TED Conversations

Ehis Odijie

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do you support unrestricted Immigration?

I do.

Restriction of people, if you come to think of it, makes no sense from a social standpoint. How can you restrict the movement of someone to a geographical fiction called Nation? YES the Nation state is a fiction but that is not what we are discussing here.

From an economic standpoint, free movement of people is the only way to achieve Factor price equalization and true free trade which will benefit all.

From a political standpoint – it is a way of achieving peace just as European Union has brought peace to the EU.

It will lead to a reduction of wages from the more advanced country – globalization is already doing that. That is part of the Factor price equalization by Paul Samuelson.

Do you? and why?

Topics: USA Mexico border control immigration
+4
Share:
progress indicator

  • Roberto Garcia

    • 0
    Sep 27 2012: The point is not the immigration, but who is immigrating. I would not say "restrict" immigration but "filtering". In all countries there are good and bad people. If an immigrant who is a hard worker that will come to my country, and work hard, pay his taxes, be a good neighboor, and a good citizen. That individual is welcome. But the failure on good "filtering" of who comes in is what is taking nations to thing about "restriction".

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 22 2012: so wright how 3 of my last jobs were taken over by the illegal that i trained to be my helper then i was fired as soon as they knew enough to run it them selves for 1/2 the amount i was making. and burn it ?

    • Roberto Garcia

      • +1
      Sep 27 2012: That was a failure of your boss, because if you were good enough to be chosen to train the newcomers. Then you are the type of employee that any enterprise should keep, no matter how good the new ones are. Management is not only a matter of money but of human chemistry, In my country there is a porverb that says: "If something is good you dont change it". Maybe your former boss never heard that proverb.

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: people that ellect to move out of there corrupt country should be collected up and sent to an education center wen they learn to abide by our rules of safe conduct and how much they should make at a given job and not accept 10% of that position so as not to destabilize our system they can be awarded citizenship.

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: hold up the change i desire is put it back to how it was. not open season on illegal immigration. reopen Ellis island. make them learn the rules and language. they are called ILLEGAL for a reason. that in it self is grounds for dismissal. but illegal doing illegal things = death in some countries.

    • Richard Krooman 50+

      • 0
      Sep 22 2012: it sounds as though you have had a bad experience with illegal immigrants... Which is ofcourse very unfortunate.
      However I have some advice for you. It would, in my eyes, do you good not to write posts while you are burning with anger. Or perhaps you should write them but then refrain from hitting send untill you have calmed down and reread your own post.
      I say this because when I read your posts I cannot find any arguments as to why you are for or against. I can only find anger.
      And although I am interrested in your opinion I cannot see any foundation for your views (other than that the immigrants have an obligation to learn about the country they want to go to).

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: my point it why do you want data proving something wen they should stay in there own country and stand up to there corrupt government instead of running away?

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: well i only had 5 minutes to look lol and not all are in the papers as the papers are censored...

    • Iñigo Puente Bustindui

      • +2
      Sep 21 2012: It's easy to speak like that when you haven't suffered all the injustices of the third world. They don't run away; it's just matter of survival.

      With all due respect.

  • esteban gonzalez

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: else talking about Native Americans, is to understand why they are not in the U.S. Constitution?

  • esteban gonzalez

    • +1
    Sep 21 2012: the point is that sooner or later we must think as humans, not national.

  • Iñigo Puente Bustindui

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: I could agree, but not now. I beleave it is fairer and more human to be citicen of the world, nevertheless you can not allow that until the world has more even or egalitarian conditions. If not, it would be unfair for the rich countries which would be invaded for low-income people, from the third world, looking for oportunities and a better life. Something like the emigration we can see today, just that in an unsustainable massive way.

    I understand rich countries have been unfair, many times, with poor countries; but it is also true that rich countries have a lot of hard work, sweat, effort, inteligence and even blood spilled, given by many generations whom have countribute to the society they are today.

  • Richard Krooman 50+

    • 0
    Sep 20 2012: There are 2 seperate issues here.
    1) physical place in the world.
    2) legistlation/rights regarding that place.

    1) I think that everyone would support 1 (aka everyone is free to go to any place upon this world.. given that they do not invade someone's personal space).

