A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer.
Yet they built the paywall.
There seem like a lot of obvious objections that are not addressed and raises more questions than it asks.
> Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace
What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.
I think articles like this tend to simplify or handwave the caveats in unrealistic ways, so their result is always a lopsided analysis. Example of such a simplification:
> But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.
Yeah they could, but most won't. See: The bay area, Boston, NYC. (A few do: Montreal, or Tokyo, which added more housing than all of California last year)
These guys basically believe in magic soil, and that the inhabitants of "rich countries" are inherently interchangeable. The institutions just magically appeared separate from culture and demographics.
Institutions are mostly policies, procedures and process.
What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one? Would you rather work in a team of geniuses with no process, or a team of average developers who follow best practices?
I believe the article is talking about the (lack of) corruption and general respect for rule of law (and the implications it entails; such as a independent judiciary and fair/transparent trails).
The author really should've gone into detail and defended their assertion though.
> A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer.
Yet they built the paywall.
The actual analogy would be a world where you need to get a visa per-magazine to read the articles they have, to the which you might not qualify.
A newspaper-immigration-patrol would look at this comment of yours on HN and possible deny you access, you should watch out.
> What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.
A great open question is what happens to institutions when there are culture changes. But bear in mind that without immigration, there would be no institutions in the U.S. whatsoever. It is a point of view of past immigration being great, but current and future immigration being bad, which I think it makes very little sense holistically speaking.
> Yeah they could, but most won't.
There really isnt a limit on living space. The rent is high in places like the bay area precisely because moving there is still a good deal. Problems of residential prices are widely overstated.
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges
Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this:
> To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.
You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than the authors of the article.
If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.
Do you really think that if a billion people wanted to migrate in a few months we would have anyway of stopping them? They would have to be motivated by something pretty terrible and yet allow them mobility at the same time. Like say a war. Which we see all the time.
Nobody is forcing you to. The application of migration restrictions is forcing other people to not move. In terms of individual liberties you lose nothing in this case.
Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing".
If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
> then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing".
Taxed to pay them what. If you have a beef with welfare programs in the us, you should take it with the welfare programs. Foreigners never had a voice or a vote in terms of what qualified for such kinds of programs.
> If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
This argument could be made verbatim against many things that today are considered bigotry or illegal.
Indeed - and they should not be a beneficiary either. Do you for a moment believe that "New Deal" / "Great Society" laws would ever have passed, if under the understanding that the whole population of the Earth would be entitled to receive it?
> This argument could be made verbatim ... that today are considered bigotry
That does not make the argument erroneous, only un-PC.
> That does not make the argument erroneous, only un-PC.
It makes it heinous, because heinous things are said and done with that argument. "We shouldn't hire women, because they will affect the culture we have", etc.
> "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."
No, it's this:
> Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.
> Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience.
So less than a billion, net, world wide.
> Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
Well you are free to continue to pay the higher price for the person of the culture you prefer. Others who don't care can pay a lower price. Isn't that capitalism?
So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty" is that it will be "less than a billion", then the article didn't exactly reassure. It's a quibble between basic numbers (population in the third world) vs hypothetical numbers (Gallup's rolodex), not a substantial discussion or disagreement.
> Well you are free to continue to pay the higher price for the person of the culture you prefer. Others who don't care can pay a lower price. Isn't that capitalism?
This is not how it works in Germany: migration proponents want tax paying citizens to sustain their utopic dream. Once they have to pay out of their own pocket, the position changes drastically.
>European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male.
I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue?
I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial conflicts.
Then there is this:
>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges
This seems like a very sane system. Why is this not something we do? Do we not care about local interests at all as long as immigration isn't "too high"?
Even if you restrict yourself to young males then immigrants have a disproportionate share in crime at least in Germany, actually immigrants in Germany commited ~40% of all crimes in 2015, with a rapid increase in the last few years. It is also pretty obvious on the street level: drugs for example are primarily sold by immigrant gangs, for example africans with turkish bosses.
>According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015.
But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold — by 440 percent.
In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.
In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The crime rate among immigrants (and their descendants) is much higher than among "ethnic" Germans. That means the typical German is less likely to engage in crime.
In absolute numbers of course, there are much more Germans than immigrants, so Germans commit more crimes total, as you would expect.
This topic is sensitive, so people just fling around with percentages and relative numbers until it appears to fit whatever narrative they would like to be true. It's not really helping convince anybody, everybody just keeps believing what they already believe.
Of course, the idea that Germany is now "riddled with crime" is just another Trumpism. Considering that we have a million refugees, the increase in crime is rather low and all the alarmism isn't justified.
It means compared to previous crime statistic, ie, anyone who would have shown up in nationwide crime stats previously. By typical German they mean typical person living in Germany.
Headline: "Police: refugees commit less crime than Germans"
Quote: "Interior Minsiter Thomas de Maizière responded to the news by saying: "The current trend shows that refugees are just as unlikely to commit crimes as comparable groups among the current population. The majority of them don't commit crimes, they are seeking protection and and peace in Germany."
Actual Quote: "Ganz allgemein sprach Innenminister de Maizière von derzeit verfügbaren „Tendenzaussagen, dass Flüchtlinge im Durchschnitt genauso wenig oder oft straffällig werden wie Vergleichsgruppen der hiesigen Bevölkerung“."
