One of the ostensible goals of a state is to protect the interests of its citizens. Less politely: a state is an in-group that knows it's an in-group, and excludes the out-group, in accordance with all in-groups ever, everywhere.
I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my family, over someone else's family. I extend the same to my countrymen, over some other country's citizens.
I'm doing so quite deliberately. Wasn't it obvious?
One of the ostensible goals of a white supremicist group is to protect the interests of white people. I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my race, over some other race.
As a moral matter, I don't see why my white supremicist group is somehow less legitimate than your state.
(Note that I don't actually hold the views I espouse above, I'm just writing in parallel language. Most of the people I care about are not of the same race or nationality as me, so both nationalism and racism are quite silly for me.)
However, that does not automatically mean that institutions (i.e. governments) that are set up to help a specific group of people should refrain from helping them because other people might need the help more.
The US government would help the outside world a lot more if it stopped trying to "help" the world (e.g. by bombing it) and focused exclusively on helping its ownc citizens.
There is nothing wrong with the KKK giving money to white people only. There is something wrong with the KKK threatening black people with violence for taking a job that a white person might have wanted.
The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships) and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition.
I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.
>The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships)
Ok.
>and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition.
Absolutely. However, only one of them has a democratic mandate, habeas corpus and a guarantee of a fair legal trial by one's peers when engaging in said violence.
>I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.
- The Jim Crow/Chinese Exclusion comparison is not in rhetorical good faith. Both are associated with violent mobs. Anti h1-b folk may have comparable legal goals, but they are not beating up Indian sysadmins at gas stations.
- Of all the injustices of birth to remedy, why pick the one for which the remedy hurts those suffering another accident of birth---being born without sufficient financial means to be capitalists? If this is about foreign aid within our borders, why do workers have to pay for it, while capitalists get cheap labor?
If I raised the spectre of violent mobs, it was unintentional. I merely meant to raise the spectre of police/DHS/etc using violence to prevent people from engaging in trade. My apologies.
I'm also not attempting to "remedy" any injustice of birth, I'm merely opposed to using violence to make it worse.
I am unapogetically in favor of using violence to prevent some trades. Another word for this is "regulation."
When others can't engage in trade but you can, you have a monopoly, which could be (and by many, is) seen as a second-order form of wealth. It's disingenuous to posit that we are "merely treating people equally" when one group gets a net gain and another a net loss from a policy.
So white Americans had a second order form of wealth in the New Deal/Jim Crow era? And it was disingenous to posit that we were "merely treating people equally" when we allowed blacks to compete economically with whites?
It's way more asymmetric than that. The US government is in a better position to work for Americans' interests than those of foreigners; the Mexican government has a comparative advantage in working for Mexican citizen interests, etc. Just like how you are better at spending money for yourself than for others (and the Soviet Union collapsed largely because it tried to ignore this law of nature).
All existing proposals by the open borders crowd for the US with political traction are severely negative-sum for this reason. (I've seen a few ideas from them which are not, but they have essentially zero chance of being implemented.) If one wants to devote themselves to helping foreigners today, there are far, far better ways, like training/employing them in their home countries, or working toward constructive political change there.
I understand your morals could be different from mine but heres how I see it.
A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you?
>A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you?
"Just an individual" sweeps an immense bunch of important facts under the rug. Countries do not acquire their standard of living merely by luck: their economies grow through systematic planning and coordination.
At the margins, moving one individual between countries does not appear to have a large systemic impact. However, moving entire classes of individuals between countries usually results in one country dumping its externalities on another, thus misaligning the entire economic mechanism and resulting in deadweight losses as various ways to grow and improve get ignored.
A simple example: why should taxpayers in Germany, say, subsidize the training and education costs necessary to produce labor for American companies? The American firms are capturing a positive public-good externality from the Germans while dumping a negative externality (deskilling) on their fellow Americans. Since the externality producers in both countries are failing to capture the costs and benefits of their own productive activities, this is systematically unfair by definition (in the sense that "capitalist unfairness" consists of paying the costs and reaping the benefits of one's own activities).
1) Is the German education contract implicit? In India if you attend an army subsidised school [1] you are liable to serve in the army which is an explicit part of the contract. Do you believe that some/all subsidised/free education a state provides has a similar implicit contract? If not, should it be made explicit?
2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans? Isn't having a more skilled workforce (possible future citizens) positive? If you're arguing for labour protection because of wage competition there are arguably better ways to go about it than preventing competition from better skilled talent. Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.
3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force? Perhaps by making it more appealing for them to stay.
It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.
>2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans?
No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).
>Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.
That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.
>3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force?
The German government doesn't use force to prevent Germans from leaving: they're in the Schengen Zone. Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.
