I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does.

I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state.

There is an ideal level of migration, both for states, and also for potential migrants. Migrants impose congestion costs on each other, and as the share of migrants in an area increases assimilation tends to take longer and the risk of the emergence of isolated ghettos climbs up. They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers.

Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents.

Very high levels of migration can also overwhelm local school districts, particularly because ESL and SPED students are much more expensive to educate properly (and immigrants tend to have a much higher rate of IEPs). Massachusetts, one of the best states at funding education, estimates SPED students cost about four times as much, and the English language learner supplement is about 40% of the entire tuition rate. Compressed poverty is also worse for educational outcomes, such that MA gives about 70% of total tuition in an additional supplement for the highest poverty districts. But migration tends to increase compressed poverty, at least in the short to medium term. MA does this better than most by using the income tax to redistribute aid to poorer districts, but it still has huge disparities, and there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that support for such redistribution can be hindered by high rates of migration (maybe people shouldn't shift their attitudes like this, but they do).

Which is all to say there are valid concerns about the ideal levels of migration. Political instability as Western Europe undergoes a demographic transformation that is more rapid than that seen in the Americas in the early modern period is another issue.

But these tend to get clouded over by:

A. Racist demagogues
B. The inverse, people claiming that any opposition to immigration is necessarily racist.

To complicate matters, the ideal level of migration for natives and immigrants already in a country is almost always going to be much lower than the ideal level for people who want to move to that country but haven't made it there yet. And ideal levels of migration will also vary by income level, with the poor benefiting least and the wealthy benefiting most from high levels of migration. There is a reason that immigration is a rare issue where the GOP dominated with independents and national polls (despite their vile rhetoric) and yet the GOP held zero votes on migration when they held the House, Senate, Court, and White House from 2017-2019—because policies that benefit the elite are very often put into place or kept in place regardless of popular opinion.


I made a thread on this a while back: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10332/pragmatism-and-the-ethics-of-migration

I'm curious if you'd take issue with hundreds of thousands of Europeans migrating to another continent en masse, perhaps entering countries illegally, and availing themselves of the cultures and systems built by the native populations. After all diversity is a good thing, and perhaps they could use a little.

I ask because the immigration question always seems to flow one way. But it is my belief that there is a fine line between mass migration, colonialism, and gentrification. Mexico city, for example, has been met with an influx of "digital nomads" from the United States, leading to a rise in housing costs for the native populations. Recall the Boer migrations throughout Africa, with the displacement of the original peoples and the bloody wars that resulted. In modern times we have Israeli settlers expanding into Palestine. Diversity is so good that original populations can no longer afford to live there, or worse, are met with violence.

All in all, displacement of the original population is one of the key issues, but whenever someone broaches the topic he is often belittled and dismissed for feeling that way.

What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? If you believe that a democratic nation can make a wrong choice in its immigration policy, what is it, why? If there is a problem, what would fix it? — Philosophim

You're implying (again), and here with respect to immigration policies, that "a democratic nation," in establishing its immigration policies, can do no wrong. If that's so, please so state. If on the other hand you believe there can be wrong immigration policies, then there can be a discussion. But not if you hold there cannot be, there being then nothing to discuss.

Or to be simpler, if you believe nations cannot do wrong or be wrong, then what is there to discuss?

What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? — Philosophim

I recall that Sweden allowed large numbers in, then several years later changed its mind.

Or to be simpler, if you believe nations cannot do wrong or be wrong, then what is there to discuss? — tim wood

No, I'm noting that a nation run largely by its people are free to decide their immigration policy. If they feel they don't have enough immigrants, they can open their doors. If they feel they have enough, they can close them. If there are mistakes for that nation in having too little and too much immigration, a nation is free to change it to fix these issues, and I see no broader moral issue here. In any case, I see no moral justification for illegal immigration.