Translation: "We have have information that suggests that refugees commit crime about as often, or as rarely, as comparable groups in the local population".
First of all, the interior minister obviously has a big incentive to downplay whatever problems are caused by the decisions of his administration. Secondly, he's talking about the refugees, not migrants in general. Also, what are "comparable groups"? It's not defined. If it's "comparable", then it's not going to be "typical" nor "average". The information he references is kept "confidential", by the way. In any case, absolutely nowhere does it say that refugees or migrants are less likely to commit crime, even though that's what is being reported by both English sources.
The reality is that crime rate among migrants is higher, for whatever reason. Migrants were responsible for 10-20% (differing by state) of violent crime in 2016, well above their share of the population:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/kriminalitaet-in-deutschl...
This article does mention however that Syrians/Iraqis are less likely to commit those crimes than migrants from other countries.
On page 6 the first table: 38,5% non-german, 19,6% immigrants. It contains a lot more stats that might be interesting to you. The BKA publishes those yearly. In 2016 the numbers were 40.5 % non-german, 21.5% (page 13): https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol...
Of course as the report points out there is a large number of unreported crimes and there is a probably politically motivated paragraph where they explain that the numbers are of course more complicated than that and that both germans and non-germans on average commit very few crimes (page 9).
Counting in crimes like drug sales is misleading. Selling drugs is really just a business opportunity, albeit illegal. Native Germans tend to have much better opportunities and more to lose. To some degree the same is true for robbery/burglary as well. It's economic pressure and incentives that make these crimes attractive, these people aren't so much immigrants but rather crime tourists (some of them from EU countries, mind you).
If you look at crimes without a profit motive, things tend to even out or turn around. You'll rarely see an immigrant responsible for arson or property damage, for example. In absolute terms, most crimes (that are persecuted) are of course profit-driven and the most crimes occur in poor areas.
Comments like this which are political rather than technical in nature are considered off-topic. If you post like this frequently you are very likely to be banned.
If we spread out all the worldwide social welfare resources among all the people worldwide who would require social welfare, the average would be so far below the current levels of first world social welfare that it's basically the same as the system had been destroyed.
It's not about finite vs infinite, it's about the notion that currently "the good social infrastructure" in the first world can cover a small portion of the global population, doesn't have much excess capacity, and is obviously not sufficient to provide a comparable level of life/service/whatever to everyone in the world. Dividing it equally would mean a regression to the global average which is unacceptably low compared to first world standards, so the first world would never accept this.
+1. I, as an immigrant, contribute to social security even though i am not a citizen and have no plans to become one and therefore will not be eligible to social security benefits even though i contribute to it.
Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers.
As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.
This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.
It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.
When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immigrants who are the 1st class citizens. So as long as you can make babies on the US soil you are going to get welfare no matter what.
Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.
Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back.
Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation.
> they do not even track visa overstays ATM
Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
It is, of course, a political issue. The Federal government has little power inside the country (e.g. see how several states have open trade in drugs, which the USFG proclaimed illegal) and states, who hold most of the interior power, are very incentivised to have illegals since most of welfare comes from the Fed while the state's own power is determined chiefly by its population number so a state has a lot of upside and almost no downside by growing its population through illegal immigration.
I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.
> The Federal government has little power inside the country
The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the constitution). States that say "weed is legal" are only "getting away" with that because enforcement of the federal law on that matter is unpopular and probably a waste of time. It's a similar case with "sanctuary cities", although ICE is starting to operate in those.
Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design.
Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement.
>Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts.
The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.
> It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause...
Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of.
> Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law.
What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country.
> Exactly. See if it will ever pass.
I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House.
> The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level.
I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.
>What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs.
I am quite aware of this.
>Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country.
Sure. Imagine you are an officer of ICE. You sit in the nice office in the federal building in LA. How does your day go by? You deport people? Which people? They are not exactly lining up to your doors to get deported, are they? So you need to find them somehow, bring them to court, get a judgment and then find them again and remove them from the country. This is the police work and you are not equipped to do it. You don't have beat cops, you don't get information from various agencies illegals use (from schools to social services, all under state control despite spending federal money). You were supposed to get referrals from the local law enforcement. You are not getting any. You act on tips and bust 1000 people a quarter in a city, which likely has several million illegals.
>I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House.
If only passing the House had been enough to make a law...
> At some point, enforcement is required.
Sure, but then states would actually help enforcement instead of impeding it as they are doing now.
In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open
Immigration to the USA was never "open". Entire races were periodically excluded (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act), and legal immigrants were subject to health checks.
> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is.
That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with the Naturalization Law of 1802). Up until the 1960's, America was about 90% white, so 1800's to early 1900's immigration law has very little to do with "what it is" today.
It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals.
This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically.
I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.
> It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65.
Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America.
> This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration
It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible.
I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
it just doesn't work that way. there's this thing called equality before the law, or something.
this sort of thing has been tried and US state and local governments are generally not allowed, by federal law, to deny the most expensive benefits and services to immigrants. it's, like, the US constitution and stuff.
note that educational services (i.e. schools) are a very large part of state budgets. like, sometimes the largest single component of a state budget. so the big savings would have to come from that sort of service denial, which again, is not constitutional.
