[Draft] World Assembly Agreement on Labor

[Sciongrad]

you lack basically any understanding of economics and are simply dressing up your nativism in pseudo-econ-garb

OOC: I'd love to see some credible literature that demonstrates that multiculturalism has economic consequences that outweigh the benefits of immigration.

As Aclion notes above, you have "roundly ignored" my posts. Nevertheless, I shall persist. Peer-reviewed research finds that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers, immigration from "non-Western countries" has a "large negative" impact on the "fiscal sustainability" of a government, and immigration reduces domestic support for welfare programs. The first two studies were written by economists, and the last study was co-authored by a sociologist and a political scientist.

OOC: They have not been roundly ignored and I have engaged with you perhaps more extensively than any other participant in this thread. But I will gladly offer a rebuttal.

The first article you cite is an outlier in the field, and it shows, given the weakness of its findings. The t-score hardly met the critical value. One would expect that one in twenty studies would produce this same result. This is an outlier. More widely accepted, mainstream research indicates that foreign-born and native workers are not perfectly substitutable — that is to say, immigrants with the same level of experience and education often are not competing for the same jobs. This leads to modest increases in wages for native born workers, and a marginal, but ambiguous effect on native born workers without a high school degree. While I would be overstating my case to say there is a consensus here, I am correct in stating that the vast majority of economists believe that immigration is a net positive for a nation's economy, and there is a growing consensus in the field of immigration economics that immigration does not lead to net declines in a nation's average wages.

Your second article is also a dud. First, it is also an outlier on the topic of immigration in Denmark in particular. That is, most other papers on this subject do not reach the same conclusion. Even if its conclusion is correct, however, the authors themselves note on page 929 that changes probably result from different welfare schemes. In other words, the effects the paper indicates in Denmark are both endogenous and not applicable to nations without the qualities of the Danish labour market. So even if this paper's findings were convincing — and I'm not sure they are, given that this paper is such a stark outlier — they are only convincing to the extent that they demonstrate non-western immigration into Denmark specifically has negative consequences.

Finally, your final paper is credible in my opinion, but it is not evidence, by itself, that immigration is deleterious, on balance. And in fact, the costs of -0.1-0.3% GDP are actually quite insignificant compared to the many upsides of immigration, many of which are not disputable — namely, the increased productivity stimulated by increased human capital. But even then, given that the conclusion of this paper is basically that people are racist, its implications are nothing that cannot be solved in the long-term. You don't think, or at least I hope you don't think, that widespread racism is a problem that cannot be fixed, and therefore, we should not try to pursue any policy objectives that are hindered by racism.

[Christian Democrats]

As Aclion notes above, you have "roundly ignored" my posts. Nevertheless, I shall persist. Peer-reviewed research finds that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers, immigration from "non-Western countries" has a "large negative" impact on the "fiscal sustainability" of a government, and immigration reduces domestic support for welfare programs. The first two studies were written by economists, and the last study was co-authored by a sociologist and a political scientist.

OOC: They have not been roundly ignored and I have engaged with you perhaps more extensively than any other participant in this thread. But I will gladly offer a rebuttal.

The first article you cite is an outlier in the field, and it shows, given the weakness of its findings. The t-score hardly met the critical value. One would expect that one in twenty studies would produce this same result. This is an outlier. More widely accepted, mainstream research indicates that foreign-born and native workers are not perfectly substitutable — that is to say, immigrants with the same level of experience and education often are not competing for the same jobs. This leads to modest increases in wages for native born workers, and a marginal, but ambiguous effect on native born workers without a high school degree. While I would be overstating my case to say there is a consensus here, I am correct in stating that the vast majority of economists believe that immigration is a net positive for a nation's economy, and there is a growing consensus in the field of immigration economics that immigration does not lead to net declines in a nation's average wages.

Really? You've offered a working paper in opposition to a peer-reviewed article published in the top economics journal.

You haven't specified the tables to which you're referring. Your criticism that "[t]he t-score hardly met the critical value" is, therefore, ambiguous. In Table IV, for example, the study finds that immigrant labor has a significant and negative impact on high school dropouts' weekly earnings, high school graduates' weekly earnings, and some college's weekly earnings. The t-scores are -5.77, -4.07, and -2.38. If you actually have a knowledge of statistics and a t-table, I assume that you can calculate the rest. You'll find that your statement, "One would expect that one in twenty studies would produce this same result," is utterly false. The actual figure is closer to 1 in 1,000 studies.

