Yeah, of course it’s really a level setting problem, and I think you raise a solid argument against *unrestricted* immigration, but we’re so far away from a world where that’s an issue that I’m not super concerned.
In practice, I am usually encountering the deepity you obliterated in this piece, wielded by people who are essentially wholly against any immigration, so when I say “I’ll add it to the arsenal” I merely mean that it’s nice to be able to play rock when someone else plays scissors. It’s not the whole game, but it’s an important component.
I actually really like your argument about institutional quality vs immigration, so I’ll take a version of that too; I just don’t anticipate using it as often.
I appreciate the recommended reading. I don’t know most of those authors, though I have read Turchin’s “End Times.” I like his notion of cliodynamics, but in practice there’s so much uncertainty and dynamical chaos in society at that scale, that I’m not sure how well it extrapolates.
I don’t buy the argument that immigration caused the gilded age, and that the exclusion acts are what resolved those issues; perhaps these authors you’ve listed can explain how there’s causation, not just correlation. Even if I grant that point, it’s another large leap to suggest that the same dynamics are playing out now. Much is similar, but much is different (e.g. financialization of the economy, modern technologies, etc.) and I think it’s too neat a parallel.
I’m not a neoliberal, nor an open borders advocate; I would imagine that our core difference is that I simply don’t think that immigration is as big an issue as you do, so I’m fine with more of it occurring.
I appreciate that your comment presents an actual good faith argument even if I don’t find myself persuaded. I will investigate these points you’ve raised in more detail, but I don’t think I have much more to say on the topic at present.
The issue is that travel is much, much easier now than it was in the past. You didn't need immigration restrictions when the fastest ways to get around were horses and sailboats.
> For most of human history, Immigration Restriction at borders was practically impossible for most states.
Seems like a big claim. For most of history, when states existed, controlling borders was trivial because there was a trivial flow. It was even possible at the village level to decide on whether travellers could stay or be forcibly pushed on.
Yes, it's much more common to control immigration at the population-center level than at the border level.
"For most of history, when states existed, controlling borders was trivial because there was a trivial flow" I don't think this is accurate, on like 3 different levels. Controlling borders was not trivial (and usually wasn't done), flow was often high, and the "because" doesn't make sense because it wasn't done.
Migration was really tiny during the Middle Ages. Most people were tied to the land. There was some pickup in Europe after the renaissance but again the figures were trivial. During this time states actually deported groups they didn’t like.
By 1946 most people in Europe were descendants of the people there in 1000AD, where they were by the high Middle Ages.
Prior to that, of course, after the collapse of the Empire there were large population flows which weren’t of great benefit to the natives, and after the era of colonisation there were large population flows to the colonies that were not beneficial to the natives.
"In the modern (State Control AND Immigration Restriction) sense of "borders" that people are often referring to, borders were not enforced for most of human history, and yet countries definitely existed before the 1800s."
This just is NOT FREAKING TRUE. They controlled borders for taxes and health. For Millenia. And they were very particular about taxes; even in Mesopotamia. Just bogus facts.
Every sovereign entity, across the universe (and China trade is fascinating) is conscious of their boundaries of police powers, and whom and whom not is their subject. (Taxes or raise an Army); This is a ridiculous conversation.
You can have a legitimate conversation about migration patterns and how early sovereign’s dealt with the issue…but to say it didn’t exist; is a lie. Plain and simple. Good day.
[P.S. I believe the first legislation in the US was re trade and borders. I imagine every sovereign, that was their first “law”. Trade and borders. But I am not a Mesopotamian or Chinese legal historian.]
The article takes pains to explain what borders historically mean, and why it's different from the modern conception. It's a specific conceptual point I made!
Also, I want to add, that all your example are land borders; and you fail to mention at all maritime borders, or port borders etc. Which is kinda odd if you are trying to make a point. [Which oddly leaves out disease control re the black plague and the responses by states.] [Also, by doing that, it seems you don't mention Athens, a port city, and other Island States and their control of 'movement'.]
Your conceptual point, is factually incorrect. That is all. Acknowledge the history and do some research. You can argue that people misunderstood legal words for all of history, or that concepts changed words. Sure. But your factual statement above, is wrong.
Referencing this statement: "borders were not enforced for most of human history"
Are you deliberately misreading me? The full statement was "In the modern (State Control AND Immigration Restriction) sense of "borders" that people are often referring to, borders were not enforced for most of human history,"
If you have trouble understanding my point, I recommend asking a friend or plugging my article into a LLM, without saying who said what, and asking them for a summary and analysis.
Condescending won't get you out of this pickle my friend. You really need to do some research. Let the public decide who is right. Have a good day. End.
And people should know better; it's in the bible. Joseph accuses his brothers of spying, because they entered through different gates. Now how would Joseph know this, if there were no freaking border control?
In fact, major cities had to assure food and resources to their population; so they were VERY aware of foreigners. (Which is the reason the Bible does say to treat a sojourner as equal and fair; not illegal aliens.)
But every society in history were aware of their enforceable borders. Every sovereign or lord; everyone.
Really like the historical counterexamples! I’ll be adding this argument to my arsenal going forward. Well argued, and well done!
Thanks! To be clear, I'm not saying there are *no* good arguments against immigration (I outlined one after reading the book on Open Borders here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/myp9Y9qJnpEEWhJF9/linch-s-shortform?commentId=v24cNDwgC2w2GmzEM), just that this particular one is very bad.
