I, as a proxy for the pro-immigration forces argue that exactly 1 question will determine how you stand on the immigration question. How much weight do we put on the lives of the immigrants?
If my life (friends/ingroup/neighbors/etc.) is the only one (group) that matters...then we keep them out. If we count the Quality of Life of an immigrant, though, as having even 1/10 the value of the QoL of a native...the utilitarian calculus is a slam dunk. We let them in...preferably barred from welfare for 2 generations.
Search This Blog
Pic
Contact
Currently Reading
Friends + Family
BlogFriends
Thinking Better
Econblogs
Pro-liberty
Political Engineering
Evolutionary realism
Health
Followers
Blog Archive
-
►
2013
(68)
- ► April 2013 (18)
- ► March 2013 (17)
- ► February 2013 (12)
- ► January 2013 (16)
-
►
2012
(390)
- ► December 2012 (26)
- ► November 2012 (28)
- ► October 2012 (39)
- ► September 2012 (19)
- ► August 2012 (8)
- ► April 2012 (51)
- ► March 2012 (48)
- ► February 2012 (44)
- ► January 2012 (71)
-
►
2010
(976)
- ► December 2010 (22)
- ► November 2010 (54)
- ► October 2010 (9)
- ► September 2010 (57)
- ► August 2010 (138)
- ► April 2010 (73)
- ► March 2010 (119)
- ► February 2010 (105)
- ► January 2010 (105)
-
►
2009
(376)
- ► December 2009 (66)
- ► November 2009 (85)
- ► October 2009 (56)
- ► September 2009 (73)
- ► August 2009 (49)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► February 2009 (1)
There was an error in this gadget
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
23 comments:
As a thought experiment of ideal policy this is fine. But under the current dispensation you will have ethnic group politics exacerbated by a 100 times worsened with affirmative action and general anti-White climate.
The utilitarian calculus may be slam dunk but utilitarianism itself is not.
How would you reply a Randian that believes in self-interest only?
PS I have no personal stake in immigration being both non-resident and non-citizen.
I was a Randian for ~10 years.
A Randian believes in both self-interest and light government touch. I'd argue that the Randian would have to say: Government shouldn't be allowed to make immigration restrictions.
Contemplationist,
Anti-white climate? France has problems. Chicago has mild race problems, mostly black-white. Some of the southwest has mild race problems, mostly white-latino. I'm not unsympathetic to the point that there are real-world considerations that make for strong costs...I just have massive issues with the anti-immigrationists NOT recognizing that their position amounts to:
Jean-Claude, you got bad luck, for not being born here. Bubba here got good luck...so you (JC) can spend 15 hours a day working and looking for work, and eating honest-to-god mud pies to ease the hunger pains, and Bubba's got AC, 3 TV's and 3000 channels and 3 cars, working 30 hours a week.
Too damn bad? I recognize that position. I don't hold it as an even feasibly moral position. But then...I have a super-low ingroup-morality meter. Maybe to some folks that doesn't just sound evil.
I was never a Randian but doesnt the "light govt touch" comes fare below rational self-interest and is probably a corollary to it.
But dont the Randians believe in a State?. And control of borders is essential to State.
The point is you are bringing in a lot of ethical suppositions. Many other consistent suppositions are possible
1) We should let in only our co-religionists.
That would include letting in only atheist (if I am an atheist holding such a position).
2)Let in people that satisfy a point-based criterion. That is actually done in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
3) We should let in our co-ethnics. USA had this policy before 1965.
IS there a rational basis for choosing between these and the Caplan's and yours position of letting in whosoever wants to come in?
I have a super-low ingroup-morality meter.
So if someone has a higher rating on his ingroup loyalty, on what basis you say his is not a feasible morality?
That is, you are judging individual moralities by a higher objective standard.
By evolution, we are to be selfish individuals. The Randian position (of enlightened self-interest) is itself tricky but your position of Universal Charity is impossible to reconcile with Evolutionary Facts.
I wonder how do you reconcile it?
I'm modeling off the best moral typology I've seen...from a psychologist, rather than a philosopher.
By observation, there are 6 basic ethical impulses in Humans (Jon Haidt).
1. Harm/Care
2. Justice/Fairness
3. Ingroup/Loyalty
4. Purity/Sanctity
5. Authority/Respect
6. Liberty/Freedom
On a harm/care & justice/fairness & liberty/freedom standpoint (The left- and libertarian ethics), it is s slam dunk case pro-immigration. The ONLY way you get an anti-immigration position is via the conservative moral impulses (Ingroup, Authority, Purity).
I personally think Authority is ethically BAD...Purity is a fiction... and ingroup doesn't move me much at all.
I could switch to a different moral typology, but htis one does awful good in explanatory terms.
On this theory itself, different people have different moral compositions.
But this theory does not privilege one moral composition over another.
So why do you say that an anti-immigrationist who is high on Purity/Authority/Loyalty does not have a "feasible" moral position?