I did ask if you had an example you wanted to cover. Since you don't, and I've stated my points, then I suppose the discussion has reached its end.

and I see no broader moral issue here. In any case, I see no moral justification for illegal immigration. — Philosophim

No moral issue? Another categorical statement? Well, maybe not for you. No moral justification for illegal immigration? What does that even mean? Think! If they're not here, they're not illegal immigrants. If they're here illegally, then they're here illegally. Assuming they have a good reason for being here, likely necessity, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim.

if a people or a nation elect not to try to meet a moral claim, that's a choice they an make. But the claim does not stop being a claim for being rejected, any more than a starving person stops being starving being refused sustenance.

Incumbent on immigrants, imo, is that they commit to becoming good citizens of their new country. In particular they commit to leaving their bad behind and adopting and adapting to the good of the new.

I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You raised valid concerns about the level and impacts of migration. However you are pinpointing negatives about them where I believe if you look at a broader picture, the benefits often outweigh the challenges:

They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You touched on economic growth, immigrants often fill labour shortages in critical sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing/factory work, agriculture etc. This helps sustainability of these industries but also drives economic growth.

Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a good point, however, I would not say that this is not a stain on immigration but more of a responsibility of the country to introduce policies that can mitigate this. These can be to increase wages, bring down housing costs, investing in education and training, (for everyone, not just immigrants).

And I think this is true even if the goals of your immigration criteria are purely humanitarian. Arguably, if that's the case, you have the most motivation to make sure only the most deserving benefit from your resources, which will always be limited.

So, to reiterate, I think the big challenge right now is to find a set of procedural rules that is sufficiently humane but also sufficiently predictable and efficient to actually make immigration cirteria meaningful. — Echarmion

I wouldn't say I am purely humanitarian however I lean more to that side, in my opinion the ideas of "our" resources or "my" resources is what is limiting us here. Although I am not calling for a communist regime, I believe that, for us to further as a civilisation there needs to be a way for us to let go of certain ownerships and have everyone own it, equally. I do understand how that sounds extremely close to communism but I do prefer capitalism over communism, I just wonder if there is that sweet spot in-between.

It's still the case, however, that a sovereign nation's first responsibility is to its citizens, and not to the displaced people of the world.

So, we have a choice: help people manage to live better where they are, or resort to barbed wire, land mines. guard towers, guns, drones, and so on to keep them all out. — BC

I agree with that statement but I would add that even though the first responsibility is to protect their citizens. I would argue that powerful countries, (such as the UK and USA) have just as an equal responsibility to displaced people in the world. If you are a global superpower, you bear additional weight on your shoulders to help. To even deserve a voice on the global stage I believe you should be helping out as much as you can. I understand that isn't how politics works and I am being idealistic but along with all the pros immigration brings, helping is so important.

In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public. — I like sushi

I think squatting should be outlawed regardless on who you are, obviously if they do not have a passport they should be deported but if that is the case, if you have a British passport should simply be arrested and not be protected by the law.

It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out. — I like sushi

I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it.

Can I ask what happens if a majority of a nation voted for open borders and the country gets ruined because of it?

I think that @tim wood point is that simply saying "let the people decide" is not an appropriate answer and may even make it worse. You are assuming that the average citizen has the ability to make the right choice with limited information, Also other outside influences may spread disinformation to try and persuade a majority to vote a certain way that may destabilize/ weaken that country.

I don't think it should be up to the people on this specific topic, I think it should be down to experts that are chosen by elected officials.

No moral issue? Another categorical statement? Well, maybe not for you. — tim wood

Then please explain how it can be moral.

Assuming they have a good reason for being here, likely necessity, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim. — tim wood

This is a lot of assuming. That would be like me saying, "Assuming people have a good reason for stealing your car, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim." Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all.

I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it. — Samlw

I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent.

You raised valid concerns about the level and impacts of migration. However you are pinpointing negatives about them where I believe if you look at a broader picture, the benefits often outweigh the challenges:

Fair enough, I was just responding to the claim that no one can have valid concerns about legal immigration. One can even have valid concerns about natives moving within their own country, e.g. the population booms in areas that we predict will be below sea level in the medium term.

The question of if the benefits outweigh the costs is very fraught because the question will be "benefits for who?"

The levels of migration that benefit potential migrants will almost always be much higher than the levels of migration that would most benefit the poorest individuals already within a state, and so questions of distributive justice arise.