I don't deny that "immigration is a net positive for a nation's economy." GDP grows, but the poor's wages fall.

Your second article is also a dud. First, it is also an outlier on the topic of immigration in Denmark in particular. That is, most other papers on this subject do not reach the same conclusion. Even if its conclusion is correct, however, the authors themselves note on page 929 that changes probably result from different welfare schemes. In other words, the effects the paper indicates in Denmark are both endogenous and not applicable to nations without the qualities of the Danish labour market. So even if this paper's findings were convincing — and I'm not sure they are, given that this paper is such a stark outlier — they are only convincing to the extent that they demonstrate non-western immigration into Denmark specifically has negative consequences.

Don't pretend that your proposal wouldn't allow immigration from undeveloped WA nations into developed WA nations, causing similar fiscal crises in the latter nations. I cannot argue against your "most other papers" claim because it is unsubstantiated.

Finally, your final paper is credible in my opinion, but it is not evidence, by itself, that immigration is deleterious, on balance. And in fact, the costs of -0.1-0.3% GDP are actually quite insignificant compared to the many upsides of immigration, many of which are not disputable — namely, the increased productivity stimulated by increased human capital. But even then, given that the conclusion of this paper is basically that people are racist, its implications are nothing that cannot be solved in the long-term. You don't think, or at least I hope you don't think, that widespread racism is a problem that cannot be fixed, and therefore, we should not try to pursue any policy objectives that are hindered by racism.

Again, what's with the working papers?

In my view, the WA ought not to aggravate racial and ethnic tension, which is exactly what this proposal would do.

Harm the poor, harm the welfare state, and aggravate racism: those would be the effects of this proposal.

[Aclion]

Harm the poor, harm the welfare state, and aggravate racism: those would be the effects of this proposal.

Don't forget the environment.

[Sciongrad]

-snip-

OOC: I suspect that this argument is more a matter of ideology than evidence, and feel confident that throughout this thread, I have effectively prosecuted my case. The only parting thoughts I have are in defense of my evidence. Neither of those papers are currently working papers. Both are published by top economics journals. I chose to cite the online pdfs because I understand that not everyone has institutional access like us, and I want observers to be able to judge the evidence for themselves. But I don't want to get bogged down in an argument over the idiosyncrasies of Denmark's labor market or whether it's a good policy to embrace racism.

[Christian Democrats]

You're arguing in bad faith because you're prioritizing ideology over facts.

I suspect that this argument is more a matter of ideology than evidence

You're like a broken record today. You miscalculate a p-value by a factor of 50 and make unsubstantiated claims about nonexistent consensuses. Then, you assert, "I have effectively prosecuted my case." And I'm supposed to be the ideological one?

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "Some nations cannot afford immigration of workers, some cannot afford emigrations. This undermines the economies of poorer nations. We are opposed."

[Aclion]

Zladny: "Some nations cannot afford immigration of workers, some cannot afford emigrations. This undermines the economies of poorer nations. We are opposed."

Quiet you bigot! Everybody knows that complete uncontrolled immigration always benefits the nation, because the GDP grows and that's the only measurement of a nation's well being.

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "Some nations cannot afford immigration of workers, some cannot afford emigrations. This undermines the economies of poorer nations. We are opposed."

Quiet you bigot! Everybody knows that complete uncontrolled immigration always benefits the nation, be cause the GDP grows and that's the only measurement of a nation's well being.

Zladny: "It's not 'immigration', it's 'movement of human reasources.' Get it right ambassador."

[United Massachusetts]

Quiet you bigot! Everybody knows that complete uncontrolled immigration always benefits the nation, be cause the GDP grows and that's the only measurement of a nation's well being.

Zladny: "It's not 'immigration', it's 'movement of human reasources.' Get it right ambassador."

"The reds show their true colours, I see."

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "It's not 'immigration', it's 'movement of human reasources.' Get it right ambassador."