Gyan,
I think you're referencing this sentence:
"Too damn bad? I recognize that position. I don't hold it as an even feasibly moral position. But then...I have a super-low ingroup-morality meter. Maybe to some folks that doesn't just sound evil"
I should have emphasized the "I" more strongly in here. Given that I do not buy ingroup, authority, or purity as a reason...anti-immigration comes off sounding just evil to me.
ON the other hand, I recognize that others have other moral compasses. I can, at a distance, identify that some folks think that tribal loyalties are more important than caring about the suffering. At the same time...I can't empathize. And I really want folks to note that this really is the whole of the anti-immigration argument.
"It's horrible for them foreigners, but they're foreigners, so the impact on them doesn't count."
Aretae, it's not that they're foreigners, they don't count - it's that there's billions of them. We can't help them all, and letting them all in causes us harm, and potentially ruins the good that we've created here. On a utilitarian basis, that's all lose in the long run - no one is helped, and the good here is ended.
Ensuring the prosperity of you and yours - and the societal infrastructure that supports them - is a necessary prerequisite for doing good. The Hatians and Jean-Claude can't do squat for anyone else. We can. Why is that? Because we created wealth for ourselves.
You don't need to have a redlined ingroup identification to know that you don't help others by shooting yourself in the head. Now that might result in offensive and horrifying things like Bubba having an ATV and 3000 channels, but shooting Bubba and giving his stuff to Jean-Claude isn't exactly moral either.
For me, at least, we have a perfect right to enjoy what we and our predecessors have created here. We should preserve and increase that prosperity for our children. We should help, where we can, but we do not have a moral obligation to help everyone, everywhere.
The relaxed immigration policies that we have been following for some time now are causing harm to the people already here, and without their consent. Charity is voluntary - this isn't.
Perfidy,
1. I accept one major part of your argument -- we can't let 7 billion more folks come live here, and maintain the system we have. This is a good argument for keeping immigration at an efficient level...maximizing future benefit for the immigrants.
2. Jean-CLaude can't do anything for himself because his government sucks...because they have a government whose incentives are to loot anything possible. Has nothing to do with him or Bubba here...has to do with institutional structures built by English Common Law. It ain't, mostly, "we" that created wealth...it's mostly the system that let us do so. That we were lucky to be born into, and JC wasn't.
3. Charity is indeed not required. But the notion that what side of a line someone was born on is a morally relevant fact is rather fishy as well.
4. It seems that you've made a lovely argument against all of the statist government actions that prevent us from helping folks like JC.
5. I read this backwards from you. Either we use force to keep folks who want to peacefully trade labor for payment...or we don't. More folks who work is an almost monotonically good thing for a country. The question is do we use force against folks who want nothing but to trade peacefully or not. I'm 95% down with restricting voting rights, welfare, and almost anything else you want to restrict on foreigners...except the right to peacefully trade (labor especially) with others.
6. Bubba doesn't bother me a bit. He's a lucky guy, living in a land like this, with effectively no hand in his own wealth...and that's fine with me.
I never know who libertarians are talking about when they say "we".
what do mean by 'evil' apart from 'It does not appeal to me'?.
Exactly who is against immigration?
Caplan position seems to be to let whosoever wants to come in.
You accept limits so who are you arguing with? Only against Caplan.
CVC,
1. Welcome to the blog.
2. Yours is a good point. I'd argue that one can argue on multiple levels.
A) One should not promote the initiation of the use of force.
B) Even if you are part of an organization that initiates force immorally all the time, this is a case where it would be particularly bad, even on non-libertarian standards.
I am arguing on the side of Will Wilkinson and Bryan Caplan against the anti-immigrationists.
What is the anti-immigration position you are arguing against?
Would Caplan agree with:
we can't let 7 billion more folks come live here, and maintain the system we have. This is a good argument for keeping immigration at an efficient level...
The problem with pro-immigration as you argue it, Aretae, is that we don't get what you offer:
"preferably barred from welfare for 2 generations" -- we don't get this. Immigration has become a massive welfare system.
"I have a super-low ingroup-morality meter." -- To paraphrase Stalin on war: You might not be interested in ingroup morality, but ingroup morality is interested in you. Why throw a tool out of your toolbox? Life is a struggle, and those who use ingroup morality will prevail over those who don't.
"Some are lucky and thus have reduced claim to their good life." -- It is more than luck, and you discount the non-luck factors too much.
"Fred has 3000 channels and 15 vehicles in his driveway while Jean starves working 15 hours a day." -- Few Jean's are suffering enough to warrant immigration. This does not justify the 7 billion who are on their way. If help is needed, help them in their own country. I don't see where offering Jean the 3000 channel lifestyle is moral, requiring as it does the high energy/resource input infrastructure.
RSF,
1. Some immigration is a welfare system. Most illegal immigration isn't. Which is great for me. I like illegal immigration. No minimum wage, no stupid government interference in the labor market, no/low subsidization, but great benefit to horribly poor people who wish to make their own lives better by working hard.
2. Ingroup morality. Some folks have it as a tool in their toolbox. I don't. I occasionally manage to feel like part of some group for a short period of time...but I'm a universal outsider..and displays of group solidarity mostly upset me (and have since I was 12?).