Fair enough, I was just responding to the claim that no one can have valid concerns about legal immigration. One can even have valid concerns about natives moving within their own country, e.g. the population booms in areas that we predict will be below sea level in the medium term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand, I enjoy hearing different sides, you brought a different perspective that I hadn't thought of.

The question of if the benefits outweigh the costs is very fraught because the question will be "benefits for who?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the main topic has been bigger picture, talking about economies and broad subjects like housing and education. If you were to look at it individually then you would get lost in the possibilities, I think if you aim to increase wages, better education and provide affordable houses then that will benefit most people. Obviously, there will be people who won't benefit or have their quality of life decrease but if you are to subscribe to a countries way of life such as the UK and America, their societies have been built with the prior knowledge that some people will get the bad end of the stick. Not ideal but its the place we live in.

I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent. — I like sushi

How so?

I think this is a chronically online take. In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. However, if you were to always be online, constantly being fed news about war and hatred along with the constant arguments and attacks from every side possible you would think this.

Technology has made it so you and me can have this discussion, you can facetime your family wherever you are, you have an insanely large database where you can research whatever you want, you don't have to just trust whatever your told. Obviously there will be some Neanderthals that allow it to affect them negatively but it benefits the majority.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life.

This is a lot of assuming. That would be like me saying, "Assuming people have a good reason for stealing your car, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim." Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all. — Philosophim

You are comparing someone who has potentially escaped a war zone, their family killed, scared and not knowing where to go. To someone stealing a car...

Also for an example for an occasion for when it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere and for a country to allow it, just read the first sentence again.

Yes, I suppose you could look at the average change in safety, education, health, etc. across the relevant populations. However, the issue is that migration itself changes the landscape of our analysis. Political economy is filled with complex systems that have tipping points.

Just for an example, suppose we find the following premise probable: "Donald Trump wouldn't have the huge level of influence he has if Americans weren't widely dissatisfied with migration."

And suppose Donald Trump provokes a full blown constitutional crisis in the US by overturning the upcoming election (this seems unnervingly possible, even if not likely). This in turn tanks future economic growth, health, safety, etc.

In this case, it seems like migration levels are a key (perhaps the key) factor in crossing a tipping point that craters metrics of well-being. Brexit might be a similar issue.

It seems to me that a lot of disagreement about migration is actually disagreement about how close we are to these tipping points. And it doesn't help that large scale racist and xenophobic fear mongering probably bring us closer to those tipping points, all else equal. There seem to be a lot of positive feedback loops on play here too because xenophobia itself is a function of migration levels.

For example, I would imagine even people who embrace very open immigration levels would allow that if the US has 150 million people migrate to it over a few years there would be a crisis.

Now, people often respond that people should just not be racist and xenophobic. This likely moves the tipping point much higher. Fair enough, I agree. But people ARE racist and xenophobic. So this is like saying that the solution to gun policy is for people not to murder or recommending that drug policy be handled by people only using drugs responsibly.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life. — Samlw

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers.

In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. — Samlw

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D

Can I ask what happens if a majority of a nation voted for open borders and the country gets ruined because of it? — Samlw

Then they made a mistake obviously. Why it got ruined would be the question here. Was it because they didn't understand the culture they were letting in? They were too altruistic for their limited resources? The issue is not whether legal immigration vs illegal immigration is moral in this case, but whether they made a misjudgement. If you're looking for a benefit vs cost analysis on a countries capacity for immigration, that's fine. If you're looking for a moral justification for illegal immigration, I still have yet to see it.

You are comparing someone who has potentially escaped a war zone, their family killed, scared and not knowing where to go. To someone stealing a car... — Samlw

No, I was comparing to Tim's scenario. My point was that he was already assuming that if a person commits a crime, they have moral justification for doing so. They do not. A crime committed alone does not determine whether that crime was morally justified. If you believe a crime is morally justified, then you need to explain why, not just assume the crime is morally justified.

If you're claiming illegal immigration is morally justified because the other illegally entering person does not get the benefits they want, I don't agree. If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home. Now, we could argue that you denying the person a place to sleep, despite not knowing what quality of character they are, is immoral. And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in.