    2) The real question however in my eyes is if and when 2 should apply.
    As example a few countries have very good health systems and or retirement plans. These systems have been build by long term investments by the inhabitants. As a logical result only people that have fully attributed to these systems should (imo) be allowed to fully utilize their use.
    Another (inverted) example is that (imo and generally speaking) one should not be able to escape a penalty for a crime commited in a previous country by moving to another.

    Unfortunately it is not possible to make distinctions within issue nr2 because you either are a citizen of one country or you are not. And therefor there are many problems regarding people who 'become citizen' of a different country later on in life (this is not the only reason for somewhat failing imigration ofcourse).

  • Todd Levesque

    • 0
    Sep 20 2012: look at the outcome how many kids under the age of 18 were killed by illegal aliens driving drunk with no papers of any kind? no license to passport no reg on the car stolen plates. AND THEY JUST WALK. killed a 13 year old girl in Florida and walked with 3 due's!!!! then hes free to go you know anyplace as he don't have an address. can we go to mexico with out documentation? with out papers ? oh. and they are checking all the non illegals like PEOPLE BORN HERE 6 and 7 year olds being strip searched at airports, but people with no ID at all can go where ever they please with no restrictions and no recourse to there actions.
  • thumb

    John Moonstroller 20+

    • 0
    Sep 19 2012: Very interesting reading Ehis Odijie.

    Paul Samuelson.

    I'm posting a like to a pdf of his writing associated with your topic and the note attributed to him.

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&cp=44&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Factor+price+equalization+by+Paul+Samuelson.&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Factor+price+equalization+by+Paul+Samuelson.&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=70947f9cdc2ed06a&biw=1680&bih=834

    Edward, if you haven't read this...... you should. John.

  • John Anthony Quiroz

    • +1
    Sep 19 2012: Every individual should have the right to geographical mobility. However, I believe, that strict policies and standards should be inforced along with an agenda for a set period of time. If you can adapt to the surrounding environment you stay, if you fail to do so you go.

  • Beta Wang

    • +1
    Sep 19 2012: Yes, and the front point is, countries don't exist anymore.

    With countries, people have different laws, morals, tax and benefit systems, religious tendency. If it's the reason for free immigration, the result will leave some culture gap between countries bigger and bigger, rich countries will lost their attraction by changing benefit plan because so many people unable to work will pour into those countries.

    For countries with wars for decades, for countries where poor people won't get any support from their government, for countries with rich resources being seized by other powerful countries, for countries with people get slaughtered for no reason, for countries with low education level plus poor environment and high birth rate, does free immigration change any of this?

    But, how can we live peace without country?

    First, religious, how people can be satisfied with the religious situation around them? If anybody can solve this problem, I agree it's worth more than ten times Noble Peace Price.
  • thumb

    Mark Hurych

    • 0
    Sep 19 2012: Are we talking by household or by country?
  • thumb

    Jerry Johnson 500+

    • +2
    TEDx Organizer
    Sep 18 2012: Unrestricted immigration is an application of the universal human right to mobility, which is in turn an application of the universal human right to liberty.

    So long as no one else's rights are being violated, every individual should be left free to live on his or her own terms, wherever they please, however they please.

    Once we accept these are fundamental principles, we will be able to create more rational and benevolent laws around mobility and ownership keeping in mind security, health, and economic impacts.
    • thumb

      John Moonstroller 20+

      • 0
      Sep 19 2012: Sounds very benevolent Jerry. I say we stay with the application process.

      While I agree with you in principle, trying to implement such an idea would be similar to giving our teenagers unrestricted rights to go where they want, when they want. They're just not ready for that kind of freedom. Maybe when these uprising are done and things settle down and education becomes the dominate tool to homogenized the world culture we might give it a try. Is TED available in China, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya?
      • thumb

        joseph yu

        • 0
        Sep 27 2012: TED is available in China, i don't know the situation in other countries.
        • thumb

          John Moonstroller 20+

          • 0
          Sep 27 2012: That is too cool. How could I verify that?
        • thumb

          chen xin

          • 0
          Sep 27 2012: at least he is giving answers on ted .you know althought we can not see drectly .but we can see that there is a collection of it .we can find in chinese website .and also i want tosay that we still need to work on cnnecting to the world .maybe not all things have been opened in chian.w still nee a lot
    • thumb

      Eric Henry

      • +1
      Sep 20 2012: Jerry, great goal, but see some of my other comments below. Until nations are brought more into equal alignment in terms of economy, rule of law, political stability, etc, sudden liberation of this nature would be catastrophic.