"The reds show their true colours, I see."

Sartova: "They must teach sarcasm to be a false concept, the same way they teach sexual orientation in your theocracy."

[United Massachusetts]

"The reds show their true colours, I see."

Sartova: "They must teach sarcasm to be a false concept, the same way they teach sexual orientation in your theocracy."

"Sarcasm is a thin veil, my friend."

[Teretstein]

While we generally applaud your efforts and do support the intent here, we take some issue with Article III,

3. Further declares that no citizen of a member nation seeking employment in another member nation shall face discrimination in hiring, termination, wages, or any other aspect of employment on the grounds of their national status -- this shall include language proficiency, which shall not be a requirement for employment beyond what is reasonable for that particular job; nor shall such individuals be detained, deported, or otherwise unduly hindered while seeking and gaining employment in another member nation;

The ability to communicate effectively at all levels of society is vital for an individual to function effectively and integrate within society. Therefore, we request the removal of the language proficiency clause.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't deny that "immigration is a net positive for a nation's economy." GDP grows, but the poor's wages fall.

First, this entire question is framed incorrectly. If we actually care about everyone, and not just the people that I was placed with in the lottery of birth, then this policy massively increases the wages of the poor people who are able to access stronger institutions, better capital, etc. Considering that most of the 'poor' in developed countries are not poor at all, in a global sense, this is a perplexingly nearsighted view for someone who keeps talking about the need for a universal morality.

Even if we get into this side discussion caveating the facts are true, the real question here is: By how much? Weighing exists. And even accepting the figures from the source you provided, the answer is not a lot. The elasticity calculated by the author is pretty clear in that, with an inelastic estimate pretty far from unit elastic. To put this in terms of the United States (also from where the data for the study are derived and where they should be applied), which has inflow on the order 1.18 million... then the US would have to import another 118 thousand people (about the population of Charleston in 2010) per year to reduce wages by ... 20 dollars per week. High school dropouts will never work again!I!!i!111!

Moreover, simple economic analyses of this point are pretty pointless. Yea, a basic partial-equilibrium model can't produce the outcomes you want. Partial-equilibrium models regularly produce results discordant with the general-equilibrium nature of reality. Basic models regularly ignore second order effects which together outweigh the first order. To support that position, the guy who wrote your paper wrote in his textbook on immigration economics: "... it is mathematically impossible to manipulate the canonical model of the competitive labor market so as to yield a large net gain from immigration to the United States" (David Card and Giovanni Peri, "Immigration Economics by George J. Borjas: A Review Essay" at 1346, quoting Borgas "Immigration Economics" at 151). I'll quote Card and Peri, in their cited assessment, at length.

The real question is whether one wants to take seriously any of the ideas in modern growth theory, which allow for effects of human-capital externalities (e.g., Romer 1990; Moretti 2004a, 2004b), skill variety (Alesina, Harnoss, and Rapoport 2013), task specialization (Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg 2008), market integration (Rivera-Batiz and Romer 1991), and potential gains from rising numbers of scientists and engineers (Jones 2002). These models allow for potential increasing returns to scale and/or endogenous technological change—factors that arguably dominate the second-order surplus calculations presented in chapter 7, and have been linked in recent work to immigration flows (e.g., Kerr and Lincoln 2010; Lewis 2011; Peri 2012; Peri, Shih, and Sparber (2014); Ottaviano, Peri, and Wright 2013) . . .

Finally, chapter 8 of IE [abbreviation for Immigration Economics] reviews some interesting case studies of high-skilled immigration, focusing on impacts on productivity in innovation (measured by patents) and academia (measured by the numbers of papers published by mathematicians). In the case of patents, foreign skilled workers seem to be highly productive (Hunt and Gauthier loiselle 2010), with no evidence of a negative spillover on the output of natives (Kerr and lincoln 2010; summarized in table 8.2 of IE). In the case of academic mathematicians, evidence from Borjas and Doran (2012), summarized on pages 183–90 of IE, suggests that immigrant arrivals harm the productivity of natives . . .