I believe that the sovereignty of one's property is in the decision of the person. We can judge their decisions as who to let in or not let in as immoral, but defying that decision because someone else wants the benefit of being on that property needs a good reason. I can't see any viable reason except in matters of immediate life or death, and In the case of a nations decision, I see even less of a good reason why someone should force themselves in to live there against the wishes of its people.

In the case of a refugee for example, it is not a life or death situation that they travel to a country that does not want them. They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war. It is not an immediate life or death situation in most war torn situations for people to immigrate to a new country. Its more convenient, higher quality of life, and much more beneficial. But it is a want, not a need. Therefore I see no justification in illegally going to one.

Just for an example, suppose we find the following premise probable: "Donald Trump wouldn't have the huge level of influence he has if Americans weren't widely dissatisfied with migration."

And suppose Donald Trump provokes a full blown constitutional crisis in the US by overturning the upcoming election (this seems unnervingly possible, even if not likely). This in turn tanks future economic growth, health, safety, etc.

In this case, it seems like migration levels are a key (perhaps the key) factor in crossing a tipping point that craters metrics of well-being. Brexit might be a similar issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Me personally I think politicians such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage inflate the issue of immigration to stir up a certain demographic, I am not saying they don't present any actual issues because they do. but using words such as "invasion" and creating lies about these immigrants is wrong and they are only doing it for their personal gain. Unfortunately, some people don't see that and the get swept up in their lies.

For example, I would imagine even people who embrace very open immigration levels would allow that if the US has 150 million people migrate to it over a few years there would be a crisis — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agreed, there is a limit.

Now, people often respond that people should just not be racist and xenophobic. This likely moves the tipping point much higher. Fair enough, I agree. But people ARE racist and xenophobic. So this is like saying that the solution to gun policy is for people not to murder or recommending that drug policy be handled by people only using drugs responsibly. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is, when you call people racist and xenophobic for their personal views, that only alienates them and pushes them further in their mindset. The best way to combat bad speech is better speech, if you censor these people the anger will only fester.

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D — I like sushi

How has technology changed people being honest?

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers. — I like sushi

Understandable, difference in experience. I agree people are hooked on their screens, but at the same time, they are doing what they want. No one is forcing a phone in front of them. From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap which probably is why there is a difference of opinion on this. But you cannot disagree with: the way we evolve as a civilisation and better as many peoples lives as possible, is technology. With that will come with insane change, which is scary, we just have to hope and pray the people directing the ship have humans in their best interests.

Then they made a mistake obviously. Why it got ruined would be the question here. Was it because they didn't understand the culture they were letting in? They were too altruistic for their limited resources? The issue is not whether legal immigration vs illegal immigration is moral in this case, but whether they made a misjudgement. If you're looking for a benefit vs cost analysis on a countries capacity for immigration, that's fine. If you're looking for a moral justification for illegal immigration, I still have yet to see it. — Philosophim

I am not understanding what you aren't understanding. Why risk the fate of a country on an issue so complex on average citizens and not experts in that field that have access to information that the general public may not. like I said in my previous post, it should be down experts chosen by elected officials.

If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home. — Philosophim

Again, the comparison doesn't meet the severity of the topic. I understand the logic you are trying to use however you simply cannot use a blanket answer from the situation you just described as the answer for a topic that is so complex as immigration.

And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in. — Philosophim

This is literally the question from the start.

They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war. — Philosophim

Both of those options are terrible, either potentially die and kill people for your country, or move to a poor place due to your country being war-torn and have a terrible quality of life. No wonder they choose to come over here.

No one is forcing a phone in front of them. — Samlw

The problem is no one is banning them. Children having access to these devices is fairly insane.

How has technology changed people being honest? — Samlw

I never said that.

From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap — Samlw

Maybe? I am 46 years old. I grew up without a phone in my pocket. I think I am in a reasonable crossover period to assess better than anyone significantly older or younger as the internet only really picked up decent momentum from when I was 16-18 yrs old.

