Comment by edward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by edward | Hacker News Reader

American bioethicist Jacob M. Appel has argued that "treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary," is inherently unethical. According to Appel, such "birthrights" are only defensible if they serve "useful and meaningful social purposes" (such as inheritance rights, which encourage mothers and fathers to work and save for their children), but the "birthright of nationality" does not do so. Economist and writer Philippe Legrain argues that the countries of the world need migration to help global trade and reduce the occurrence of regional wars.

Open borders cannot be dismissed as a utopian idea, argues Harald Bauder, because they do not propose an alternative way to organize human society but rather are a critique of closed or controlled borders.

Restrictions on mobility can only be justified if it can be shown that those restrictions prevent significant harm. Since research indicates that open borders will be better for both the natives and the migrants, and at the very least have not been shown to cause major harm, those restrictions are unjustified.

Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty. Migrants from developing countries can earn higher wages after moving to a more developed country, usually lifting them from 'developing world poverty' to 'developed world poverty'. They also send remittances to relatives in their home country, the flow of remittances being estimated to be around three times the global foreign aid spending reported by the OECD.

A literature summary by economist Michael Clemens leads to an estimate that open borders would result in an increase of 67-147% in GWP (gross world product), with a median estimate of a doubling of world GDP.

From a human rights perspective, free migration may be seen to complement Article 13 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

What would prevent a tragedy of the commons-like effect where en-masse people migrate from one place to a new one, deplete it, move to new pasture, deplete, move to new pasture, asf?

When you sleep in the same place you shit you take care of it better, or suffer the consequences of squalor. Regulation against pollution, water quality, land use, acceptable norms, etc.

With open systems, no longer the state but but corporate entities would weild power. I'm not sure that is a well thought out argument. Nevermind that this would lead to a coalescing toward culture of China and the West dominating everywhere. Not generally what progressives seek as an endgame.

Moreover, the trend is to split further. See Pakistan, India Bangladesh. They used to be one country but split. Costa Rica, panama, Mexico used to be one place, but split up, former USSR split up. They want to self agglomerate, go ahead. Do it, you share culture, values, language, but instead they split up.

The proposal would result in a different kind if colonialism not too dissimilar from the Dutch east India co where corporate entities wielded enormous power but this would be worldwide.

In the modern world migrants tend to enhance, not deplete, an area.

Your model works best for agricultural societies with no land ownership. I'm not sure how many historical examples we have of that.

In general, in the modern world, population density tends to increase economic activity and have a growth effect on GDP.

In the modern world borders also prevent competition for citizens by different social and political structures. Most tyrants and despots might be completely defanged by the loss of their populace to more just and humane regions.

It is possible open borders could create a "market system" for the greatest resource in the world: human capital. Which I guess could theoretically render war obsolete.

"In the modern world migrants tend to enhance, not deplete, an area."

You realize that's the result of controlled migration, not uncontrolled migration.

But your proposal sounds like a paradox. On the one hand you have no borders but on the other hand someone is enforcing "state actor" laws. Without borders corporations become the de facto government.

Why pay Japanese auto workers 1800 yen an hour when I can just put a factory in the middle of the Indian countryside and pay 120 rupees? But instead of just autos, do that for everything!

"What would prevent a tragedy of the commons-like effect where en-masse people migrate from one place to a new one, deplete it, move to new pasture, deplete, move to new pasture, asf?"

Nothing. In fact, that happens with freedom of capital movement all the time.

I like your comment, and thank you for citing specific authorities. However, I don't see how open borders are compatible with the prosperity enjoyed by America and much of Europe. As an ethical matter I'm inclined to agree; but as a practical matter, it would appear to me that there are only two ways to create wealth: inequality within one nation, wherein a comparative few enjoy significant advantages over many, or inequality within nations, wherein a comparative few nations enjoy significant advantages over others ("wealth" is defined here as quality of life, like highly available healthcare and other resources, not just significant capital).