Whether the impacts of immigration on academic mathematics are useful for thinking about the general economic effects of high-skilled immigration is less clear. The number of positions in top academic institutions and the number of papers in top academic journals are relatively rigid, so these are natural places to look for strong displacement effects. We don’t think a “fixed slots” paradigm is likely to be as applicable for the broader labor market. Indeed, Peri, Shih, and Sparber (2014) find a strong positive correlation between inflows of foreign STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers and the wages of college-educated natives across US cities.

They also have a longer discussion about the theoretical modelling that Borjas presents in his textbook which is centred around his "influential 2003 paper", the one you're talking about. From a causal perspective, the results found there can only be the case if there is substitution between natives and immigrants. This should be pretty clear from first principles. Card and Peri discuss this in a few paragraphs (same cite) as well,

A similar issue arises with regard to the degree of substitutability between immigrants and natives with the same education and experience. Many analysts have noted that immigrants and natives with the same observed characteristics are treated differently by the labor market. Lewis (2013) argues that an important source of imperfect substitutability is language ability. Peri and Sparber (2009) document that immigrants tend to specialize in occupations with lower intensity of language and communication skills. Among younger and less-educated immigrants another factor is legal status: many of these immigrants are undocumented, and are pushed into certain types of jobs where immigration laws can be easily evaded.

A similar issue arises with regard to the degree of substitutability between immigrants and natives with the same education and experience. Many analysts have noted that immigrants and natives with the same observed characteristics are treated differently by the labor market.

Moreover, they also check against the robustness of the estimates Borjas provides for substitution. This is much more involved, delving into stuff about production functions, different kinds of elasticities, etc. But I'll summarise that with 'It's not'.

Don't pretend that your proposal wouldn't allow immigration from undeveloped WA nations into developed WA nations, causing similar fiscal crises in the latter nations.

I guess we have to pretend government fiscal policy is exogenous now. Seriously, this point is pretty much meaningless unless we just accept that without argument. Moreover, a minimally imaginative person can conceive of how immigration would have pretty ambiguous effects here, mostly from a generational accounting perspective. Which is entirely to ignore the fact that nations can attach work length requirements and other things to their more generous welfare plans. And before anyone starts going on about Auralia's minimum standard of living creating legal requirements, one should remember what a minimum is.

Moreover, it's not like the literature doesn't include discussion on the effects of free movement. EU immigrants to Denmark have a positive fiscal stimulus. No, the EU isn't just a rich countries club, lots of eastern European countries are members and this is mostly on the period 2002–2013, falling into the period of highest flux. And even if you believe that immigration is some kind of Maltusian trap for government fiscal policy, Kaldor-Hicks efficiency analysis still applies. Transfers solve, given your concession at the top.

I cannot argue against your "most other papers" claim because it is unsubstantiated.

I can't help but laugh at this. This other point just shows you're not familiar with the literature. I am. And so are Card and Peri, who write,

After reading [Borjas'] Immigration Economics, one begins to wonder why countries ever decide to have any immigrants, and why many countries continue to allow relatively large inflows of immigrants . . . We, and many other economists, come down on the latter side. Immigration Economics presents half the story about the economics of immigration. The other half of the story, although a prominent feature of much of the work done by other economists during the past three decades, has no place in this book.

So is Borjas, who writes at the bottom of his 2003 article about how he cannot explain why he gets different results when applying his specific grouping of fixed effects, from the rest of the economic community. Criticising Sciongrad on this because you're not familiar with the literature is pretty foolish.

In my view, the WA ought not to aggravate racial and ethnic tension, which is exactly what this proposal would do. . . . Harm the poor, harm the welfare state, and aggravate racism: those would be the effects of this proposal.

Seriously? This is the advocacy? Harm the poor, if we pretend the poorest people don't exist; harm the welfare state, if we set it up to fail; and stop racism, by being even more racist? At this rate, if we shoot the poor, the rest will earn more; if we kill old people, we help the welfare state; and if we genocide everyone who isn't pearly white, we will end racism. This advocacy isn't serious. It's a Mitchell and Webb sketch.

"In my view", these problems you talk about are not entirely agreed upon to exist in a full general equilibrium analysis. And even if we decide not to ignore their size, they can still be resolved via reforms. And even if we don't do the reforms, we can solve them by transfers. And even if they can't, the people who say there are problems give us estimates on such a small magnitude that they don't matter compared to how much good we can do. And by the time you get here, you've lost any reasonable sense of how societies work and the moral high ground.

