TED Conversations

Ehis Odijie

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

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?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America. One of the key contributors to the early growth of the U.S.A. was the immigration policy enforced during the first 200 or so years of her 236 year history. That immigration policy was a tightly controlled, rigidly enforced system of screening each and every applicant. Her borders were protected by a combination of natural barriers and manned security stystems as required to minimize illegal immigration. As that system fell into disrepair in the last 35 or so years illegal immigration increased. Coincidentally, the steep decline of American strength began shortly thereafter. Cause and effect? Probably. An unrestricted immigration policy is an efficient means to weaken an established nation and to keep a developing nation from thriving.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: You are not blaming the decline of American economic strength on immigration - Are you?

      You must have read your American history upside down because, save the Orients, your country had free immigration policy from its inception until about 1915. And immigration is the very cause of your economic and military strength - people from Europe escaping tyranny and farming all flocked to the United State during different wave of mass immigration. Theodore Roosevelt – Dutch descendant, JFK – Irish. America is the very example of the merit of free immigration, at its best.

      Read your own history - my friend
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: By "free immigration" do you mean free of ethnic quotas? After ethnic quotas on immigration were removed in 1965 the number of actual (first-generation) immigrants living in the United States eventually quadrupled from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007. In 2008 the US economy melted-down. Cause and effect? Perhaps secondary or tertiary.
        America is certainly a nation of immigrants. Those immigrants came through Ellis Island and San Francisco and complied to all immigration laws, including ethnic quotas. They came seeking a chance to work diligently for a better life with freedom of self-determination. What exactly do you mean by "free immigration"?
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: Edward - do you really think illegal immigrants contributed to the economic crisis?. As a matter of economic analysis America gains from illegal immigration, as long as they remain illegal - YES. They work below minimum wage, and are not subjected to occupation and health codes . They work below the standard of an average America - and they pay taxes. They are the once keeping marginal firms afloat and you have the ignorance to accord the crisis to them. They contribute more to the economy more than an average American does- this is a statement of fact - not debatable, because they do not receive welfare and they pay for it.

          That is the face. Not except you are on a strict diet of right wing propaganda, without analyzing the information you eat up.

          To turn to your second point: the ethnic quotas, more appropriately called the race quota, has nothing to do with immigration - it was a racist law to prevent nonwhite from coming into America.

          As a matter of history there was no immigration control into the USA until 1915. The ethnic quotas you talked about was instituted in 1924. So , with all due respect ,you lied when you said USA had stiff immigration laws in the "first 200 or so years of her 236 year history". How can you be that ignorant of your own history?

          By free immigration i mean free movement of people. Now ask me another question . . .
      • Sep 13 2012: "As a matter of economic analysis America gains from illegal immigration, as long as they remain illegal - YES. They work below minimum wage, and are not subjected to occupation and health codes . They work below the standard of an average America - and they pay taxes."

        If talking about exports, yes. But the economy inside gets weakened, as decreasing loans (of legal or illegal worker does not matter) kill the states economy quickly.

        Also, every person inside a state raises costs, and when illegal workers get paid much less, they might be a benefit for the company, but not for the state, who has to maintain the infrastructure. These costs must be substracted from the earnings of export.

        Also, illegal immigrants neither do always work, nor that they spend all their money inside the state they migrated to. Most of their income goes outside a country, to support family and friends. In total, illegal migration is no win, that is why it is illegal migration. If there was a win, there was no need to make migration illegal under certain circumstances.

        The crisis is insofar supported by illegal workers, as the toleration of those speeds up the negative effects of decreasing loans. It might work in Village A, where Farmer Joe has his farm run by illegal workers and gains tax wins for the Village. But the state this Village is located at loses, because there is a money drain, higher costs for the unemployed, less sales tax and so on. And if that happens in every State, a Nation goes down.

        And that is why unrestricted whatever does not work. Because that also means unrestricted costs.

        From the ethical side, migration should not be restricted. But it has to, otherwise that what was attractive to migrate into gets lost. If all people on a boat move to one side, it sinks. Its better to make both sides comfortable enough, that both sides migrate in equal sum
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: "when illegal workers get paid much less, they might be a benefit for the company, but not for the state."