A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more protectionism than existed before (Brexit).
Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies (Puerto Rico).
I imagine the migrants would get paid by other migrants to build the hypothetical cities. That is the way literally every US city happened after all — well, migrants or their descendants.
The world will be richer, I personally will be poorer. I'm OK with that if it was evenly distributed, but I doubt my fellow rich caucasian men will be.
>One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.
In this utopian paradise the author describes is he willfully ignoring the fact that different cultures exist? Not all cultures are equal, no matter what the current narrative tells you. This is a terrible, empty article.
>If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.
> but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.
He had a strong reaction because he's tired of these kinds of lies being perpetuated by our media. Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population.
Did I miss the part where they discuss the economics of having a larger worker pool? like how that would affect existing workers? that seems like an enormous question to not address fully.
In Germany a healthy young migrant coming from a country that is not at war gets more money per month in welfare help than retired teachers get in Romania. What is their incentive to work?
It would not affect everyone equally, and wages in many areas would definitely go down. For example, if the US recognized medical degrees from other countries, the influx of doctors would be so large that the income for a physician would drop tremendously. So the physicians that are already employed should (if they represent their own interest) be very against such a policy. But the aggregate would end up being that the total salaries earned by doctors in the us would go up.
i.e. if you had 5 doctors at 500k, and you opened up, maybe you would have 10 doctors at 300k. This is a natural economic progression. Same with software engineers: open borders would definitely have a stark impact on median income, but there would be more startups and more work and more people employed in the sector.
Looking at the concerns of US population, I'd bet that they'd be quite happy with the notion that increased supply could cause a significant decrease in doctor salaries and thus medical costs.
Protection benefits the industry, lack of protectionism benefits everyone else; and patients have much more votes than doctors.
The second part is true, but the patients do not so clearly see the benefit, while the doctors would personally see and feel the pain of such a measure! The interest and understanding of the latter makes them very powerfully motivated.
Residencies are one of the most grueling experiences for human beings ,and a restriction that makes doctors go through that process twice (in their home country and then in the US) amounts to a strong restriction.
Asking an experienced doctor to go through a residency is worse than asking software developers to get a doctorate if they want to write code in the US.
Aladair Macintyre: "Consider what it is to share a culture. It is to share schemata which are at one and the same time constitutive of and normative for intelligible action by myself and are also means for my interpretations of the actions of others" https://toutcequimonte.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/macintyre...
Low context cultures are more atomized and legalistic. Free migration is one of major the things that justifies the national security state powers... which ironically these days in the west there is no sense of a nation outside of the state. There is a weakness in that notion because the internet has weakened the state's ability to integrate minorities because those people can live mentally in their homelands.
Aristotle on immigration: "Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution;"
Aquinas on immigration: "Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people."
What if the flow happened from richer to poorer countries?
Developing and undeveloped countries are notoriously protectionists, specially of their visa/labor markets. What would happen if they opened their borders to all, presumably including qualified/entrepreneurial people?
I dont know how protectionist poorer countries are in general, but in south america there arent strong restrictions, because it is considered that people from developed countries are a lot more productive, precisely the effeect you are looking for. Sometimes there are rules meant to mimic the other ones as a deterrent (you dont let mine, i dont let yours kind of thing. Brazil and Argentina do this)
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?
What do you do when after a couple of years those very same immigrants starting protesting and rioting for civil rights like equal access to welfare benefits, equal taxes, right to vote and attribute racism as a motive for denying it to them rather than the original policy goal of making them pay their way and not overwhelm the locals in elections?
Tech crowd is doing pretty well as it is. Low skilled and unskilled workers are already kind of f#$ed, with more to come due to globalization, and (later) automation.
Factories need consumers. Already trade agreements require a certain percentage of American material on a product or allow import in exchange for US export.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.
Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions.
I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be to categorize and justify creating rules to prevent other people from moving around.
We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed.
We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 2016, about 3% of taxes earned total, to support these people. We've managed to "oppress" the flow of refugees with unpopular measures. If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?
For someone escaping a war torn country, finding a wall he cant surpass to escape death and destructive would surely be oppressive. He wants to do something that provokes no harm, and a state is telling him he can't. If you don't like that they represent a cost to the german state, you can take it up to the idea of welfare, and if you removed completely for the people that entered the country, they would still go to germany, because where they come from the situation is much worse.
The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
> If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?
This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them.
With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries. Your original argument however is that everyone should be able to move freely. There were migrants coming in from Africa well before the Syria/Iraq crisis, though most of those never ended up in Germany, but rather in Greece or Italy.
> The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
> With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
> You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries
I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy.
> If you want to make an utilitarian argument
Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology.
This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something.
> We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in.
I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions.
> Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries?
Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots.
> You know, just like the US does it.
U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene.
> Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
"We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity.
> If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
> I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology.
Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.
> Then don't..who is asking for that?
If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.
> U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018...
Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).
> "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you?
We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?
> That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.
Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful.
> Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.
The absolute gain is more important that the rate of return. If you only allow 1 single person to immigrate into a country, of course, that person will have the greatest return in taxes. He will not need any help of any kind and will bring lots of business. The second person you would allow would not be as great, but still will be positive. Any restriction or cutoff point would make it so the amount of absolute gains is reduced. Excepting a few cases like security or extreme refugees, all immigrants are net positive in their aggregate, because they need to work to survive and at least pay for themselves.