[Bears Armed]

-snip-

OOC: I suspect that this argument is more a matter of ideology than evidence

OOC: And your trying to force this policy on everybody isn't driven by ideology?

[Old Hope]

All these statistics are incredibly pointless. We do not refute the positive effects of limited, controlled immigration- that's good.
It is unrestricted immigration that is a problem.
Economy:
They are not statistics for wide, absolutely unrestricted migration with an onus on the state to give each migrant enough money to live off(save those who could, but decline to, try to find work).
No region has unlimited capacity.
The population of every WA member state differs greatly.

What will happen:
This will just result in an unsurmountable immigration to the richest countries... which will make them poor and overcrowded. Then the people move away again...

Culture/Social tensions:
The cultural differences in the WA are extreme. Mass immigration(in opposition to slow immigration) leads to isolated communities each with their own culture, to endless social tensions between cultures that do not match, have contrasting ideologies...
This only leads to regional catastrophes and a high crime rate.
Can anyone refute this?
If not, then this is an idiotic, destructive proposal that will destroy the economy and the social structure of the World Assembly member nations, and ultimatively destroy the World Assembly itself.

[Kenmoria]

Can anyone refute this?
If not, then this is an idiotic, destructive proposal that will destroy the economy and the social structure of the World Assembly member nations, and ultimatively destroy the World Assembly itself.

(OOC: While you could have made your point without the BBCode formatting, I agree with it. The World Assembly contains thousands of different species, which would likely share almost nothing in common with regards to culture and way of life. Furthermore, there exists such a huge number of WA nations, some of such have huge populations, so a Utopian nation would very quickly get swamped in a wave of economic migrants.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

No hope for discarding the lump of labour.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't deny that "immigration is a net positive for a nation's economy." GDP grows, but the poor's wages fall.

First, this entire question is framed incorrectly. If we actually care about everyone, and not just the people that I was placed with in the lottery of birth, then this policy massively increases the wages of the poor people who are able to access stronger institutions, better capital, etc. Considering that most of the 'poor' in developed countries are not poor at all, in a global sense, this is a perplexingly nearsighted view for someone who keeps talking about the need for a universal morality.

Even if we get into this side discussion caveating the facts are true, the real question here is: By how much? Weighing exists. And even accepting the figures from the source you provided, the answer is not a lot. The elasticity calculated by the author is pretty clear in that, with an inelastic estimate pretty far from unit elastic. To put this in terms of the United States (also from where the data for the study are derived and where they should be applied), which has inflow on the order 1.18 million... then the US would have to import another 118 thousand people (about the population of Charleston in 2010) per year to reduce wages by ... 20 dollars per week. High school dropouts will never work again!I!!i!111!

Moreover, simple economic analyses of this point are pretty pointless. Yea, a basic partial-equilibrium model can't produce the outcomes you want. Partial-equilibrium models regularly produce results discordant with the general-equilibrium nature of reality. Basic models regularly ignore second order effects which together outweigh the first order. To support that position, the guy who wrote your paper wrote in his textbook on immigration economics: "... it is mathematically impossible to manipulate the canonical model of the competitive labor market so as to yield a large net gain from immigration to the United States" (David Card and Giovanni Peri, "Immigration Economics by George J. Borjas: A Review Essay" at 1346, quoting Borgas "Immigration Economics" at 151). I'll quote Card and Peri, in their cited assessment, at length.

The real question is whether one wants to take seriously any of the ideas in modern growth theory, which allow for effects of human-capital externalities (e.g., Romer 1990; Moretti 2004a, 2004b), skill variety (Alesina, Harnoss, and Rapoport 2013), task specialization (Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg 2008), market integration (Rivera-Batiz and Romer 1991), and potential gains from rising numbers of scientists and engineers (Jones 2002). These models allow for potential increasing returns to scale and/or endogenous technological change—factors that arguably dominate the second-order surplus calculations presented in chapter 7, and have been linked in recent work to immigration flows (e.g., Kerr and Lincoln 2010; Lewis 2011; Peri 2012; Peri, Shih, and Sparber (2014); Ottaviano, Peri, and Wright 2013) . . .