Yeah, of course it’s really a level setting problem, and I think you raise a solid argument against *unrestricted* immigration, but we’re so far away from a world where that’s an issue that I’m not super concerned.
In practice, I am usually encountering the deepity you obliterated in this piece, wielded by people who are essentially wholly against any immigration, so when I say “I’ll add it to the arsenal” I merely mean that it’s nice to be able to play rock when someone else plays scissors. It’s not the whole game, but it’s an important component.
I actually really like your argument about institutional quality vs immigration, so I’ll take a version of that too; I just don’t anticipate using it as often.
I appreciate the recommended reading. I don’t know most of those authors, though I have read Turchin’s “End Times.” I like his notion of cliodynamics, but in practice there’s so much uncertainty and dynamical chaos in society at that scale, that I’m not sure how well it extrapolates.
I don’t buy the argument that immigration caused the gilded age, and that the exclusion acts are what resolved those issues; perhaps these authors you’ve listed can explain how there’s causation, not just correlation. Even if I grant that point, it’s another large leap to suggest that the same dynamics are playing out now. Much is similar, but much is different (e.g. financialization of the economy, modern technologies, etc.) and I think it’s too neat a parallel.
I’m not a neoliberal, nor an open borders advocate; I would imagine that our core difference is that I simply don’t think that immigration is as big an issue as you do, so I’m fine with more of it occurring.
I appreciate that your comment presents an actual good faith argument even if I don’t find myself persuaded. I will investigate these points you’ve raised in more detail, but I don’t think I have much more to say on the topic at present.
The issue is that travel is much, much easier now than it was in the past. You didn't need immigration restrictions when the fastest ways to get around were horses and sailboats.
> For most of human history, Immigration Restriction at borders was practically impossible for most states.
Seems like a big claim. For most of history, when states existed, controlling borders was trivial because there was a trivial flow. It was even possible at the village level to decide on whether travellers could stay or be forcibly pushed on.
Yes, it's much more common to control immigration at the population-center level than at the border level.
"For most of history, when states existed, controlling borders was trivial because there was a trivial flow" I don't think this is accurate, on like 3 different levels. Controlling borders was not trivial (and usually wasn't done), flow was often high, and the "because" doesn't make sense because it wasn't done.
Migration was really tiny during the Middle Ages. Most people were tied to the land. There was some pickup in Europe after the renaissance but again the figures were trivial. During this time states actually deported groups they didn’t like.
By 1946 most people in Europe were descendants of the people there in 1000AD, where they were by the high Middle Ages.
Prior to that, of course, after the collapse of the Empire there were large population flows which weren’t of great benefit to the natives, and after the era of colonisation there were large population flows to the colonies that were not beneficial to the natives.
I feel like you keep switching arguments.
"In the modern (State Control AND Immigration Restriction) sense of "borders" that people are often referring to, borders were not enforced for most of human history, and yet countries definitely existed before the 1800s."
This just is NOT FREAKING TRUE. They controlled borders for taxes and health. For Millenia. And they were very particular about taxes; even in Mesopotamia. Just bogus facts.
Sick and tired of this slop.
> usually only for population centers, not for all of the states' official boundaries.
Every sovereign entity, across the universe (and China trade is fascinating) is conscious of their boundaries of police powers, and whom and whom not is their subject. (Taxes or raise an Army); This is a ridiculous conversation.
You can have a legitimate conversation about migration patterns and how early sovereign’s dealt with the issue…but to say it didn’t exist; is a lie. Plain and simple. Good day.
[P.S. I believe the first legislation in the US was re trade and borders. I imagine every sovereign, that was their first “law”. Trade and borders. But I am not a Mesopotamian or Chinese legal historian.]
The article takes pains to explain what borders historically mean, and why it's different from the modern conception. It's a specific conceptual point I made!
Also, I want to add, that all your example are land borders; and you fail to mention at all maritime borders, or port borders etc. Which is kinda odd if you are trying to make a point. [Which oddly leaves out disease control re the black plague and the responses by states.] [Also, by doing that, it seems you don't mention Athens, a port city, and other Island States and their control of 'movement'.]
Your conceptual point, is factually incorrect. That is all. Acknowledge the history and do some research. You can argue that people misunderstood legal words for all of history, or that concepts changed words. Sure. But your factual statement above, is wrong.
Referencing this statement: "borders were not enforced for most of human history"
Are you deliberately misreading me? The full statement was "In the modern (State Control AND Immigration Restriction) sense of "borders" that people are often referring to, borders were not enforced for most of human history,"
If you have trouble understanding my point, I recommend asking a friend or plugging my article into a LLM, without saying who said what, and asking them for a summary and analysis.
Condescending won't get you out of this pickle my friend. You really need to do some research. Let the public decide who is right. Have a good day. End.
And people should know better; it's in the bible. Joseph accuses his brothers of spying, because they entered through different gates. Now how would Joseph know this, if there were no freaking border control?
In fact, major cities had to assure food and resources to their population; so they were VERY aware of foreigners. (Which is the reason the Bible does say to treat a sojourner as equal and fair; not illegal aliens.)
But every society in history were aware of their enforceable borders. Every sovereign or lord; everyone.
"But every society in history were aware of their enforceable borders. Every sovereign or lord; everyone."
Yes, for state control purposes like collecting taxes and military control. The distinction is clearly written in the article.