>If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.
This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in. If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country. Sure some people will make the mistake of trying to escape into qatar or north korea to find themselves making a terrible mistake, but the vast majority of people that emigrate are making a conscious choice of worse to better. Education or not is part of the package a country can choose to give or not. Argentina gives free college education to foreigners, the U.S. doesn't for example. The U.S. still has a way more positive immigration flow.
> Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).
Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas. The quotas are there because it's politically favorable to say that you will protect the jobs of americans from being taken away by some foreigner. Doctor or farmer, its the same effect. Some people are restricted to the economical gain of a few. In economic terms, the aggregate is a loss. Again, thats the point of the article that tries to draw bounds on how much could be gained.
> We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?
I think its important to remember that economics is not about money. Money is not value, goods and services are. If someone makes 10 forks, and then with an extra immigrant you make 19 forks, society is richer. Every person has an interest that noone else does his own job, to charge maximum value for it. But by going against that interest, everything you consume will be cheaper and better because more of that will be produced and hence consumed.
Private interests are always against many kinds of freedom. The fact that you are benefiting private interests with the addition of the power of the state is a tragedy. So lets not cheer in support for laws and policies that do just that!
Its interesting however that companies in general would love open immigration, it is trades and professions that would be against that (i.e. lawyers,doctors, accountants, etc).
It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.
> The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.
I dont know if you know San Francisco, but it has plenty of people in the street and they are not mobbing. But not only that, but you are looking at the problem as ...
> This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in.
I'm not in an economics class, I'm following local developments.
> If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country.
That's a total fallacy. The majority people arriving here initially knew next to nothing about Germany. They were promised by their traffickers all kinds of nonsense, like that they would get a free house and a car. It took a while for the message to spread that it ain't all cotton candy over here. Some still had false beliefs, because people like to believe comfortable lies. Either way, if they come here they get refugee benefits, which is better here than in most other EU countries. It's not an opportunity in my sense, it's a handout.
> Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas.
I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about choosing who you let in. I'm not arguing for the exact same system that the US has, so stop pointing out its flaws. If we set the requirement that everyone would need to have at least basic literacy and English skills, a huge amount of the people coming in right now wouldn't be allowed. That would still be way more people than we actually need.
> It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.
Again, who cares? You're not convincing anybody that needs convincing.
You keep arguing in terms of idealizations (or outliers, like San Francisco). Your argument may make sense there, it won't win you anything in the real world. In the real world, you have to deal with real people. Even if the economic argument makes sense, it's a long-term development. Do you believe people want cheaper products later or keep their job now? If they lose their jobs now, they can't just retrain in a heartbeat to become something else, especially not here in Germany. They'll be unemployed, which is culturally a source of shame.
As for the backlash: We've had hundreds of arson attacks against refugee housing and we've had a right-wing populist party come out of nowhere and gain 10% in the elections. Again, well over 95% of refugees have no jobs and little job prospects, even after being here for over a year. How many years will it take, according to your calculations?
The German population is also assuming that these refugees will leave eventually, not stay. Of course, the same was assumed about the Turkish workers coming in in the sixties (they were referred to as "guest workers"). Most of them stayed, now Germany is 5% Turkish-Germans, which are perceived as neither "truly German" not "truly Turkish" by their respective peoples. Their level of success in this society is well below average, which tells you that the level of acceptance isn't as high as people would openly admit to.
If it wasn't for all the WW2 guilt, people would be very open about not wanting Germany to become a ethnic melting pot, like the US. Compare this with countries like Poland or Hungary, where the idea of defending ethnic homogeneity is part and parcel of mainstream politics. As WW2 becomes more of a distant past, the same ideas may take hold here as well.
As for the homeless, I'll just mention that 16 homeless people were murdered in Germany in 2016 alone, which is (per capita) more than in the US (tendency: rising). One of them has been set on fire, just for "fun". He burned to death.
Furthermore, in Germany, after a couple of years even an illegal migrant who should have been deported gets "tolerated status" and de facto will remain in the country.
>Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.
That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity.
If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states.
Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.
I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.
Free movement will have dramatic effects. Some may be positive, but you seem to steadfastly think it will not be manipulated in horrible, horrible ways by the nation states that already exist.
If 20 million far right fundamentalist christians showed up at the Netherlands tomorrow, nobody would be able to throw them out, "closed borders" or not.
> If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states.
That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and immigration are pretty different.
> Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.
When a foreigner enters the us, he is under the same federal jurisdiction, constitution and supreme court system. There is no conflict of law. There is conflict of interest, only if you portray the issue as an us vs them.
> I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.
The netherlands doesn't want anything, because it's not a person. San francisco is a city, it doesn't have a will or a life. Individuals want things and do what they can to do it. If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it. Funny you mention SF that has a movement to kick out software developers and startups, because it's "destroying the culture of the city".
If 1 million saudi conservatives move to san francisco, they would pay so much money to achieve such a ridiculous demographic goal that the residents will have plenty of money to move and change another city to their own liking. That is, unless they are forbidden to do it by another government official.
> If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it.