I am not understanding what you aren't understanding. Why risk the fate of a country on an issue so complex on average citizens and not experts in that field that have access to information that the general public may not. like I said in my previous post, it should be down experts chosen by elected officials. — Samlw

Democratically elected right? We're talking about the same thing. Ultimately this is the people choosing, through representatives usually.

If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home.
— Philosophim

Again, the comparison doesn't meet the severity of the topic. I understand the logic you are trying to use however you simply cannot use a blanket answer from the situation you just described as the answer for a topic that is so complex as immigration. — Samlw

Then I don't understand your topic. This seemed to be to be a sovereignty vs justifications for breaking sovereignty question. What is your point? You use illegal immigration combined with the question of who to let in and not. Are these meant to be part of the same topic, or different questions?

My answer was that a country should decide who to let in, and not. Period. The morality is sovereignty, and the idea that a country is best equipped to handle its own immigration based on a complex number of factors that only a society can handle itself. As such, there is no justification that I can see for illegally entering into a country and living there against its citizens wishes.

What do you think about this?

And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in.
— Philosophim

This is literally the question from the start. — Samlw

Yes, and I've put my answer forth. Now why do you disagree? To be clear, my answer is: Nations can manage their own immigration issues. If a nation freely decides to limit or let in more immigrants, that's their decision." There is no, "A nation should let immigrants in when X, Y, and Z happens" if people don't want to. Immigration is a willingness of its citizens to accept foreign change and influx, it is not a moral responsibility.

They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war.
— Philosophim

Both of those options are terrible, either potentially die and kill people for your country, or move to a poor place due to your country being war-torn and have a terrible quality of life. — Samlw

These are less ideal choices yes, but not choices that compel others morally to provide them the more optimal choice. Life is often unfair, cruel, and less than ideal. It is not a moral responsibility of anybody to make life fair for everyone else across the board, because that takes time, resources, and effort that people are generally using on themselves to make their own life acceptable first. And by 'moral responsibility' that if they don't do this, someone else has the right to take from them, or coerce them to assist others.

To even deserve a voice on the global stage I believe you should be helping out as much as you can. I understand that isn't how politics works and I am being idealistic but along with all the pros immigration brings, helping is so important. — Samlw

Being a global superpower gives one a deserved voice on the global stage, for better or for worse. As it happens, this global superpower (USA) doesn't actually spend very much on foreign aid. If you cut out the military aid portion, it's a paltry amount. Private overseas philanthropy is substantial, but doesn't make up for the measly foreign assistance budget.

And, as it happens, doing good things for people around the world isn't all that easy. Many countries are deeply corrupt and delivered aid often gets syphoned off before it leaves the port. Many countries lack 'capacity', and capacity-building is a slow process. Then there are cultural features to be traversed without offending too many locals. The problems are not insurmountable, but effective foreign aid is a long game requiring patience, competence, and commitment across administrations. Good luck on all of that.

Another problem is that past and present military aid can get in the way of present and future assistance programs.

Another angle on all this is global warming. As responsible as the industrialized nations are for global warming, that doesn't mean that they are going to be able to help everyone (or maybe anyone). Excess heat, desertification, severe water shortages, crop failures, famine, floods, old and new epidemics, and so on will at some point overwhelm our collective resources.

One way the industrialized world (US, Europe, East Asia) could help people in the global south is to get on with decarbonizing our economies. Alas, that is more difficult than it might seem to be. Some small areas of the industrialized world are making good progress on decarbonization in some areas. A few states, for instance, are doing well. On the whole, CO2 emissions rise every year along with methane and other gases.

Shifting global economies from high to low carbon is only theoretically possible. The realities of a rapid shift involve very unpleasant tradeoffs in the immediate future, something that very few people want to do. Thus it is that global warming isn't going to go away.

Then please explain how it can be moral....
This is a lot of assuming.... Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all. — Philosophim

Last things first: philosophy is not logic. Morality is not an emotional issue. The morality of the immigration does not correspond to the laws of the place he or she is immigrating to. They, the laws, may well apply, and even properly apply. But there is also a moral component if the immigrant is also a supplicant. And the matter of refugees who arguably have no choice even a separate matter. Your views (near as I can tell) are reductionist, legalistic, amoral, and inhuman. Which to be sure the law in part has to be. But not entirely.