      I hate to sound like an apologist for strict immigration, but the more I think about it the more I believe we should focus on helping others rise within their own national and cultural context before opening the floodgates.
      • thumb

        John Moonstroller 20+

        • 0
        Sep 27 2012: Eric, Can we do this without spending National Tax Payers Money? Should this be a job for the UN?

        Chen, I don't see China as a proven super power. It is speculation only.
        • thumb

          chen xin

          • 0
          Sep 27 2012: if we all think like you do .there wont be responsibility . the world may be not good as it i today .
          as a super county amrica,china we all have responsibility to take care of the world .

  • george lockwood 20+

    • +1
    Sep 18 2012: What's wrong with looking at it like someone with science training? What's wrong with looking at it from the view of someone in the "know" in another way such as someone who has raisedlivestock. So we have How do we avoid the irresponsible conduct feared by scientistsor that conduct feared by anyone who has raised livestock? Malthus was an optimist with his idea of moral restraint. The idea we are commenting on here is that we should let the irresponsible or unfortunate mess up our best living plans.
  • thumb

    pat gilbert 50+

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: @ John Smith below

    Nope that is conjecture. If you had bothered to look at my link or read my post you would have seen that the U.S. has 20% of the worlds immigrants the next closest one is Russia with 6%.

    Once again:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_imm_pop_per_of_tot_num_of_imm_in_the_wor-percentage-total-number-immigrants-world
    • thumb

      peter lindsay 30+

      • +1
      Sep 17 2012: But if you just look at raw totals and don't correct for sample size the US is the wealthiest nation based on GDP and China is second. On a per capita basis (which is how you personally experience your life) the US is 14th and China is 88th.
      You could put all the immigrants in the whole world in China and they would still be a relatively homogenous society with only 14% immigrant population. That's about the same as Ireland which isn't exactly a hot bed of multi-culturalism.
      Using the raw data China and Australia have about the same number of immigrants but I bet they're easier to spot in Sydney than they are in Beijing.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Sep 17 2012: I don't see it that way especially at the cost per immigrant.
        • thumb

          peter lindsay 30+

          • 0
          Sep 17 2012: I thought the US economy was built on immigration.
        • thumb

          John Moonstroller 20+

          • 0
          Sep 20 2012: I can't answer for Pat, Peter, but what I got from his message was pointed towards the impact cost per immigrant. The cost to the nation to take in an immigrant. Immigration cost the hosting nation money until they get adjusted and start contributing revenue to the system. Can we afford new immigrants right now with so many of our own citizens out of work?

          They have to be educated, trained, berthed, feed and given medical care. Legal immigration is a costly business. illegal immigration costs are higher because you have to figure in the cost of police to track them down, the damage they cause from not being properly educated and adjusted to their new surroundings, they may have affiliations with criminal activity or become desperate and commit crime.

          In the Mitt Romney video that was recently released, he bold states that he would love to bring in loads of new immigrants, I'm sure, because it would have a wage lowering effect on labor in this country. Because he doesn't see the 47%, as he puts it in the video, he doesn't consider them. Because he doesn't consider them, he doesn't realize the impact it could have if they got angry all at once.

          Personally I think you guys have the same picture, just different picture frames.

          Am I correct here Pat?
      • thumb

        John Moonstroller 20+

        • 0
        Sep 19 2012: Peter the US economy is built on metered immigration.
        • thumb

          peter lindsay 30+

          • 0
          Sep 19 2012: I fully agree. I just thought that Pat's description of cost per immigrant only occurs if you're getting the wrong immigrants. Well structured immigration should bring in people that are a benefit to what ever you are trying to achieve. With the exception of refugees.

    • John Smith 30+

      • +1
      Sep 17 2012: "Nope that is conjecture. If you had bothered to look at my link or read my post you would have seen that the U.S. has 20% of the worlds immigrants the next closest one is Russia with 6%."