And if the bigot/intolerant guy then throws acid in the face of your sister because she's wearing a skirt that's too short, for example? We see this quite often in London and other enriched European cities.
Yeah, stopping people who openly say "Jews have to be eliminated!" from coming to Germany is definitely oppression...
Why don't we also get rid of prisons and allow any criminal to live freely? After all, restricting someone's movement is oppression.
I'm already on extremely high alert for an apparently rapidly-growing political movement whose primary demand is that I be forcibly expelled from my home and society for the crime of sharing an ethnic heritage with people who, it is charged, were genetically compelled to impose even a fraction of this onto an unwilling host society.
I'm going to have to ask if this was a monumental failure of thinking on your part?
First there are some theories that huge numbers of native Americans died from disease leaving the US a very large empty land mass.
Second, the native Americans that were left got a real bad deal from European immigration.
Third, the US depended heavily on slave labor in the south, something that has left a terrible 170 legacy of racism on our country (so much so our crime demographics look nothing like western Europe's.
Lastly, because the US was a large and empty land mass for one reason or another, it look a long time to 'fill it up'.
Attempting to make any future assumptions based on past assumptions that are very different from now is not going to work out well at all.
The article says the world would be twice as rich. World GDP/capita is $16k. Doubling this would make it $32k/person. U.S. GDP / capita is currently $57k. Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries, then Americans would need to get used to living twice as poor as today.
As a legal immigrant myself I'm baffled at how little typical American knows about immigration. Everybody's usually very surprised when you tell them that even the in the best case scenario a highly-educated specialist with a degree, 5+ years or experience, and a job offer needs to eat a ton a shit, pay a lot of money, go through nine circles of bureaucratic hell, and wait a few years to fully immigrate and gain a permanent residency status. How many people get visa rejections with no explanation. How many people can't enter their country even temporary as a tourist.
In a world where low skilled workers get replaced by automation more and more, where even local citizens are having troubles finding or keeping a job, where the most common source of income for non-educated people is freaking driving professionally, sure, let's let in 160m+ folks escaping poverty and running from countries with no education, oppressive regimes and weird religions. Surely it'll turn out just fine. Surely they all will find decent jobs real quick, learn the language, integrate and bring huge benefits. Uh-huh.
146 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 217 ms ] threadYet they built the paywall.
There seem like a lot of obvious objections that are not addressed and raises more questions than it asks.
> Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace
What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.
I think articles like this tend to simplify or handwave the caveats in unrealistic ways, so their result is always a lopsided analysis. Example of such a simplification:
> But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.
Yeah they could, but most won't. See: The bay area, Boston, NYC. (A few do: Montreal, or Tokyo, which added more housing than all of California last year)
What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one? Would you rather work in a team of geniuses with no process, or a team of average developers who follow best practices?
Which are influenced by culture
> What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one?
Mostly culture in my opinion
The author really should've gone into detail and defended their assertion though.
The actual analogy would be a world where you need to get a visa per-magazine to read the articles they have, to the which you might not qualify.
A newspaper-immigration-patrol would look at this comment of yours on HN and possible deny you access, you should watch out.
> What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.
A great open question is what happens to institutions when there are culture changes. But bear in mind that without immigration, there would be no institutions in the U.S. whatsoever. It is a point of view of past immigration being great, but current and future immigration being bad, which I think it makes very little sense holistically speaking.
> Yeah they could, but most won't.
There really isnt a limit on living space. The rent is high in places like the bay area precisely because moving there is still a good deal. Problems of residential prices are widely overstated.
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges
That's the solution!
They depend on government handouts or other donations and making them pay more will solve the problem now
> open borders
also FTA:
> why not charge them more for visas
Someone forgot what "open borders" means.
> To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.
You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than the authors of the article.
The article specifically discusses this.
"Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."
Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing".
If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
Taxed to pay them what. If you have a beef with welfare programs in the us, you should take it with the welfare programs. Foreigners never had a voice or a vote in terms of what qualified for such kinds of programs.
> If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
This argument could be made verbatim against many things that today are considered bigotry or illegal.
Indeed - and they should not be a beneficiary either. Do you for a moment believe that "New Deal" / "Great Society" laws would ever have passed, if under the understanding that the whole population of the Earth would be entitled to receive it?
> This argument could be made verbatim ... that today are considered bigotry
That does not make the argument erroneous, only un-PC.
It makes it heinous, because heinous things are said and done with that argument. "We shouldn't hire women, because they will affect the culture we have", etc.
> "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work."
No, it's this:
> Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.
> Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience.
So less than a billion, net, world wide.
> Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
Well you are free to continue to pay the higher price for the person of the culture you prefer. Others who don't care can pay a lower price. Isn't that capitalism?
So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty" is that it will be "less than a billion", then the article didn't exactly reassure. It's a quibble between basic numbers (population in the third world) vs hypothetical numbers (Gallup's rolodex), not a substantial discussion or disagreement.
This is not how it works in Germany: migration proponents want tax paying citizens to sustain their utopic dream. Once they have to pay out of their own pocket, the position changes drastically.
I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue?
I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial conflicts.
Then there is this:
>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges
This seems like a very sane system. Why is this not something we do? Do we not care about local interests at all as long as immigration isn't "too high"?
As an immigrant, I think this would be fair.