          What’s the difference? Say, they help keep 100 companies open - the companies’ pay taxes to the state and such taxes are used to supply and maintain infrastructure, so are contributing to the state - directly. If they leave, marginal firms will disappear (a fact) because most cannot afford to pay minimum wage = state loses more taxes. This is just the fact.

          Also, they have no access to ‘depletable’ social services – so it’s a win situation for the country at large. Put them up against idle Americans you'd understand . .

          "Also, illegal immigrants neither do always work, nor that they spend all their money inside the state they migrated to. Most of their income goes outside a country"

          The fraction of local savings is what goes out. This is very easy to calculate - an average worker spends his income on basic good, cloth, housing and food - the balance goes into savings. The immigrant sends his surplus outside. There is no difference in principle.

          Your point on that "The crisis is insofar supported by illegal workers" does not deserve my attention. See how silly an argument could be - you refuse to accept that they are contributing to the economy in the slightest but settled that they contributed to the crisis.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: RE: "Now, ask me another question. . . "Thank you for permitting me another question. Here it is:Why does this list of significant dates in US Immigration law falsify your assertion that immigration in America was unrestricted until 1924?Naturalization Act of 1790: Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"1875: Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act: Prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.1891: The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.1892: On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.1903: This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.1917 - 1924: A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. Please respond to this specific information and spare me your assessment of my knowledge base. Thank you!
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: I said "save the Orients".

          But read your extract 1790: Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States". Meaning anyone can be a citizen provided they are not slaves . . That is a free immigration policy . . read the full document please.

          Then you have "The Chinese Exclusion Act" that's what i meant by the Orient. That was an issue of race as opposed to immigration control.

          Modern border passport requirements started in the first world war . . 1915 is when the first debate on immigration was introduced in congress - as a policy to protect America workers as opposed to a racist policy to avoid Orients . . Don't you get?
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: RE: "I said "save the Orients"."
        You consider the stipulation "a free white person" to be an indicator of a free immigration policy? A simple reading of that clause clearly excludes Hispanics, Asians, Africans, all non-whites. How on Earth do you consider that free immigration sir?
      • Sep 13 2012: " If they leave, marginal firms will disappear (a fact) because most cannot afford to pay minimum wage = state loses more taxes. This is just the fact."

        Yes, but you forget here that a state has multiple incomes. Think about that these minimum taxes is one, but that does not outweigh all the money "lost" from unemployed people and money that goes outside the country, also these low-income workers (if legal or illegal does not matter) do consume almost only what is necessary for live, but not in anything luxury.

        "Also, they have no access to ‘depletable’ social services – so it’s a win situation for the country at large. Put them up against idle Americans you'd understand . . "

        It is not a win situation, as a minimum loan always means minimum tax income from that worker. Assumed the work would be legal, the paid tax would be probably higher. That would mean, there is more money for social services.

        Illegal work that pays taxes is no win, because the money in the pot is way less than it could be. Also, the social cost do not sink, like the loans do. These cost have to be managed, and by these little tax payments from illegal work it will not work. And that affects at most the legal workers, who suffer from worse social services. A state has costs, ok, illegal work might bring a cent here, or there, but what helps it in the end when you have billions of cost?

        " The immigrant sends his surplus outside. There is no difference in principle. "
        It is new to me that the Banks located on southpole pay taxes for the northpole? Money that is not in the country is lost and interests are created elsewhere. It is also not in the pocket of national salesman anymore.

        "you refuse to accept that they are contributing to the economy in the slightest but settled that they contributed to the crisis. "
        They do not contribute, they take part. Contribution would mean, they add something that is not there. But there is enough workers.
    • Sep 13 2012: Hi Edward

      "The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America"

      Where millions of people are unable to meet their basic needs...
      Where millions of people can't see a doctor during their lifetime...
      where millions of children live in poverty...

      where government spend tax money on military means to create enemies leaving their own children in poverty ... you call this power?

      when the young generation can't afford to get college, you call this economical strength?


