> you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants.
I'm sure it's possible to do it, if you take a narrow enough view of 'usefulness', e.g. 'usefulness' = measurable economic productivity. You can screen out people with expensive preexisting medical conditions, people who cannot work, etc., and that will obviously raise the average productivity of immigrants. But it's immoral. Rich host countries are poaching productive individuals while selecting against people who are most in need of help, leaving them to be taken care of by their (usually) poorer country of origin. The fair thing to do would be to accept a random sample of would-be immigrants.
> The fair thing to do would be to accept a random sample of would-be immigrants.
Why? You appear to be making an argument that a sovereign nation has a moral obligation of care for another sovereign nation as a penalty for their success. What is your rational basis for believing that the US should take in immigrants that are unable to contribute to our society?
I'm generally pro-immigration, but this type of argument stinks of an insidious combination of American exceptionalism and white guilt. What makes you think someone who is unable to be productive and needs care is better off immigrating to a wealthy foreign country rather than staying in their home country? In their home country they have shared culture, family, and a social system that allows subsistence living more easily. Someone like this coming to the US would be faced with language barriers, likely homelessness, and an immediate need to rely entirely on the government as they'd have no other support system. I'd argue if they're trying to immigrate to a wealthier nation for other reasons they'd be better served going to Northern Europe, not the US.
> they'd be better served going to Northern Europe, not the US
You're right, for most people, there are better places to migrate to than the U.S.
> You appear to be making an argument that a sovereign nation has a moral obligation of care for another sovereign nation as a penalty for their success
A sovereign nation is not a natural kind. What is your basis for believing that humans have a moral responsibility to care for humans on one side of a political line, but not the other side?
What coherent moral framework leads one to conclude that we should care only for compatriots?
> What makes you think someone who is unable to be productive and needs care is better off immigrating to a wealthy foreign country rather than staying in their home country?
That's for them to decide. The discussion is about letting would-be migrants in, not yanking people out of their home countries against their will. If they are trying to migrate it must be because they think they will have a better life in the host country. I wouldn't presume to know better than them.
(To reiterate, I said accepting a random sample of immigration applicants, not taking in a random sample of the population.)
> But it's immoral. Rich host countries are poaching productive individuals while selecting against people who are most in need of help, leaving them to be taken care of by their (usually) poorer country of origin.
I'm failing to see how these economics work. Host countries have an incentive to acquire productive individuals. And subsequently they have a negative incentive to acquire those 'most in need' (need metric assumed).
A rough attempt to try and square up the two has me thinking we need two immigration systems. One that treats immigration as an altruistic endeavor, and another that treats immigration as an economic endeavor.
> The fair thing to do would be to accept a random sample of would-be immigrants.
I couldn't disagree with this more. Even with pretending that fairness is a thing, I have to argue that the 'most fair entry path would be some form of earning entry by establishing the criteria up front. Much the same as public universities do in the US.
> Rich host countries are poaching productive individuals while selecting against people who are most in need of help
I'm not sure that "poaching" is the right word. The US isn't seeking out potential immigrants and trying to entice them to come here, but that's what "poaching" suggests to me. Rather, it's just trying to filter those who have already established on their own a desire to come here.
I don't know about the US. I know Canada has a history of running targeted ad campaigns in South Africa and elsewhere, to get doctors to immigrate (while simultaneously complaining about locally-trained doctors leaving to get better paid jobs in the US).
Not the best source but it's what I could find on Google:
>"The fair thing to do would be to accept a random sample of would-be immigrants."
All points aside, isn't that exactly what the US is doing with the Green Card lottery system? It's entire mandate is to "increase immigrant diversity", by giving countries with low immigration to the US preferential counts towards the lottery.
>"But it's immoral. Rich host countries are poaching productive individuals while selecting against people who are most in need of help, leaving them to be taken care of by their (usually) poorer country of origin."
You know what is actually immoral? Forcing individuals that want to make a better life for their children, into staying in a country that "needs help" and they want to get out of. The world is not some giant "experiment" for you to optimize and fix. Let people leave and go where they want, and if you want to prevent people from coming into your area, well then let the majority current residents decide.
> You know what is actually immoral? Forcing individuals that want to make a better life for their children, into staying in a country that "needs help" and they want to get out of.
But that's also true of would be migrants who are most in need of help. In either case you are 'forcing' someone to stay in their home country. The question is, if you don't have an open border policy, which of the would be migrants will you "force" to stay in a rotten country? The sick, elderly, under-educated, or the able-bodied, educated, rich, etc.
> Let people leave and go where they want
Yes absolutely.
> if you want to prevent people from coming into your area, well then let the majority current residents decide.
The controversial question is what constitutes 'your area'. Depending on who you asks it's anywhere from your neighborhood to the entire Earth. Depending on your take on that you could conclude that you have a legitimate right to kick people out of your street or that we should adopt an open border policy worldwide.
>"But that's also true of would be migrants who are most in need of help. In either case you are 'forcing' someone to stay in their home country. "
Not entirely. In the one case, you're simply saying "you can't come here, unless you are X-amounts productive". The other one, which I was arguing-against, was more along the lines of: "You can't come here because you are Y-amounts productive and should stay there and fix your side of this earth."
The net result is not the same. The one prescribes that an individual has to be "X-amounts productive", whereas the other says "if you are more than Y-amounts productive, you are not allowed to come here". With all the upside-down incentives we have going on in the world right now with welfare and progressive taxation, this is the one area where government is still sort of "rewarding" the "productive" or "ambitious".
>"The controversial question is what constitutes 'your area'. Depending on who you asks it's anywhere from your neighborhood to the entire Earth. Depending on your take on that you could conclude that you have a legitimate right to kick people out of your street or that we should adopt an open border policy worldwide."
Well, as a Libertarian, I think borders are pretty damn arbitrary, too. But until we can get to that point, we have to be realistic about what we've decided to share with our neighbors. Ideally, we should be allowed to each decide how our tax money gets spent. If anything, we can restrict it's usage to the level of "openness" we wish to spread it around to. So some would want it only spent in their street, others to a city level, and the rest wish it to be spread equally for the whole world's benefit. That is, if we're talking about actually giving each person a choice, instead of what we call "Democracy".
I'm sure it's possible to do it, if you take a narrow enough view of 'usefulness', e.g. 'usefulness' = measurable economic productivity. You can screen out people with expensive preexisting medical conditions, people who cannot work, etc., and that will obviously raise the average productivity of immigrants. But it's immoral. Rich host countries are poaching productive individuals while selecting against people who are most in need of help, leaving them to be taken care of by their (usually) poorer country of origin. The fair thing to do would be to accept a random sample of would-be immigrants.