Young males commit most crimes all over the world. If you have an alternative explanation, I'd like to see strong statistical evidence to back it up.
>According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015. But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold — by 440 percent. In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/...
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The crime rate among immigrants (and their descendants) is much higher than among "ethnic" Germans. That means the typical German is less likely to engage in crime.
In absolute numbers of course, there are much more Germans than immigrants, so Germans commit more crimes total, as you would expect.
This topic is sensitive, so people just fling around with percentages and relative numbers until it appears to fit whatever narrative they would like to be true. It's not really helping convince anybody, everybody just keeps believing what they already believe.
Of course, the idea that Germany is now "riddled with crime" is just another Trumpism. Considering that we have a million refugees, the increase in crime is rather low and all the alarmism isn't justified.
That's not what your source says.
It's not the typical German, it's "comparable groups among the current population", whatever they mean by that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/...
Quote: "In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant."
Source: https://www.thelocal.de/20151113/police-refugees-commit-less...
Headline: "Police: refugees commit less crime than Germans"
Quote: "Interior Minsiter Thomas de Maizière responded to the news by saying: "The current trend shows that refugees are just as unlikely to commit crimes as comparable groups among the current population. The majority of them don't commit crimes, they are seeking protection and and peace in Germany."
Source: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article148812603/Str...
Actual Quote: "Ganz allgemein sprach Innenminister de Maizière von derzeit verfügbaren „Tendenzaussagen, dass Flüchtlinge im Durchschnitt genauso wenig oder oft straffällig werden wie Vergleichsgruppen der hiesigen Bevölkerung“."
Translation: "We have have information that suggests that refugees commit crime about as often, or as rarely, as comparable groups in the local population".
First of all, the interior minister obviously has a big incentive to downplay whatever problems are caused by the decisions of his administration. Secondly, he's talking about the refugees, not migrants in general. Also, what are "comparable groups"? It's not defined. If it's "comparable", then it's not going to be "typical" nor "average". The information he references is kept "confidential", by the way. In any case, absolutely nowhere does it say that refugees or migrants are less likely to commit crime, even though that's what is being reported by both English sources.
The reality is that crime rate among migrants is higher, for whatever reason. Migrants were responsible for 10-20% (differing by state) of violent crime in 2016, well above their share of the population: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/kriminalitaet-in-deutschl...
This article does mention however that Syrians/Iraqis are less likely to commit those crimes than migrants from other countries.
Ofc "Bio-Deutsche" are very well-behaved and engage in typical Street-Crimes like you see in typical countries (e.g. Brasil) much less
You just go to work 1 day and you have 200€ more, no need to steal
How can so many people run around with such distorted narratives and force them down the throats of other people??
On page 6 the first table: 38,5% non-german, 19,6% immigrants. It contains a lot more stats that might be interesting to you. The BKA publishes those yearly. In 2016 the numbers were 40.5 % non-german, 21.5% (page 13): https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol...
Of course as the report points out there is a large number of unreported crimes and there is a probably politically motivated paragraph where they explain that the numbers are of course more complicated than that and that both germans and non-germans on average commit very few crimes (page 9).
If you look at crimes without a profit motive, things tend to even out or turn around. You'll rarely see an immigrant responsible for arson or property damage, for example. In absolute terms, most crimes (that are persecuted) are of course profit-driven and the most crimes occur in poor areas.
All people are the same!
Please be silent now!
Differences do not exist
Actually,... differences would require that I think hard about them, won't you dare!
It's not about finite vs infinite, it's about the notion that currently "the good social infrastructure" in the first world can cover a small portion of the global population, doesn't have much excess capacity, and is obviously not sufficient to provide a comparable level of life/service/whatever to everyone in the world. Dividing it equally would mean a regression to the global average which is unacceptably low compared to first world standards, so the first world would never accept this.
We need to do this, everything else is nationalism
Unf. I don't think your calculations sum up
And yes: It's called "costs of living" and you ignore it (to be higher in the west") and then you blame them (for your own wishful ignorance)
Where do you live?
As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.
Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.
Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.
I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.
1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...
Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation.
> they do not even track visa overstays ATM
Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.
The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the constitution). States that say "weed is legal" are only "getting away" with that because enforcement of the federal law on that matter is unpopular and probably a waste of time. It's a similar case with "sanctuary cities", although ICE is starting to operate in those.
Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design.
Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement.
>Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts.
The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.
Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of.
> Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law.
What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country.
> Exactly. See if it will ever pass.
I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House.
> The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level.
I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.
I am quite aware of this.
>Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country.
Sure. Imagine you are an officer of ICE. You sit in the nice office in the federal building in LA. How does your day go by? You deport people? Which people? They are not exactly lining up to your doors to get deported, are they? So you need to find them somehow, bring them to court, get a judgment and then find them again and remove them from the country. This is the police work and you are not equipped to do it. You don't have beat cops, you don't get information from various agencies illegals use (from schools to social services, all under state control despite spending federal money). You were supposed to get referrals from the local law enforcement. You are not getting any. You act on tips and bust 1000 people a quarter in a city, which likely has several million illegals.
>I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House.
If only passing the House had been enough to make a law...
> At some point, enforcement is required.
Sure, but then states would actually help enforcement instead of impeding it as they are doing now.