Finally, chapter 8 of IE [abbreviation for Immigration Economics] reviews some interesting case studies of high-skilled immigration, focusing on impacts on productivity in innovation (measured by patents) and academia (measured by the numbers of papers published by mathematicians). In the case of patents, foreign skilled workers seem to be highly productive (Hunt and Gauthier loiselle 2010), with no evidence of a negative spillover on the output of natives (Kerr and lincoln 2010; summarized in table 8.2 of IE). In the case of academic mathematicians, evidence from Borjas and Doran (2012), summarized on pages 183–90 of IE, suggests that immigrant arrivals harm the productivity of natives . . .

Whether the impacts of immigration on academic mathematics are useful for thinking about the general economic effects of high-skilled immigration is less clear. The number of positions in top academic institutions and the number of papers in top academic journals are relatively rigid, so these are natural places to look for strong displacement effects. We don’t think a “fixed slots” paradigm is likely to be as applicable for the broader labor market. Indeed, Peri, Shih, and Sparber (2014) find a strong positive correlation between inflows of foreign STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers and the wages of college-educated natives across US cities.

They also have a longer discussion about the theoretical modelling that Borjas presents in his textbook which is centred around his "influential 2003 paper", the one you're talking about. From a causal perspective, the results found there can only be the case if there is substitution between natives and immigrants. This should be pretty clear from first principles. Card and Peri discuss this in a few paragraphs (same cite) as well,

A similar issue arises with regard to the degree of substitutability between immigrants and natives with the same education and experience. Many analysts have noted that immigrants and natives with the same observed characteristics are treated differently by the labor market. Lewis (2013) argues that an important source of imperfect substitutability is language ability. Peri and Sparber (2009) document that immigrants tend to specialize in occupations with lower intensity of language and communication skills. Among younger and less-educated immigrants another factor is legal status: many of these immigrants are undocumented, and are pushed into certain types of jobs where immigration laws can be easily evaded.

A similar issue arises with regard to the degree of substitutability between immigrants and natives with the same education and experience. Many analysts have noted that immigrants and natives with the same observed characteristics are treated differently by the labor market.

Moreover, they also check against the robustness of the estimates Borjas provides for substitution. This is much more involved, delving into stuff about production functions, different kinds of elasticities, etc. But I'll summarise that with 'It's not'.

Don't pretend that your proposal wouldn't allow immigration from undeveloped WA nations into developed WA nations, causing similar fiscal crises in the latter nations.

I guess we have to pretend government fiscal policy is exogenous now. Seriously, this point is pretty much meaningless unless we just accept that without argument. Moreover, a minimally imaginative person can conceive of how immigration would have pretty ambiguous effects here, mostly from a generational accounting perspective. Which is entirely to ignore the fact that nations can attach work length requirements and other things to their more generous welfare plans. And before anyone starts going on about Auralia's minimum standard of living creating legal requirements, one should remember what a minimum is.

Moreover, it's not like the literature doesn't include discussion on the effects of free movement. EU immigrants to Denmark have a positive fiscal stimulus. No, the EU isn't just a rich countries club, lots of eastern European countries are members and this is mostly on the period 2002–2013, falling into the period of highest flux. And even if you believe that immigration is some kind of Maltusian trap for government fiscal policy, Kaldor-Hicks efficiency analysis still applies. Transfers solve, given your concession at the top.

I cannot argue against your "most other papers" claim because it is unsubstantiated.

I can't help but laugh at this. This other point just shows you're not familiar with the literature. I am. And so are Card and Peri, who write,

After reading [Borjas'] Immigration Economics, one begins to wonder why countries ever decide to have any immigrants, and why many countries continue to allow relatively large inflows of immigrants . . . We, and many other economists, come down on the latter side. Immigration Economics presents half the story about the economics of immigration. The other half of the story, although a prominent feature of much of the work done by other economists during the past three decades, has no place in this book.

So is Borjas, who writes at the bottom of his 2003 article about how he cannot explain why he gets different results when applying his specific grouping of fixed effects, from the rest of the economic community. Criticising Sciongrad on this because you're not familiar with the literature is pretty foolish.

