Does our immigration policy hurt the rest of the world?

I have yet to hear anybody or any large number of people try to defend the current immigration regime as a humanitarian endeavor. It has always been about benefiting the US economy and about who we find "desirable" to be fellow citizens. The "brain drain" phenomenon that he describes is something that has been recognized in economic thought for decades, maybe even centuries.

The problem with his logic is that many of these poor nations don't have the infrastructure to recognize, develop, and nurture talent. That means that if they are forced to stay in their home countries, there is a good chance that their overall potential will be stifled or even completely wasted. For instance, what is a kid with the ability to be a top class heart surgeon going to do in a country like Somalia, where even functional hospitals are few and far between? Chances are, that kid will either choose to do something else or be stuck at a place where his talents cannot be fully utilized. In the worst case scenario, the kid may not even make it to adulthood.

Additionally, many economists estimate that overflow benefits (e.g. people returning to their home countries to utilize their skills or investing in their home countries) significantly counteract the "brain drain." I've read estimates that over 10% of China's GDP growth in the past decade can be attributed to overseas Chinese investment and expertise, with also results in significant benefits to host countries such as the US.

 

Summary of video

I don't find it interesting at all. Really, I found it uninformative and overly time-consuming. This the problem with watching video for political content - unless the point cannot be made in textual form, your goal is to reach the illiterate, or you seek to obfuscate your own point to avoid easy critique there is no sense to use video.

He sort of beats a straw-man. I have yet to hear someone saying that the main reason we let immigrants in is humanitarian reasons. Even if this was an important justification for our immigration policy, his point that we should not accept any because more will take their place is unpersuasive.

His secondary attack on his straw-man is slight more interesting. His idea is that he are actively being anti-humanitarian by accepting any immigrants. I believe that this has the beginnings of a more viable attack on the straw-man he created. I found myself waiting with baited breath for him to flesh out his secondary point a bit more, but he failed to provide any supporting evidence.

His conclusion that if we really wanted to help these people we would help them in their country we also potentially interesting but, once again, he comes up short. He provides no indication of how this policy might be achieved or at what cost. Without specifics we cannot assess the viability of his proposed alternative. On first take, I would think that his proposed solution is untenable. As we have shown through on intrepid efforts in nation building, we can sink ludicrous sums of money into the endeavor and get nothing for it. He provides no evidence to the contrary that there is the will, ability, or resources for his monstrously expensive proposal to succeed.

 

Ecologically, a system can only support a given population. If immigration were fully open, what's to stop a billion people from entering the US? Water seems to be our limiting factor, with drought possibly effected by global warming. Conservation and limiting population seem like prudent choices for self preservation.

Ubiquitous cheap birth control, worldwide, also seems to make sense, Pope or no Pope. Of course, poorer people in countries with no social safety net have a legitimate fear of being left helpless in old age.

 

Numbers USA dude doesn't address the UACs, but I guess that it is true that UACs are viewed under the lens of humanitarianism. Still, UACs are a small fraction of the total immigrant population that comes to our country. He suggests that the justification for all immigration as being humanitarian, this is patently wrong.

He says that we need to help them where they are. What did he mean by that in your opinion? Was he just being disingenuous for the sake of argument?

 

This is silly. The economics of your example would prevent it from happening. If a billion people were suddenly here many would die, and many would leave and go elsewhere where economic opportunities were better (e.g. food, water, and shelter were easier to come by). But a billion people aren't going to suddenly enter the country and use up all of our resources. Any easing of immigration policy would result in slow changes to markets. It would affect everything, but markets would adjust. Not exactly doom and gloom. You make it sound as though easing immigration policy will be the end of mankind.

 

Brain drain can hurt other countries. A porous border that encourages illegal migration hurts other countries. The import of illegal goods, like illicit drugs, blood diamonds, and sex slaves, hurts other countries. Economic imperialism, tinkering with foreign governments, supporting favored insurgent groups and fighting proxy wars hurt foreign countries. At least with a brain drain, you allow foreign nationals to maximize their potential, send money home and possibly brings skills or investments back to their home countries. It's probably the least bad of all the bad things we do to other countries.