A foreigner cannot live in the united states today, health check or not, without some monetary or time commitment to a specific set of people.
That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with the Naturalization Law of 1802). Up until the 1960's, America was about 90% white, so 1800's to early 1900's immigration law has very little to do with "what it is" today.
It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals.
This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically.
I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.
Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America.
> This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration
It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible.
I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.
it just doesn't work that way. there's this thing called equality before the law, or something.
this sort of thing has been tried and US state and local governments are generally not allowed, by federal law, to deny the most expensive benefits and services to immigrants. it's, like, the US constitution and stuff.
note that educational services (i.e. schools) are a very large part of state budgets. like, sometimes the largest single component of a state budget. so the big savings would have to come from that sort of service denial, which again, is not constitutional.
It's like, there are countries other than the United States where this concept of exceptional treatment could apply or be de debated.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/International-tax-for-ind...
A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more protectionism than existed before (Brexit).
Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies (Puerto Rico).
Your comment is based on speculation and belief.
You are awarded no points
That's about 5 London's. Where would these people live? Will cities magically appear from the ground?
UK favellas?
And the country itself
Exactly who would be richer? You? me? A fisherman in the Azores?
This cartoon still says it best:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmJz4sUVEAAs5f5.jpg
In this utopian paradise the author describes is he willfully ignoring the fact that different cultures exist? Not all cultures are equal, no matter what the current narrative tells you. This is a terrible, empty article.
>If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear (and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.
Alright now this empty article turned insidious.
For an empty article, you've had a very strong reaction to it.
He had a strong reaction because he's tired of these kinds of lies being perpetuated by our media. Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population.
>Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous centuries?
Lets ask all the dead native Americans about that.
i.e. if you had 5 doctors at 500k, and you opened up, maybe you would have 10 doctors at 300k. This is a natural economic progression. Same with software engineers: open borders would definitely have a stark impact on median income, but there would be more startups and more work and more people employed in the sector.
Protection benefits the industry, lack of protectionism benefits everyone else; and patients have much more votes than doctors.
The second part is true, but the patients do not so clearly see the benefit, while the doctors would personally see and feel the pain of such a measure! The interest and understanding of the latter makes them very powerfully motivated.
We require them to go through a US residency.
Something like 1/4 of doctors in the US are foreign born.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/health/12chen.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-value...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-d...
Asking an experienced doctor to go through a residency is worse than asking software developers to get a doctorate if they want to write code in the US.
When it comes to migration, no one ever talks about the consequences of moving from a high context to a low context culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-context_cultures
Aladair Macintyre: "Consider what it is to share a culture. It is to share schemata which are at one and the same time constitutive of and normative for intelligible action by myself and are also means for my interpretations of the actions of others" https://toutcequimonte.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/macintyre...
Low context cultures are more atomized and legalistic. Free migration is one of major the things that justifies the national security state powers... which ironically these days in the west there is no sense of a nation outside of the state. There is a weakness in that notion because the internet has weakened the state's ability to integrate minorities because those people can live mentally in their homelands.
Aristotle on immigration: "Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution;"
Aquinas on immigration: "Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people."
Developing and undeveloped countries are notoriously protectionists, specially of their visa/labor markets. What would happen if they opened their borders to all, presumably including qualified/entrepreneurial people?
What do you do when after a couple of years those very same immigrants starting protesting and rioting for civil rights like equal access to welfare benefits, equal taxes, right to vote and attribute racism as a motive for denying it to them rather than the original policy goal of making them pay their way and not overwhelm the locals in elections?
I don't think the tech-crowd is a fan of unionization in general.
Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions.
I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be to categorize and justify creating rules to prevent other people from moving around.
We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed.
We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 2016, about 3% of taxes earned total, to support these people. We've managed to "oppress" the flow of refugees with unpopular measures. If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?
The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
> If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?
This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them.
With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
> The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
> With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy.
> If you want to make an utilitarian argument
Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something.
> We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in.
I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions.
> Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries?
Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots.
> You know, just like the US does it.
U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene.
> Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
"We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity.
> If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.
> Then don't..who is asking for that?
If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.
> U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018...
Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).
> "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you?
We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?
> That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.
Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful.
The absolute gain is more important that the rate of return. If you only allow 1 single person to immigrate into a country, of course, that person will have the greatest return in taxes. He will not need any help of any kind and will bring lots of business. The second person you would allow would not be as great, but still will be positive. Any restriction or cutoff point would make it so the amount of absolute gains is reduced. Excepting a few cases like security or extreme refugees, all immigrants are net positive in their aggregate, because they need to work to survive and at least pay for themselves.
>If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.
This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in. If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country. Sure some people will make the mistake of trying to escape into qatar or north korea to find themselves making a terrible mistake, but the vast majority of people that emigrate are making a conscious choice of worse to better. Education or not is part of the package a country can choose to give or not. Argentina gives free college education to foreigners, the U.S. doesn't for example. The U.S. still has a way more positive immigration flow.
> Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).
Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas. The quotas are there because it's politically favorable to say that you will protect the jobs of americans from being taken away by some foreigner. Doctor or farmer, its the same effect. Some people are restricted to the economical gain of a few. In economic terms, the aggregate is a loss. Again, thats the point of the article that tries to draw bounds on how much could be gained.