> It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.
I'm not sure you saw my related example, German education may be subsidised/free but I don't think it comes with any strings attached. If being restricted to work in Germany after studying there is expected that should be made explicit. I have never heard something similar mentioned in any discussion on subsidised education, to me this is quite insidious.
> No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).
> That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.
If America can spend less on education and still end up with better skilled people (and better products) this still feels like a net win. Why is this bad?
> Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.
I'm quite sure i'm missing the moral point. I'll try to summarise what I've got so far.
In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race.
You're argument (?)is that this immigration of skilled workers is negative for both countries, the country that subsidised their education and the country that receives the new workers.
I don't see how this is the case, it seems like a net positive for the country receiving the immigrants and the subsidised education responsibility should be an explicit part of the contract otherwise its a hidden, unadvertised cost.
This is an argument I find semi-convincing, and not solely because the economics is wrong ("deskilling" isn't an externality and education is not a public good).
Suppose that integration of black Americans also allows them to produce negative externalities and consume positive ones produced by white Americans. For example, suppose black Americans are disproportionate consumers of welfare and producers of crime.
If externalities are your true justification (rather than a post-hoc rationalization), then we should segregate black Americans as well. Do you favor this, contingent on circumstances?
Your example of Germany is interesting, given that the GDR did in fact prevent emigration in order to make sure the state didn't lose it's investment in human capital. So if the US opens it's borders, the Germans can just rebuild their wall.
This has nothing to do with exit, and suggesting otherwise implies bad faith on your part. (The exception is if you've literally never read anything like the remainder of this paragraph. In that case, you can demonstrate good faith by admitting here that your argument was faulty, and countering similar faulty "exit" arguments from open borders advocates in the future.) You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you, and it's blindingly obvious that changing this state of affairs would destroy some of the best companies. Right of exit, which I support, is protected by refugee treaties and free world military power. A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach.
And your "Chinese or Indian citizen" example actually counters your own argument. Both countries have far too many people for the US to absorb, and both have also succeeded for the last three decades at raising living standards for their native people by more than would be possible via any achievable amount of brute-force migration to the US (though they have a lot more to do). Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time.
And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me.
With all that said, I do support loosening restrictions on migration when doing so is actually positive-sum, and I think Chinese and Indian student immigration to the US frequently qualifies. But right now there's no way to push for that without simultaneously pushing for far-more-negative-sum policies.
> You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you
Thats a fair argument, however I don't think "freedom to leave" would mean much if you couldn't leave a company because no other company would hire you and your only other option would be to starve. Its why food stamps and unemployment make sense.
On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean?
> A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach.
> Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time.
We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is.
In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race.
i.e. 2 similar individuals who are both skilled, both want to work and are both being hired should not be treated differently depending on which state controls their passport. On the other hand geographical distance, cultural ties etc are obviously valid points of difference.
-----
> And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me.
An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India.
Edit:
temujin is right, restating
I'd rather be unemployed in the US than employed as a low level Foxconn employee in China
> On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean?
Ordinary self-interest and the existence of >200 independent countries make it very likely that someone who just wants to be a contributor to any country that'll take him/her will find somewhere to go, even if it's not his/her first choice. Refugee treaties cover the corner case.
> We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is.
Then the argument is over, at least for the next decade or two. Sweden's experience provides the last bit of evidence necessary to demonstrate that open borders policy, as currently understood, leads to worse outcomes in Western countries than more moderate immigration policy.
I support research into better implementations of open borders, and if people like you act quickly, it might not be too late to correct e.g. Sweden's worst mistakes and arrive at something simultaneously more open and more functional there than current US policy. But this cannot be morally done without citizen consent, and you have no chance of getting that in the US in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, I'll do what I can to help Chinese live better lives back in their home country, and I encourage others to do the same for India and other poor countries. And I'll vote for free trade and related policies. Because those courses of action, unlike open borders, are actually effective at reducing global poverty today.
> An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India.
You wrote employed in China vs. unemployed in the US, not unemployed in [China/India] vs. unemployed in the US. You're now backtracking, as you should.
As for your restatement, it no longer has anything to do with immigration policy, since there are plenty of "high level" Chinese native employees at Chinese companies. I'd also choose unemployment over a low-level job at a place like Walmart.
Ah but unemployment where is the question, I'd (probably) want to be a low level Foxconn employee than unemployed in China. I certainly would rather be a low level Indian labourer than unemployed in India.
And its about the morality of allowing open immigration.
For example, I morally support the unification of Korea, even though it would be quite bad for South Korea but at the moment its horrific for the people of North Korea.