 

Giddyup, what did you think about his proposed policy solution: that we help all outsiders where they are instead of allowing any of them to come?

I found that sort of nation-building solution to be so completely pie in the sky. There is no political will to do it and even if there was it would be ruinously expensive to the point where it made me think he might be disingenuous in proposing it.

 

lmao

of all the things the dude questions about American domestic policy, he brings up immigration.

How about the drug war that has made failed states out of much of Central America?

How about the network of butchers supported across the Middle East, Somalia, and central Asia? The dirty war tactics that kill "three civilians for every terrorist targeted" (see: Dirty Wars).

How about the financial system that utterly preys on nations---from Argentina to Hong Kong during the Asian Financial Crisis?

How about the cybercrime/cyber-offence capabilities actively nurtured by the American intelligence services---the denigration of Tor (US-developed) and much of the open web (US-dominated) in order for it to be made the closed plaything of government---despite it offering the greatest potential for innovation in centures?

How about the excessive resource-oriented economy of the US---one that ensures that we grow enough food to feed everybody in the world properly, yet millions suffer from malnutrition?

America's immigration policy is a beacon to the rest of the world. A policy of hope. Considering how politicians everywhere seem enamoured with the policies of despair such as the ones enumerated above, I think it foolhardy to ask if the band-aid America places on a massive open wound is at fault. Why question the things America does right---and not the things it does wrong.

(The brain drain is all fine and well, except the policy of remittances and re-integration of skilled migrants is something this argument never considers. Remittances, or transfers of money from migrants to their families back home from developed nations actually usually outnumber foreign aid budgets by huge amounts. Remittances to Africa were for example double the foreign aid received from 1960 to 2003. And look at what is happening in Bangalore from those who have benefited from their training to come back and help their homelands)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/11/powerful-indians-silicon-valley: Indian influencers in Silicon Valley---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritha...dias-silicon-valley-than-real-silicon-valley/

---which is now leading to the growth of Bangalore as a hub for high-tech that is growing faster than the Valley itself.

 

It's really more like he is creating a straw-man justification for allowing any and all immigrants into this country and then attacking that justification. It's ridiculous when you hear it because the main justification for immigration is helping the United States - its people, businesses, and the economy, not the false justification he offers.

The vast majority of visas available are for the promotion of family unity - for those with status inside the Untied States to be able to bring their loved ones. A second big portion of the visas available is to fill jobs skilled and unskilled. Even undocumented labor comes to fill jobs. Finally there is a small portion of immigrants that come in under humanitarian concerns. Not only has he attacked a justification which is really not that important to the whole, but he has failed to even prove his attack through any sort of evidence other than his word. Even assuming everything he has said is correct, I would doubt that he or his organization sincerely believes in the policy solution he proposed at the end which was helping people where they are. I have yet to see NumbersUSA do anything other than spend money advocating for restrictionist/nativist immigration policy.

 

Good response

In addition those who do come to USA do tend to create overall better relations between our country and the rest of the world. They counter act somewhat our often times destructive military efforts.

 

Wow, what a strong post. I found the comments about tor which I didn't understand real well interesting. Could you flesh that out a bit?

 

It is hard to do a better job pointing out the strawman nature of his "argument".

I think videos can be very informative but thought that in this one the spokesperson was going to burst into: "The first 100 callers who send $19.99 for our book "How to Help the World's Poor and Keep Them From Coming to America" will receive an autographed copy and a dvd and a bumper sticker, but wait for those who call in the next three minutes...

 

The EFF does a really good job on this.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/why-you-should-use-tor

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/7-things-you-should-know-about-tor

 

I totally agree with the video and the OP. We should have kept Albert Einstein in Germany working to strengthen his country instead of allowing him into ours.

 

I think Northside Storm kind of touched on this, but when our foreign policy hurts the rest of the world, should that influence our immigration policy?

What I mean is, if the US willfully destabilizes a region, to what extent are we responsible to what happens to the region's affected populace?

 

what immigration policy? We aint got none.... our borders are more wide open than a hooker's legs.