> We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?
I think its important to remember that economics is not about money. Money is not value, goods and services are. If someone makes 10 forks, and then with an extra immigrant you make 19 forks, society is richer. Every person has an interest that noone else does his own job, to charge maximum value for it. But by going against that interest, everything you consume will be cheaper and better because more of that will be produced and hence consumed.
Private interests are always against many kinds of freedom. The fact that you are benefiting private interests with the addition of the power of the state is a tragedy. So lets not cheer in support for laws and policies that do just that!
Its interesting however that companies in general would love open immigration, it is trades and professions that would be against that (i.e. lawyers,doctors, accountants, etc).
It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.
> The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.
I dont know if you know San Francisco, but it has plenty of people in the street and they are not mobbing. But not only that, but you are looking at the problem as ...
I'm not in an economics class, I'm following local developments.
> If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country.
That's a total fallacy. The majority people arriving here initially knew next to nothing about Germany. They were promised by their traffickers all kinds of nonsense, like that they would get a free house and a car. It took a while for the message to spread that it ain't all cotton candy over here. Some still had false beliefs, because people like to believe comfortable lies. Either way, if they come here they get refugee benefits, which is better here than in most other EU countries. It's not an opportunity in my sense, it's a handout.
> Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas.
I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about choosing who you let in. I'm not arguing for the exact same system that the US has, so stop pointing out its flaws. If we set the requirement that everyone would need to have at least basic literacy and English skills, a huge amount of the people coming in right now wouldn't be allowed. That would still be way more people than we actually need.
> It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.
Again, who cares? You're not convincing anybody that needs convincing.
You keep arguing in terms of idealizations (or outliers, like San Francisco). Your argument may make sense there, it won't win you anything in the real world. In the real world, you have to deal with real people. Even if the economic argument makes sense, it's a long-term development. Do you believe people want cheaper products later or keep their job now? If they lose their jobs now, they can't just retrain in a heartbeat to become something else, especially not here in Germany. They'll be unemployed, which is culturally a source of shame.
As for the backlash: We've had hundreds of arson attacks against refugee housing and we've had a right-wing populist party come out of nowhere and gain 10% in the elections. Again, well over 95% of refugees have no jobs and little job prospects, even after being here for over a year. How many years will it take, according to your calculations?
The German population is also assuming that these refugees will leave eventually, not stay. Of course, the same was assumed about the Turkish workers coming in in the sixties (they were referred to as "guest workers"). Most of them stayed, now Germany is 5% Turkish-Germans, which are perceived as neither "truly German" not "truly Turkish" by their respective peoples. Their level of success in this society is well below average, which tells you that the level of acceptance isn't as high as people would openly admit to.
If it wasn't for all the WW2 guilt, people would be very open about not wanting Germany to become a ethnic melting pot, like the US. Compare this with countries like Poland or Hungary, where the idea of defending ethnic homogeneity is part and parcel of mainstream politics. As WW2 becomes more of a distant past, the same ideas may take hold here as well.
As for the homeless, I'll just mention that 16 homeless people were murdered in Germany in 2016 alone, which is (per capita) more than in the US (tendency: rising). One of them has been set on fire, just for "fun". He burned to death.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/gewalt...
That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity.
If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states.
Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.
I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.
Free movement will have dramatic effects. Some may be positive, but you seem to steadfastly think it will not be manipulated in horrible, horrible ways by the nation states that already exist.
That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and immigration are pretty different.
> Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.
When a foreigner enters the us, he is under the same federal jurisdiction, constitution and supreme court system. There is no conflict of law. There is conflict of interest, only if you portray the issue as an us vs them.
> I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.
The netherlands doesn't want anything, because it's not a person. San francisco is a city, it doesn't have a will or a life. Individuals want things and do what they can to do it. If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it. Funny you mention SF that has a movement to kick out software developers and startups, because it's "destroying the culture of the city".
If 1 million saudi conservatives move to san francisco, they would pay so much money to achieve such a ridiculous demographic goal that the residents will have plenty of money to move and change another city to their own liking. That is, unless they are forbidden to do it by another government official.
And if the bigot/intolerant guy then throws acid in the face of your sister because she's wearing a skirt that's too short, for example? We see this quite often in London and other enriched European cities.
Let's not.
I'm going to have to ask if this was a monumental failure of thinking on your part?
First there are some theories that huge numbers of native Americans died from disease leaving the US a very large empty land mass.
Second, the native Americans that were left got a real bad deal from European immigration.
Third, the US depended heavily on slave labor in the south, something that has left a terrible 170 legacy of racism on our country (so much so our crime demographics look nothing like western Europe's.
Lastly, because the US was a large and empty land mass for one reason or another, it look a long time to 'fill it up'.
Attempting to make any future assumptions based on past assumptions that are very different from now is not going to work out well at all.
That assumption is both onerous and preposterous
In a world where low skilled workers get replaced by automation more and more, where even local citizens are having troubles finding or keeping a job, where the most common source of income for non-educated people is freaking driving professionally, sure, let's let in 160m+ folks escaping poverty and running from countries with no education, oppressive regimes and weird religions. Surely it'll turn out just fine. Surely they all will find decent jobs real quick, learn the language, integrate and bring huge benefits. Uh-huh.