I'm an immigrant (Europe) and I don't have issues with US not making it easier for me to immigrate. Neither I nor my ancestors built this country, paid taxes (well, until I came here), etc., so it's hard to blame the country for anything that it didn't do for me.
I don't understand what you mean by blame the country, this is pretty much a discussion about morals and is therefore subjective.
I believe that individuals separate from their ancestors? Saying its their fault for being born in a different country seems quite uncharitable, similar to blaming people for being born into poverty or a particular race.
These potential immigrants want to be productive members of a new society, they can't even get a chance to immigrate if they aren't able to work, they're willing to leave behind their culture and families and take on fairly exploitative contracts just for the chance of giving themselves and their families a better life.
I think, there's nothing wrong with the country to put their citizen before foreigners. Citizen pay taxes and work for overall good of the country, so it's logical at the very least.
I'm saying this as an immigrant myself. I wish the path to citizenship would be faster and easier (and I've seen people stuck for 10+ years on H1, while having kids and buying houses), but I have to respect decisions, the country the gave me a chance, made.
I'm not sure about "their fault for being born in a different country" - I've never made this statement.
From the age of 18 to 25 I was registered for the Selective Service. I have been paying taxes my entire life. Don't I deserve to reap the benefits of the society I maintain more than someone who hasn't done so?
And if I don't, I may just stop maintaining it. There's an alternative to Voice and Exit: Disengagement.
>I'm also not attempting to "remedy" any injustice of birth, I'm merely opposed to using violence to make it worse.
As such, you're conducting a long, wasteful discussion on the basis of an absolutist, deontological rule you cannot convince the rest of us to adopt.
You are not saying to minimize violence, since you are quite comfortable with both the inherent systemic violence of private property and the resultant levels of systemic and symptomatic violence involved in petty crime, organized crime, and crime by capitalists (ie: corporate crime, in both its white-collar and Pinkerton-esque forms). You're not weighing consequences against each-other in terms of how much violence different policies generate. So it's not that you're even talking about a local minimum of violence while we're talking about other minima: it's that you simply do not care how much violence you create by enforcing minarcho-capitalism, so long as minarcho-capitalism is enforced.
So why are you wasting everyone else's time for the sake of an incoherent, unreasonable ideology?
He's also conflating the individual foreign immigrant with the foreign country. What is good for the immigrant is not necessarily good for the country as a whole.
Similarly, the anti-segregationists don't realize that what's good for a black man is not necessarily good for black America as a whole.
Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened.
Since you seem to want to bring up a variety of empirical criteria, what are the specific empirical criteria that would justify laws which require black Americans to get a visa before living/working in white America? I.e., what has to happen before you favor segregation?
It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. I can identify pluses and minuses and never much thought about it. Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India?
Whether yes or no, I don't think it justifies treating black Americans the way we treat Nigerians and Indians.
You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way?
As for your ad hominem, I have no idea what I've said here that leads you to believe this. In the lingo of social justice types, one of the largest systemic barriers keeping non-white people out of power is national boundaries. I favor reducing that barrier as much as possible. This makes me "racist as fuck"? Um, ok.
>It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to.
Your argument appears to be confused as well as mildly racist.
>Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India?
If he was educated by India I would say that there is a very high likelihood. India would lose its investment in his education.
>You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way?
You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians or citizens of some other African country should we restrict the issuance of H1Bs to them...
Um, yes? Sorry, I didn't think that wasn't obvious.
Same deal for Europeans. Obviously. Just in case you again assumed that I give some special consideration to being white (P.S. I'm European and I don't think I'm being done any great favors by having H1B as an option).
>This makes me "racist as fuck"?
Stating outright that black people would be better off shopping in black only shops makes you racist as fuck, yes.
Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. If I were you I would retract what I just said because it doesn't look at all good either in or out of context.
You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians...
No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not?
I'm reasonably confident you knew this is what I'm asking.
Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism.
I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
>No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not?
Because they are citizens of the country born under the United States government, and thus should be afforded certain guarantees from that same government. Including a decently paid job. I think that Nigerians deserve the same guarantees from their country too.
I don't believe that Nigeria owes American citizens a job, though. Or vice versa.
Unfortunately to prevent the emergence of poverty, it is necessary for some employers to face an implicit threat of violence that restricts competition among workers. Minimum wage, etc.
>I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened.
And here is the problem. You're still differentiating between white stores and black stores. Only when you view them as stores is racism gone.
It is the same thing as looking a black America versus America as a whole.
One of the ostensible goals of a state is to protect the interests of its citizens. Less politely: a state is an in-group that knows it's an in-group, and excludes the out-group, in accordance with all in-groups ever, everywhere.
I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my family, over someone else's family. I extend the same to my countrymen, over some other country's citizens.