Matt, really enjoyed this piece. You are absolutely correct that, for many, immigration might be supported, but only in the context of it being a "necessary evil." This rationale, as you note, is subpar.
Did you have any policy ideas or recommendations that might overcome the recent moves against free movement of people? I had considered abolishing quotas and restrictions, largely replacing them with a market-based system that softens resistance to immigration. https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
One thing I've contemplated is locally based visas so immigrants are welcomed into communities that want them, rather than attaching visas to firms. It would give immigrants more freedom and communities the opportunity to demonstrate their welcoming positions
I am a liberal but I do not support a permissive immigration system as I think it is essentially extraction of human capital.
Look at the characteristics of the people who choose to emigrate.
1. They are prone to making bold decisions and taking more-or-less prudent risks.
2. They are more dissatisfied with the governance (political or economic) in their country than the average person.
And/or
3. They have the skills, education, or capital to immigrate legally.
All these features are features of valuable human capital and they characterized the people who established the first liberal regimes in Europe, US and everywhere else. By taking this human capital out of their home countries we are basically ensuring that a liberal pile never reaches a critical mass of intellectual or economic activity. Listen to Navalny talk about why he went back to Russia (besides the fact that he's apparently a CIA asset, according to twitter.)
The west needs high quality human capital less than the rest of the world does, and it hurts us in the long term to continuously skim the cream off the top of everywhere else.
I am a liberal, and thus I believe that people are individuals, and their human capital belongs to themselves, not to their states.
But beyond that, I'm not sure that what you are saying is accurate. For example, Irish immigrants to the US in the 19th and early 20th century frequently went back and forth, transplanting new ideas and networks to Ireland. These networks were helpful during the independence struggle (two members of the Easter Rising were US citizens, one - Eamon de Valera - born in New York). Plus, for many countries the diaspora is a powerful asset, sending home remittances, returning with greater education, and forming a natural network for international trade.
A good modern example is Kerala in India. For many decades it had the largest emigration to the Gulf States. This in turn fueled remittances that helped build up the state into one of the wealthiest in India and the one with the highest HDI.
USA 1 billion by 2030 let's fucking go....
Matt, really enjoyed this piece. You are absolutely correct that, for many, immigration might be supported, but only in the context of it being a "necessary evil." This rationale, as you note, is subpar.
Did you have any policy ideas or recommendations that might overcome the recent moves against free movement of people? I had considered abolishing quotas and restrictions, largely replacing them with a market-based system that softens resistance to immigration. https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
One thing I've contemplated is locally based visas so immigrants are welcomed into communities that want them, rather than attaching visas to firms. It would give immigrants more freedom and communities the opportunity to demonstrate their welcoming positions
Would those visa restrict them to living/working in those communities? I assume not?
To make it work yeah I think you’d have to - basically give states and counties the ability to issue blanket H1Bs for any job in the jurisdiction
I am a liberal but I do not support a permissive immigration system as I think it is essentially extraction of human capital.
Look at the characteristics of the people who choose to emigrate.
1. They are prone to making bold decisions and taking more-or-less prudent risks.
2. They are more dissatisfied with the governance (political or economic) in their country than the average person.
And/or
3. They have the skills, education, or capital to immigrate legally.
All these features are features of valuable human capital and they characterized the people who established the first liberal regimes in Europe, US and everywhere else. By taking this human capital out of their home countries we are basically ensuring that a liberal pile never reaches a critical mass of intellectual or economic activity. Listen to Navalny talk about why he went back to Russia (besides the fact that he's apparently a CIA asset, according to twitter.)
The west needs high quality human capital less than the rest of the world does, and it hurts us in the long term to continuously skim the cream off the top of everywhere else.
I am a liberal, and thus I believe that people are individuals, and their human capital belongs to themselves, not to their states.
But beyond that, I'm not sure that what you are saying is accurate. For example, Irish immigrants to the US in the 19th and early 20th century frequently went back and forth, transplanting new ideas and networks to Ireland. These networks were helpful during the independence struggle (two members of the Easter Rising were US citizens, one - Eamon de Valera - born in New York). Plus, for many countries the diaspora is a powerful asset, sending home remittances, returning with greater education, and forming a natural network for international trade.
A good modern example is Kerala in India. For many decades it had the largest emigration to the Gulf States. This in turn fueled remittances that helped build up the state into one of the wealthiest in India and the one with the highest HDI.