In my view, the WA ought not to aggravate racial and ethnic tension, which is exactly what this proposal would do. . . . Harm the poor, harm the welfare state, and aggravate racism: those would be the effects of this proposal.

Seriously? This is the advocacy? Harm the poor, if we pretend the poorest people don't exist; harm the welfare state, if we set it up to fail; and stop racism, by being even more racist? At this rate, if we shoot the poor, the rest will earn more; if we kill old people, we help the welfare state; and if we genocide everyone who isn't pearly white, we will end racism. This advocacy isn't serious. It's a Mitchell and Webb sketch.

"In my view", these problems you talk about are not entirely agreed upon to exist in a full general equilibrium analysis. And even if we decide not to ignore their size, they can still be resolved via reforms. And even if we don't do the reforms, we can solve them by transfers. And even if they can't, the people who say there are problems give us estimates on such a small magnitude that they don't matter compared to how much good we can do. And by the time you get here, you've lost any reasonable sense of how societies work and the moral high ground.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write this post. It is informative. Second, I admit that I am not familiar with the literature. Neither is Sciongrad. You are. My criticism was directed at Sciongrad, who has repeatedly claimed, without citation, that there is a consensus for his position. Third, since my first post in this thread, I have acknowledged that immigration is ordinarily beneficial to national economies. My complaint, as suggested by my use of italics in the preceding sentence, is that immigration is not categorically and uniformly beneficial. Therefore, member states should retain their power to regulate immigration. Of course, most member states should maintain liberal immigration policies. Unlimited immigration, however, is unwise. Fourth, mass immigration of unskilled and low-skilled laborers into an economically advanced nation usually benefits two groups: the nation's high-income citizens and the immigrants. It usually harms one group: the low-income citizens. As you have said, redistributionist schemes can alleviate the harm that low-income citizens suffer. So can policies controlling and limiting immigration. The choice of an appropriate policy on this matter should be left to national governments.

Throughout this thread, I have made my position fairly clear. No immigration is bad; unlimited immigration is bad; moderate immigration is good. What counts as "moderate immigration"? It will vary among nations according to their particular circumstances.

I'm not anti-immigration. I'm not an open-borders person either. This position is not "racist" or "xenophobic." It is not "unscientific." The "social liberals" in this thread are behaving irrationally. The economic liberals in this thread, I think, are claiming too much.*

__________
* At least a person can debate the latter group. Groundless accusations of racism by the former group stifle debate.

[United Sacredotia]

Couple of problems that Sacredotia has with proposed resolution.

1. Declares that any citizen of a member nation shall have the right to seek and enjoy temporary or permanent employment in any other member nation, subject to any reasonable regulations applicable to national workers; this provision specifically excludes training, education, or certification processes beyond what a reasonable nation may deem necessary for a particular job;

Just... why? Coupled with the later provision, this effectively means that any person whatever, if employed, is almost as good as citizen of the nation. This alone, greatly disadvantages poorer nations of the World Assembly, as they will suffer from the brain drain, as their finest can just leave to the wealthier nation and find employment there. Suffice to say, that would tremendously increase inequality between nations, straight up stalling development of some. This is not beneficial to building the international community.
At least with temporary employment, nation's emigrants eventually return, enriching their nation with know-how they could gather in another nation.

Sacredotia will not support this, as long as universal right of permanent employment is granted by it. Universal right of temporary employment we could support.

2. Grants all citizens of member nations employed in other member nations the right to physically remain in that member nation while they are employed or actively seeking employment; member nations shall reserve the right to deport foreign nationals, regardless of their employment status, only if those foreign nationals have committed serious crimes for which an average citizen of that country would be punished with a similar level of severity

1. If they are employed, this is superfluous.
2. This could be construed by some, that foreign national must commit several serious crimes before he is deported.
3. Similar level of severity would be deprivation of citizenship, as shown above. Even for serious crimes, this is a rare punishment.

