are currently distributed.

Slums of Manilla, Bogota, Delhi, Rio relocated? You really don't get that we're not talking about a bunch of guys in khakis and polos showing up ready to pitch in at the office on Monday? Believe it or not, the well educated and accomplished are generally happy where they are. The Mexican middle class does not emigrate.

Freshwater issues alone dictate a fall in the standard of living with further population increases.

The US got away with rather open immigration during the Ellis island wave by having virtually no safety net or public assistance. Over half of Italians who tried to make it here went broke and went home. If you want to kill every form of social welfare, public school included, maybe we can consider highly liberalized immigration. But not before.

Believe it or not, the well educated and accomplished are generally happy where they are. The Mexican middle class does not emigrate.

Not all, but I bet a reasonable percentage would take the option. For example, the UK (hardly a poor country) alone had 400,000 emigrants in 2008 - I'd doubt that many were poor.

Indeed, though there is a financial element even for the middle class.

Speaking from experience, there are several reasons for British emigration:

* Older people often move to Spain, Malta, etc. to enjoy the better climate in their retirement (or before). I don't know precisely how big a portion that is, but it's non-trivial. (It would be nice to see a demographic breakdown of that 400,000.)

* House prices and the cost of living in the UK are insane, particularly alongside the heavy tax burden (an inevitable consequence of the enormous welfare state). I make two or three times the salary in the US than I would in the UK, and can actually afford to buy a home. This is not poverty per se, but there is a huge difference in how achievable are your life goals, and that's a motivation to move. As a young, then-unmarried man, there was nothing holding me back.

* The UK is an awful, freedom-crushing, oppressive, depressing police state where photographing national monuments is illegal, carrying a pocket knife can land you in jail, and defending your family against an intruder will net you a longer sentence than the burglar. I would never willingly move back.

Should I be granted US citizenship, I will be encouraging my brother to follow me off that sinking ship. Add two or three to that four hundred thousand.

It´s time we adopt a "startup visa:" prefix on links here, as it´s becoming a category lately

Reply on news.ycombinator.com