      I don't think that many would agree that it is power.

      by the way, China is taking over, think again about the " terms of economic and military strength is"
      better to put "is" between brackets:

      The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength (is) was the United States of America...
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: Your diatribe is not germane to this debate sir. You can propose that America is no longer the preeminent nation on Earth, but it cannot be denied that she ONCE WAS. My point-consistent with the topic- is the USA became the greatest nation on Earth by carefully regulating immigration, certainly not by free immigration/open borders. What say ye on that topic Edwin? Thank you!
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: From what I read, Spain is doing much worse than the United States. The words you are speaking will very shortly be speaking of conditions in your own country. Edwin.

        China is in decline since the US is buying less Chinese products. We are the biggest market on the planet. But we are getting a little particular about what we buy and where it comes from. Things could turn around real fast in today's market. Either way, Spain is in a hot spot.

        They buy most of their electricity from other countries.
        They should build more generating plants.
        • Sep 14 2012: I am with you that Spain is doing worse... this is not a news, (I say: "If Spanish National football team was running this country we would be winners three times in row"). many young Spaniards leave Spain in hope finding something different some where else.

          now My point here is this:

          If we (as white people) can go somewhere else and look for a job or just live in another country, why can't a dark skinned person do that?

          Why I should have to work, pay taxes, that a policeman get paid by us and go out to run after young Africans who put their lives in risk, (To be or not to be), coming to Europe by a small toy boat... Those Africans have as much rights as we have to meet their basic needs, Water- Shelter - Food...

          Why we can be legal immigrants and call them illegal immigrants; Who gave us this right?
          Who is illegal anyway? when we all are registered in the country we born, we all have numbers tattooed on our forehead... we all are codes.

          We dug out Africa, India, South America and filled in EU, yet we have here more than we need...but we still want to have, because we choose to ignore the difference between NEED and WANT

          you see, If we could do this to Africa, India, South America then we have to accept the fact and face to the bitten truth and give them back what our grandparents took from them.
          Maybe then, they wouldn't risk their lives to come over here and be illegal immigrant, but we would be in their own country... and I believe they would treat as differently as they did then, because there were rich, gold and diamond were everywhere, they didn't terrorise. colonised, enslaved any country for this.

          Belgium kept Congo under his rule till late 90s... they went there not for Congo, but for diamond. now when a Congolese walks in the streets of Belgium, they all think that this little poor African is terrorist. they do this first to be avoided to be reminded.

          you see, We take an innocent stranger and treat as terrorist instead of tourist
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: If what you say it true, than the smart thing for you to do is move to China, get a job in one of their factories and start learning to speak Chinese. Why waste time?
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: "The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America." Edward, this was only since the end of WWII. prior to WWI, the real driving force in economics was China. The Military is a separate question.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Agreed. My point is we (USA) once enjoyed being king-of-the-hill.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: We still enjoy it. :)
          We just don't have the room for everybody to pile up here.

          I think everyone in the Middle east, Europe and Asia, who want to immigrate should move to Spain. There is plenty of room there.

          If you don't live in Mexico, the United States is a long way off.
      • Sep 14 2012: your generation does think that America is Great...

        sorry to say that I haven't met any young American who think as you do... I think it is because your thinking is a bit old fashioned for them. so they started to accept the fact that we all are equal...

        about Being at the top...
        It can be lonely at the top - Think again when you are at the top again.
        being long time at the top maybe this is one of the reasons that many Americans die in loneliness.

        about people moving to Spain:
        Agricultural Revolution and Development of Civilization started in Southern Europe.
        the oldest cities are in South Europe, these people learned how live together in small cities
        That is why Southern people are more human, civilised and hospitable compared to barbarians of The Frozen North.

        people from the Frozen North come to South to learn HOW to live and enjoy something called LIFE, because all they could learn in the Frozen North is How to be materialist and individualist... The concept of SHARING is beyond their comprehension.

        sir, I am Armenian (non European) and a southern person, I live half of my live in Europe, I lived in the Frozen North for many years and then I moved to South Europe. why? for PEOPLE
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: What you are doing is called stalking. It is against the rules on TED, I believe

          I live at 984 Mill Creek Ave. Canton, Georgia, zip code 300115. Stop by sometime or I'm going to start flagging your comments and let TED decide the issue.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.