3. Further declares that no citizen of a member nation seeking employment in another member nation shall face discrimination in hiring, termination, wages, or any other aspect of employment on the grounds of their national status -- this shall include language proficiency, which shall not be a requirement for employment beyond what is reasonable for that particular job; nor shall such individuals be detained, deported, or otherwise unduly hindered while seeking and gaining employment in another member nation;

Why is this specification viewed as necessary? If reasonable requirements of language proficiency are permitted, then this specification is unnecessary. If you seek to be a lawyer in a nation, and you get denied because you can only speak 10 words in native language, then it is not really a discrimination; therefore does not fall under previous provision. Meanwhile, unreasonable requirement, going beyond fluency that is expected in the position, is a clear discrimination.

[Imperium Anglorum]

@CD

Thank you for your response. In positive analysis, I hope that my responses have created the impression that Borjas is wrong altogether. It's not possible to fully discount the results by multiple authors that there could be a small harm against low income labourers. Yet, nor can I discount the multitude of evidence that no such harm exists.

There is also evidence that immigration with certain characteristics harms other immigrants with those same general characteristics. This is much clearer theoretically (and empirically) and harder to square against the growth literature.

In the normative analysis though, even with concession that low income labourers are harmed and past immigrants are harmed, the benefit inclusive of the immigrants massively outweighs. If one pulls out CRRA utility functions to try to quantify that harm, the benefits are massively magnified. Harms against richer people have lower weight. And given that transfers do solve in this case, I cannot help but think that the implicit harm inclusive of immigrants is so large as to make inaction morally repugnant, exacerbated by the small to non-existent harms imposed.

This is like trade, but with even larger and stronger transmissions to human well-being. From a consistency perspective, I cannot think of any good reasons to treat trade in goods and services differently from labour. Closed labour markets are basically protectionism.

---

I can much more easily understand why a government wouldn't want their people leaving. It is fewer people to tax, fewer people to oppress, less resources to control. I don't see those as morally convincing reasons to oppose.

[Imperium Anglorum]

@Sacredotia

1. Remittances. Temporary employment would also massively screw workers. They would be forced to take lower wages to be able to stay. That kind of bargaining power harms labour.

2. You can't strip a national of their nationality if that would make them stateless. I think the first bolded word should be removed. Treating people equally, I think, is something that is prima facie good. The real burden is justifying discrimination.

3. Differential substitution. This is necessary to lower substitutability between different labour pools.

[Aclion]

First, this entire question is framed incorrectly. If we actually care about everyone, and not just the people that I was placed with in the lottery of birth, then this policy massively increases the wages of the poor people who are able to access stronger institutions, better capital, etc.

On that note, if we actually care about everyone why is that only citizens of other member nations enjoy a right to free movement? At least as a resident of a member state a person is guaranteed basic human rights and a minimum standard of living, not so with non-members.

[Kenmoria]

First, this entire question is framed incorrectly. If we actually care about everyone, and not just the people that I was placed with in the lottery of birth, then this policy massively increases the wages of the poor people who are able to access stronger institutions, better capital, etc.

On that note, if we actually care about everyone why is that only citizens of other member nations enjoy a right to free movement? At least as a resident of a member state a person is guaranteed basic human rights and a minimum standard of living, not so with non-members.

(OOC: Probably because of the “can’t affect non-member nations” rule. It’s an impossibility to try and legislate any of those things for non-members, much as some would like to.)

[Aclion]

On that note, if we actually care about everyone why is that only citizens of other member nations enjoy a right to free movement? At least as a resident of a member state a person is guaranteed basic human rights and a minimum standard of living, not so with non-members.

(OOC: Probably because of the “can’t affect non-member nations” rule. It’s an impossibility to try and legislate any of those things for non-members, much as some would like to.)

Oh that's easy enough to get around. You just need to phrase the clause differently. "No person shall be denied the right to seek and enjoy temporary or permanent employment in any member nation blah blah blah".

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Probably because of the “can’t affect non-member nations” rule. It’s an impossibility to try and legislate any of those things for non-members, much as some would like to.)

Oh that's easy enough to get around. You just need to phrase the clause differently. "No person shall be denied the right to seek and enjoy temporary or permanent employment in any member nation blah blah blah".

If nations don’t want to join the WA, they shouldn’t enjoy the rights that member states are given by the resolutions that the General Assembly passes. It would also be very hard to give a guarantee of freedom of travel from member to non-member without running afoul of the rules.