3. I disagree factually on the "few Jeans are suffering enough to warrant immigration". There are ~1 Billion people in the world who live on <$1/day ...which puts them in real danger of starvation or their childrens starvation...by no fault of their own.
4. There are 2 sides of the pro- immmigration debate. What I'm arguing: need-based (HUGE numbers); And skill-based (moderate numbers). I'm inclined to agree with the proposal that says Ph.D's should come with citizenship papers stapled on.
5. My argument is primarily that if we count AT ALL the benefit to an immigrant of getting to the US, our moral calculus looks nothing like the anti-immigrationist position.
I cannot get on your wavelength concerning immigration.
if we count AT ALL the benefit to an immigrant of getting to the US
Looks like a calculation we can't really make. The immigrant has a tendency to re-create the land of his father. If I could show you that the gain to the immigrant is less than the loss to a native born, would you change your view?
There are ~1 Billion people in the world who live on <$1/day ...which puts them in real danger of starvation or their childrens starvation...by no fault of their own.
The 1$ a day figure is bandied about, but it doesn't reflect the full access to resources. To tout immigration as a balm for this is false. Immigration is no cure for chronic desperation. The first principle of ecology is self-sufficiency.
but I'm a universal outsider..and displays of group solidarity mostly upset me
??? This may be a bit of indulgence on your part. What do you think of the rallies with masses waving the Mexican flag? What do you think of Eric Holder announcing he is not going to prosecute "my people"?
I like illegal immigration.
Rose colored glasses. Take out the crime, the traffic accidents, the drug dealers, the lines at emergency rooms, the non-integration of later generations, the added warehouse (school) space, and there is not much left.
rsf,
Factual disagreements.
1. People are poor in other countries because they live in Kleptocracies. When a small elite have all the power, it's in their interest to loot the country, and impoverish the masses. SO they do. Blaming someone who lives in North Korea (or Haiti, or Iraq 1995, or China 1970, or...) for his crappy country is akin to blaming the guy who is hit by a drunk driver for not being more careful...only less fair. Claiming that self sufficiency is what they're missing is barely worth a civil answer.
2. I think you underestimate the oppressiveness of $1/day...by a lot.
3. Mass waving of the Mexican flag is a group solidarity thing that is upsetting, just like mass waving of the American flag. Stupid people substituting symbolism for thought.
4. The numbers on Illegal immigration that get thrown around are HUGELY different when published by folks who are already anti-immigration than when published by folks who are already pro-immigration. regardless what you think...you don't have those numbers.
5. The claim I've seen bandied about by folks who seem to be impartial is that living in the USA/citizenship is itself worth about $450,000 in good institutions (rule of law) and good infrastructure (sewers).
We have a policy disagreement here, not necessarily a disagreement on facts.
5) Why are we giving away $450,000 coupons to live in the US. Who decided on this policy? Looks like agency risk run amok. This is bad policy.
4) The numbers are big no matter who you quote. The Mexican cohort is huge, and life in Mexico isn't that bad. I don't see where your refuge theory of immigration fits here. Not bad if they have the mojo to thrive and survive, but it is largely a subsidized population transfer.
3) Substituting symbolism for thought can be a winning strategy.
1,2) A poorly run kleptocracy spins off 100,000 Aretae approved refugee immigrants every year into perpetuity. What does this solve? Said immigrants form monochromatic communities in the US, and we see town and parish government become kleptocracies. Who benefits?
Is this a serious post?
Are you really suggesting that immigration policy boils down to the question of who hearts immigrants more?
The real policy question is whether turning the US into a country with the same demographic composition as Mexico would politically and economically change the US?
I believe that if the US turned into a country filled with third world immigrants, it would become a third world country. In this case, I think the whole world would be much worse off. So, my utilitarian calculus is also pretty simple, but it leads to the precisely opposite policy.
Instead of asking who hearts immigrants more, it would be more helpful if you explained how the US would stay a first world country once it's filled with a third world population.
Foseti,
Not my question.
My question is very simple...how much weight do you put on the Haitian's suffering in Haiti when addressing the immigration question.
The hardcore anti-immigrationist tends to, for predictable human reasons, put that weight at roughly zero.
My claim, again simple, is that under ANY sort of utilitarian calculus where the weight is not zero, you don't get a simple anti-immigrationist position.
There are further questions (on which you and I disagree) regarding the impact of policy vs. population on QoL in the US...and regarding democratic impact. But those are subsidiary questions.
It's not inconceivable that we could say: West-African Bobu, who will happily work 14 hour days to make an income that is above super-poor imposes sufficiently many costs on we Americans that it is more moral to actively prevent him from coming to America, and thus consigning 1 of his 4 children (on average) to death via starvation or Malaria.
But when you don't start by acknowledging that you're arguing for using force to keep Bobu where 1 of his 4 children will die...then we don't have a moral discussion to have.
And there's near ~1 Billion people not much better off than Bobu.
Post a Comment