It may be bias on my part, but I believe the concepts of guest and stranger are the most highly developed in Arab lands. That is, both the guest and the stranger are treated with respect and courtesy, in ways that do not exist in most western countries. And partner with that is the expectation that the guest and the stranger will themselves meet certain standards of behavior. I would like to see something like that employed at the US Southern border: respect, courtesy, concern and care, and the possibility of entry on meeting certain conditions.

Last things first: philosophy is not logic — tim wood

I highly disagree Tim. Without logic, philosophy is simply imagination and emotional exploration. These are elements of philosophy, but the tie that binds them together to be philosophy is logic.

Your views (near as I can tell) are reductionist, legalistic, amoral, and inhuman. — tim wood

You have not asked me why I have those views or have come to my conclusions. You are assuming things that I don't think are true here. Perhaps they are, but neither you nor I will be able to confirm that if you aren't interested as to why I've made my conclusions.

And partner with that is the expectation that the guest and the stranger will themselves meet certain standards of behavior. I would like to see something like that employed at the US Southern border: respect, courtesy, concern and care, and the possibility of entry on meeting certain conditions. — tim wood

We have that today. If you enter through legal means you are treated just like that. Its those crossing the border without permission that generate much of the anger in America. I'm feeling this is more of a political and personal issue to you then a philosophical discussion. I don't care about politics, and I like to think of the subjects from a stable base that builds a compelling argument. If you're interested in that, I'm interested. But if this is a political or venue to assume I'm evil because I conclude something you dislike without exploring more, I'm not.

But there is also a moral component if the immigrant is also a supplicant. And the matter of refugees who arguably have no choice even a separate matter. Your views (near as I can tell) are reductionist, legalistic, amoral, and inhuman. Which to be sure the law in part has to be. But not entirely.

I am curious, have you revised your position that goodness or "this is good" is just a way of saying "I approve of this," and that morality is just personal preference derived from social norms?

If not, what exactly is this statement supposed to amount to? If one doesn't approve of welcoming refugees then it seems like it should simply be good and moral to deny them entry, and this would seem to come down to emotion.

It may be bias on my part, but I believe the concepts of guest and stranger are the most highly developed in Arab lands. That is, both the guest and the stranger are treated with respect and courtesy, in ways that do not exist in most western countries. And partner with that is the expectation that the guest and the stranger will themselves meet certain standards of behavior. I would like to see something like that employed at the US Southern border: respect, courtesy, concern and care, and the possibility of entry on meeting certain conditions.

Like Jewish refugees in Palestine? Or Palestinians in Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, etc.?

Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all. — Philosophim

Last things first: philosophy is not logic. — tim wood

I highly disagree Tim. Without logic.... — Philosophim

It's annoying to deal with someone who is so apparently uncaring about clarity of language, and so careless in reading. You want to engage in 'the logic of it all." I observe that "it" isn't logic. And you jump to "without logic." And further, in this context I have no idea what you mean by "logic."

You are assuming things that I don't think are true here. — Philosophim

I'm just going ("near as I can tell") on what you write. If what you write isn't connected to what you mean, that's a problem.

It's those crossing the border without permission that generate much of the anger in America. — Philosophim

A lot of people in America are angry about a lot of things, and in some cases, some even justified. For most the anger is just a sign of disorder, like road-rage. And there are those who play the angry like a violin, in manipulative and ultimately immature and disgusting ways.

I don't care about politics, and I like to think of the subjects from a stable base that builds a compelling argument. — Philosophim

Just so, the "logic of the thing." Sorry, the problems of immigration are not soluble in solicitate of logic - it's not a math or a logic problem.

If you need a logic, more suitable would be rhetoric. Do you know the difference? The person crossing legally could be a bad person. The one crossing in contravention of US immigration law could be a good person. So far your "logic" appears blind to the possibility of that distinction. And if that's the extent of your interest, then yours just a game - and the subject a serious one.