      Nation master's statistics are very bad, but let's just assume they're correct in this instance you have to look at the percentage of the host country's population (like Peter Lindsay is trying to explain to you), then Australia and Canada beat the US according to nationmaster, and most importantly the word "melting pot" refers to cultural diversity, that means that even if 95% of Norway's population consisted of Swedish immigrants Norway still wouldn't be a melting pot because the immigrants are from the same culture, on the other India is a melting pot because of its wildly varying cultures, even though all of those cultures have been in the country for centuries.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Sep 17 2012: An extremely small percentage of the U.S. population is native in other words 99.99 % of the U.S. population is native if you want to compare that to India.

        • John Smith 30+

          • 0
          Sep 17 2012: Being "native" (no matter what your cut off point for "native" happens to be) has nothing to do with it. It's about current diversity: the current United States is very diverse but may not be the most diverse country in the world, that's all.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • +1
        Sep 17 2012: Okey Dokey

  • Leandro Cordeiro

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: A degree of control will always exist - but if restrictions are to exist then it should not be purely based on nationality criteria.

  • Mitt Jobz

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: Absolutely not. The wrong people could take over the government and make things unfair for the people who were there before them, and for the nation as a whole. Lazy and incompetent people would likely become more commonplace under such a liberal society.
    • thumb

      Eric Henry

      • 0
      Sep 20 2012: And that's different from now in what way other than scale?

  • esteban gonzalez

    • +1
    Sep 16 2012: remember the order of the chaos, divide and conquer, all our governments in humanity are forms of control of the territory, in this world there is enough for everyone, but we make up private property and start competing for natural resources when the resource really precious freedom and respect for others
    • thumb

      John Moonstroller 20+

      • 0
      Sep 19 2012: Those fences are just to keep the cows from eating all the corn. Don't take them literally.

  • esteban gonzalez

    • +1
    Sep 16 2012: begin to understand that the planet earth has no owner, this planet is for everyone, the only nation that exists is the nation's life.
    • thumb

      John Moonstroller 20+

      • 0
      Sep 19 2012: Yes, in principle, no one really owns the planet but isn't occupation 9/10 ownership?
    • thumb

      Eric Henry

      • 0
      Sep 20 2012: Great thought, Esteban, but when that philosophy came into conflict with human nature in North America, native Americans were driven almost off the face of the map by the unquenched human desire to own things.

  • To Giang

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: In my viewpoint, the answer is definitely no. Unrestricted immigration would lead to severe consequences for both developing and developed countries. Let's imagine the scenario when throngs of people move to some nations which are called "promising lands". How can the governments control the autonomy? How can they keep their traditional culture?
    • thumb

      John Moonstroller 20+

      • 0
      Sep 19 2012: I see teachers with 200 pupil classes, 3/4 which don't speak any English. Then we would have to hire more teachers in declining economy. The numbers just don't work.
  • thumb

    Wade Crum

    • +1
    Sep 16 2012: We are a nation of all nations. All are welcome. All are to honor our constitution....anyone else...enjoy your visit. We are The United States of America do not marry us and expect us to change.
  • thumb

    Elizabeth Gu 30+

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: To some extent, I want to support unrestricted immigration, but...
    without thorough censorship, unrestricted immgration can be a threat to the people in your country.
    You don't want drug dealers, fugitives, and Mafia to come to your country and settle down, do you?

    For safety issues, unrestriced immigration should be done by government's discretion.
    • thumb

      Eric Henry

      • 0
      Sep 20 2012: If only it were all about safety, Elizabeth, I would completely agree with you. Your point is, however, a valid one.

    • Daniel Harder

      • 0
      Sep 23 2012: i also like you comment Elizabth, but by restricting the border is just keeping out the nice hard working people that we want because the Mafia and drug dealers allready come and go as they please
  • thumb

    chen xin

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: i don't like moving .i just want to stay in china ,do what i can ,owe what i can have!moving can make a mess!

  • Dan F 50+

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: To attain this objective would requires considerable accord and civility between nations. Too often hostility better describes these relations and it can extend to individuals because they are often envoys of their extraction.

    Aside from that fact, does not a sovereign nation have a right to restrict immigration for a host of sound reasons?

    Perhaps we would all be better off if more nation states would be kinder and gentler to their countrymen so there would be less desire for them to escape to a better environment.

    I don't agree with your proclamation that nations are fictional.

  • walter crockett

    • 0
    Sep 15 2012: No. And if you can't understand my answer there is no reason to explain. And the explanation by the questioner is so full of holes you could drive a truck through them.
Load more comments…