[extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration

[J. Andrew Rogers]

On May 17, 2006, at 9:11 PM, spike wrote:
> If any country existed that had no
> border restrictions, I could imagine the entire world using it as a  
> prison,
> a dumping ground for welfare cases, a place of exile for the very  
> poor or
> very sick, anyone the world's governments wanted gone would get a  
> one-way
> ticket there.  Come to think of it, the US and Australia were both  
> used for
> that purpose before border restrictions were put in place.


I would point out that at the point in time the US (as well as pre-US  
colonies) and Australia were used for this purpose, there was very  
little cost to the average resident (ignoring the usual xenophobic  
rationalizations) because there was very little government to speak  
of, and at least in the US, no taxes to speak of either.  Immigrants  
prospered or withered with relatively little negative consequence to  
those around them, and most prospered in that environment in the way  
that humans tend to.  The argument in modern times for a country like  
Sweden and even the US is that an immigrant has the ability to  
extract a significant amount of resources from the residents by  
default, which increases the risk to residents.  The risk has  
increased, but the benefit has stayed the same.

J. Andrew Rogers