Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    GenerationExile: Open Immigration

    What are the positives and Negatives of Open Immigration?

    Started by: drabiega Raves:5 Badge Winner! Longbroading

    Subscribe » RSS

    Imagine, if you will, a world with universal citizenship. In nature and business, resources inherently transfer to more efficient and effective models. In governance, the resources in question are people, but immigration laws and cultural issues make this process slow and unwieldy to the degree that it may take decades or centuries for more efficient governmental structures to gain power and prevents equilibrium states from occuring. If a open citizenship standard could be developed and accepted, it would lessen the impact of inefficient government and accelerate civic development.

    I believe the superthreats themselves almost necessitate it. With parts of the world being rendered uninhabitable and ReDS epidimic threatening others, the idea of closing ones borders is borderline inhumane. I\\\'d expect an announcement from the United Nations within the next week or so with details.

    The issue is making each state (if they can continue to be considered in that way) an equally attractive place to live. The challenge we face currently is that too many people wish to move from war-torn/poverty-striken/infected regions to the developed nations and there simply is not space for everyone. If the developed world invested more heavily in making the underdeveloped nations more hospitable (with modern infrastructures, education systems, industries), then the flow of migrats might be less one-directional. With the proper investment and care, Mogadishu could be the new Dubai; Harare the new Seychelles (especially as the latter is now quarantined). In this way, migrantion would flow in both directions. All that is required is a more global perspective from national governments and multinational organisations.

    One of the core concepts of Open Immigration is that nations with undesirable circumstances will either gradually be absorbed by the others, or will have to re-invent themselves to compete. Instead of trying to manage global living conditions, we enable people to manage them through competition, and the nature of the solution is such that we protect people from the negative effects of the competition.

    So are we talking about allowing market forces to shape the future geopolitical landscape? In other words, the most successful / powerful nations attract the resources and manpower of less attractive states, to the point of ultimately integrating the weaker nations into their own landbase? It certainly has its success stories - it's essentially what happened in post-Roman Europe, with regional tribes eventually establishing hegemony over their neighbours to form the (relatively stable) nation-states of the modern world. However, taken a step beyond, this model is fundamentally imperialistic. Empires are not necessarily evil, but unless the Empire/superstate reflects and meets the needs and ambitions of all its citizens equally, then it is hardly a radical enough solution to our current crises...

    This could be an idea for the ultimate superstructure. Anyone want to take it on?

    When looking at open borders, I don't see a picture of imperialism. While most, if not all, living in countries with a lack of infrastructure and opportunities (what we are currently calling developing countries)would like to move to countries that can provide opportunities for growth, most will go back home to improve the state of their home country. In that way, open borders can lead to a more equal world. In the face of these superthreats, open borders is a major issue. On a long term plan, we, as humans need to be able to move around. Our ability to adapt to terrain and weather all over our globe is a major factor in humans becoming so prolific. If we stop this free movement (as we have) in the face of major crisis, we are to an extent, aiding our own extinction. And as someone currently located in a developed country in an area that might be underwater in the not too distant future, I know we will push for space in other places when that time comes. If there is resistance, we will use our money and strength to get new land. But when Bangladesh goes under water, who will take them? We are looking at survival of the fittest on a mass scale, and on an altered scale. In this birth lottery, people who are lucky enough to be born in the right place are part of the fittest society, but are not necessarily the most fit individuals (mentally or phisically). We need to create a superstructure encompassing the EU, League of Arab Nation, AU, Gulf Counsel, and other such organizations all currently breaking down borders within their regions for easier movement of labor.

    http://www.radixonline.org/ccm.html The above link to RADIX may not be to everyone's liking, but it points out that assumptions about migration can be fraught with political agendas. If resilient communities are going to emerge in the post-depression era then constructs based on a deeper understanding of why Mexicans, in particular, are here now and are likely to be the largest group migrating to the northern hemisphere in 2019. With 12 million here now, will the collapse of the Mexican oil industry and the hollowing out of the Mexican state create refugees from poverty and narco-terrorism? Will a strong U.S. nativist history not meet this migratory pattern with even greater resistance that we witness now, what with the reemergence of neo-nazi groups gaining support in the emerging aftermath of a financially driven economic disaster? With oil needs being served by Latin American export based economies, will the U.S. choose the so-called 'hard' or 'soft' option? Is there a third way? How can resilient communities cope with the needs of migrating workers? If the victims of Central American civil wars funded by the elders of the neo-con movement are any lesson, failure to integrate families will further engorge the ranks of existing gangs engaged in narco-trafficking. The humanitarian response is essential but survival in a post-hegemonic era will require recognition that planned open migration can lead to less waste of human and material resources. The alternative will be the further hollowing out of state and local services and a dangerous deterioration in an already compromised ecosystem. While a depressed economy may reduce undocumented migration to 6 - 8 million people, this assumes no further man-made or natural disasters forcing hungry people to seek a 'better life' in this country. Agriculture has been corporatized in the modern world. An emphasis on creating local and regional farming enterprises could incorporate many migrants who could contribute to the local and regional economies without being deprived of human and civil rights. Acknowledging the need for farming and livestock production and incorporating migrants into such enterprises with common ownership interests could deflect nativism and spur a recognition of the value of open migration.

    One of the biggest problems about the Generation Exile superthreat is the instability it causes. With an open immigration plan, migrants would have the chance to settle down and stabilize. The immediate effects might not be pretty, there would probably be food shortages, but these people are already taking food from the communities they migrant to and from. By settling down they would be able to contribute to growing and producing food, and that would have a stabilizing effect. It also should be remembered that many of the hackers that are causing the Outlaw Planet threat are parts of the migrant population. If we accept them into our communities, these people will be less inclined to cause problems and can start contributing to the solutions to the other suprethreats.

    My proposal of Government Inc. plays with the idea of open inmigration - in reverse: what if anyone could suscribe to any government for certain services, the way people find an internet provider or a private Health insurance company? Then you could belong to different countries/governments at the same time, and Governments would try to work efficiently so as to compete with other governments for the suscription of services.

    With open immigration we run the threat of becoming a completely nomadic race and running the resources dry. We need incentive for people to stay where their at if all is going well, but not to overpopulate the specific location when the word gets out and mass migrations move towards it. On the other hand with open immigration countries will be forced to compete with others to retain their current population. Keeping top scientists, teachers, leaders and other influential roles in a country is key to growing as a country. If those people are free to go wherever they want any given country is given the task of making sure citizens have the best life possible. Not only high demand roles as mentioned above but ordinary people as well to keep the work force strong.




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL