migration = development March 31, 2008Posted by AP in econ, immigration, international.
Tags: development, economics, gdp, immigration, lant pritchett, michael clemens, per capita, per natural
add a comment
the center for global devlopment publishes a paper that suggests a new measure for wealth. (link from mr). i haven’t read the actual paper yet, but the following passage is from the abstract. something to think about the next time you vote on immigration laws:
migration is one of the most important sources of poverty reduction for a large portion of the developing world. If economic development is defined as rising human well being, then a residence-neutral measure of well-being emphasizes that crossing international borders is not an alternative to economic development, it is economic development.
nice work if you can get it March 23, 2008Posted by KG in arts/culture, immigration, international, interviews, media, news, politics, radio.
Tags: chicago public radio, immigration, ira glass, new america foundation, npr, pri, public radio, this american life, ucla
1 comment so far
i found act 4 pretty moving…
Act Four. Just One Thing Missing.
Reporter Douglas McGray interviews a college student in California with good grades, an excellent work ethic, but no possible way to get a legal job. She’s lived in the U.S. since she was little, but her parents are undocumented; and she is, too. Most of her friends and teachers don’t even know. Douglas McGray is a fellow at the New America Foundation.
oh quotable racism… December 10, 2007Posted by KG in 2008 Elections, comedy, econ, immigration, iraq war, news, politics, race.
Tags: huckabee, immigration, mccain, nativist, race, romney
1 comment so far
new yorker piece about the republican party’s resurgent brand of anti-immigrant rhetoric and grandstanding…
Dean Allen, a plump and friendly fellow sporting an American-flag tie, told me that he runs something called Spirit of Liberty; he’s also helping Witherspoon’s campaign. “Some of these people may be coming in here to get jobs washing dishes, but some of them are coming in here to hijack airplanes,” he explained. “If you’re down there trying to look at the people coming across the border, maybe a lot of them are just motivated by economics, and they want a job washing dishes or cutting grass. But I can’t tell Jose Cuervo from the Al Qaeda operatives by looking at them, because they cut their beard off. It’s like trying to get fly manure out of pepper without your glasses on, you know? I mean, not a racist thing, but they’re all brown with black hair and they don’t speak English and I don’t speak Arabic or Spanish, so if they don’t belong here and they don’t come here legally, I want to know who’s here.” He echoed McCain’s observation that the anti-immigrant feeling is strongest in states with new Hispanic populations. “The illegal Hispanic population, it’s definitely growing,” he said. “I can tell you just from how many you see when you walk in Wal-Mart, and you drive down the street and you see buildings now with writing in Spanish that says ‘tienda,’ which is Mexican for ‘store.’ You didn’t see that even a year or two ago.”
the case for open immigration October 17, 2007Posted by KG in books, econ, immigration, international, news, politics, race, terrorism.
Tags: border, freakonomics, immigrants, immigration, labor, migration, philippe legrain
1 comment so far
The economic case for open borders is as compelling as the moral one. No government, except perhaps North Korea’s, would dream of trying to ban the movement of goods and services across borders; trying to ban the movement of most people who produce goods and services is equally self-defeating. When it comes to the domestic economy, politicians and policymakers are forever urging people to be more mobile, and to move to where the jobs are. But if it is a good thing for people to move from Kentucky to California in search of a better job, why is it so terrible for people to move from Mexico to the U.S. to work?
We tend to think it’s fine that foreign financiers cluster together in New York, I.T. specialists in Silicon Valley, and actors in Hollywood, while American bankers ply their trade in London, Hong Kong, and China; surely the same logic should apply to Mexican construction workers, Filipino care workers, and Congolese cleaners coming to the U.S. After all, they are all simply service providers plying their trade abroad.
From a global perspective, freer migration could bring huge economic gains. When workers from poor countries move to rich ones, they can make use of the advanced economies’ superior capital, technologies, and institutions, making these economies much more productive. Economists calculate that removing immigration controls could more than double the size of the world economy. Even a small relaxation of immigration controls would yield disproportionately big gains.
From an ethical point of view, it seems hard to argue against a policy that would do so much to help people poorer than ourselves. A Rand study of recent immigrants to the U.S. finds that the typical immigrant ends up $20,000 per year better off. And it’s not just the migrants themselves who gain — it’s their countries of origin, too. Already, migrants born in poor countries and working in rich ones send home much more — some $200 billion a year officially, perhaps another $400 billion informally — than the miserly $100 billion that Western governments give in aid. These remittances are not wasted on weapons or siphoned off into Swiss bank accounts; they go straight into the pockets of local people. They pay for food, clean water, and medicines. They enable children to stay in school, fund small businesses, and benefit the local economy. What’s more, when migrants return home, they bring with them new skills, new ideas, and the money to start new businesses that can provide a huge boost to the local economy. For example, Africa’s first Internet cafés were started by migrants returning from Europe.
interesting perspective from philippe legrain, who travelled for six months interviewing immigrants and researching the topic. if the “rational wing” of the republican party, as tyler cowen refers to it as, can get on board, maybe what is counterintuitive for most could actually be accepted. xenophobia, fear, and racism are seemingly more powerful forces than even blind faith to party ideology though.