I don't feel educated enough on this matter to have a qualified opinion, so this is just me responding for the sake of discussion and in the interest of learning more. I'd like to hear counterpoints to what I just said. Intuitively I feel that any discussion of the ethics of open borders must (as a practical matter) include the socioeconomic ramifications (more generally, I think any discussion of ethics should include practical implications). To put it succinctly, it is not obvious to me that the quality of life enjoyed by e.g. Americans or Western Europeans can be evenly distributed.

What specifically makes you believe that wealth can only be attained through inequality? My gut suspicion of wealth in inequal systems is that it was transferred rather than created.

This appears construed. LIFO: The human rights do not include a right to _enter_ any country (except maybe one's own). You may also not leave a country if you are subject to lawful arrest.

Sending money home is a most human thing to do. Sending welfare money home may be seen as defrauding the common insurance policy of the host country. And what are the component parts of the suggested increase in GWP? Travel? Housing?

Also: What are the effects on the host country labour market?

The nation state serves as an organizational unit in promoting stability in and between nations. Its borders are an inherent limit to this concept.

At these borders, the nation state can enforce the necessary controls to compensate for different legislation on VAT, gun ownership rules, as well as to ensure foreign forces cannot simply perform a sneak attack by infiltration.

In short: Borders promote a structured mechanism for supporting peace in a world with plenty of incentives for people to kill, raid, rape and pillage.

Sometimes closed borders and protectionist policies can work. https://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/... looks at how closing borders prevents migrants from taking jobs at lower pay (This is NOT about the US).

""treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary...""

And why don't those people treat themselves well? If they are their own nation, cannot they have selfdetermination and decide how to carry out that selfdetermination?

Because power inequality can be enforced through violence, especially state violence, effectively enough to prevent a populace from changing their situation.

Would meddling in the affairs of other countries help with that at all? Should we export our governmental and economic systems and stabilize those places, or would that be considered colonization? And would that be a bad thing?

I mean, if we'd allow everyone from say, Bahamas (a nice country, actually) migrate to Belgium, because Belgium has a good economy, why would we not let Belgium go in and colonize the Bahamas, make it part of Belgium? I mean, in either case, the pop of Belgium + Bahamas are under Belgian govt.

> Free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty.

Temporarily, yes, and it often comes with the burden of providing for the migrant for the rest of their life.

the most effective way to end poverty long-term is to create conditions in which populations of impoverished nations fix their own problems on their own soil "over there".

Exactly. The US basically had a huge forced immigration scheme a couple hundred years ago. Their descendants are still having a hard time in the US and it continues to be a huge issue for everyone involved, as recent protests show. Somehow, an even larger migration setup is going to work out smoothly?

Not to mention, if everyone could elect to move wherever they wanted: what % of the world's population would overwhelmingly choose West EU/US/Canada?

Even without the "burden of providing": Drive around Toronto and outlying areas and see, that even with Canada's still restrictive immigration policy, even across economic status, the idea that everything mixes into one cohesive society is laughably false.

Forced vs voluntary migration is quite an important distinction.

Argument is for removing barriers, not for forcing people to go somewhere.

Forced including slavery, racism and every legal maneuver possible to further suppress economic and social development. Not unlike what we do to illegal immigrants today.

Bringing people out of low-productivity environments is good for everyone, even though there may be some transition struggles (probably the number one concern for people who favor restricting immigration). It is also most likely the thing that will fix "over there" because it will force change in places losing talent, as well as educate a bunch of people, many of whom will likely want to go fix their low-productivity hometowns and countries.

Charter cities are another option, but the argument that "we need to fix over there so don't let people move" is just perpetuating the status quo more than anything.

I have seen national borders being called "world-wide caste system".

I'm not sure if it's exactly right, but I am sure that our notions of what nationality means will be challenged in the coming decades.

It's interesting that we have such reverence for statements of ethics like this when they are essentially opinions and they can vary depending upon the values of the people who hold them. There should be no pretense to objectivity in ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com