As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?
I've had an episode quite comparable to this one and it was the last time I visited the US. I don't bitch about it, I don't begrudge the border guards their jobs or attitude (I assume they get a lot of shit heaped on them every day, not an excuse for a non-professional attitude but I'm sure that it eventually wears you down). I simply took my few-hundred-K per year benefit for the US elsewhere, their loss.
Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change. As long as everybody accepts it this will continue or it will even get worse.
I had a pretty lucrative offer about two years ago to become involved in a company. The catch: the work had to be done in the United States. No thanks... But call me when the TSA is abandoned and the border guards are no longer treating immigrants like shit. You know, the way it used to be before everybody went crazy.
And on an off-topic and non-related note, additional conditions would be that Guantanamo is closed, the US ceases its drone program and the CIA gets thoroughly reamed for their 'renditions' program, including full exposure of all parties that were involved domestically and abroad.
Until then the US will have to do without me, I'm quite sure they don't care one bit.
I understand the argument you're making. From the perspective of the United States, they don't need to care unless it adversely affects the United States. As such, the US can make whatever immigration it wants and it writes its own destiny and people can take it or leave it much like many offerings we see in life from companies, other people, etc. If a company is putting onerous conditions on its product, we'll switch. If a government is being a jerk about immigration, they'll lose out on great people.
However, I think a difference is that with a product or service, we generally all start from the same place. One day you don't have a cell phone, then you evaluate different services and choose one. Great. With citizenship, most are born with one. I'm lucky enough to be born with three and entitled to a fourth. Am I a better person than you? Why should I get out of this nonsense? (I know this isn't a great metaphor, but hopefully it makes some sense).
Now, these states have determined that I'm a member. However, I didn't really do much to merit membership. I just lucked into it. Basically, on this planet, I have more rights than most people - and that doesn't seem right to me. If I want T-Mobile service, I generally have the same rights as everyone else. Maybe there are discounts for people with certain employers, but it's more equal than unequal. With citizenship, I get a step ahead. While one can argue the merits of citizenship, I think a bit of respect in the process is warranted given that millions are allowed in by no merit of their own.
In this case, US policy is denying someone respect/dignity in accessing something they want: a job, a location, etc. Ok, so you can avoid that by giving something up (the job, location, etc.). What if the US decided that your state was "harbouring terrorists"? Well, you could give up that place as well and avoid the perils of living in a place being invaded/liberated. There is a slight distinction between something you already have and something you want to gain, but when you have a green card, it's kind of something you already have.
I guess my point is that libertarian ideals work great when there's lots of competition, a lack of strong power dynamics, and clear metrics. Here we see a situation with minimal competition (few "elite" economies), a clear disparity in the balance of power, and the cause and effect between treatment of individuals like you and macroeconomic policy is murky at best.
In this case, I think it's fair to call out the problem. Maybe American people don't know that they're losing out on awesome people like you. They should know that. People should know that you would be a great person to have and that US policy is making it so that you won't even consider the US. People (including leaders) can be oblivious to problems. Shining a light on problems like this can lead to change.
From a pragmatic point of view, there's the world-as-it-is and we need to choose between our options as you did. However, I think it's also important to try making things better. Should we not complain when Gmail makes a change we dislike? Google doesn't owe us anything and there are alternatives, but we care about it and want it to be better. We care about Google. We care about our friends who also use the service. Google is important and so it's natural to care about it and for Google to be the best it can be. Similarly, many of us care about the US. It's important; its policies affect hundreds of millions around the world (if not billions); many of us are American or are friends with Americans. I think it's natural to want the US to be better. It's nice when things can just take care of themselves, but sometimes that isn't the case.
If you feel like levelling the playing field a bit with respect to your accidents of birth then I'm quite sure that those countries would be happy to strike you from their registers if you asked nicely.
On the other hand, since you were given this for free and it wasn't your fault you might as well enjoy the privilege. Personally I think all immigration controls should be abolished. The world will be hell for about a decade, after that we'll all be much better off. Good luck finding a politician that will sign off on that.
I've have thought about these lines before. Free movement of people is the final freedom. First they freed up the movement of goods (once upon a time you couldn't just order a product freely from another country). Then they freed up the movement of capital (likewise once upon a time you couldn't freely invest your money in a foreign country). If they freed the movement of people then you'd have a sort of anarchistic democracy. People would vote against war by leaving (most do already, but just end up in refugee camps on the borders), vote against poor economic policy by leaving, and vote for free enterprise by emigrating.
But over time I've come to see that these are the reasons this final freedom WONT be allowed any time soon. There is great power and profit in the hands of the state when you restrict the free movement of people. For instance, do you think Assad would be all for an open border around Syria at this point in time? Would that strengthen or weaken his power base? Likewise for all countries. Opening movement across borders is good for all free citizens of the world. But very bad for politicians and their cronies.
On top of this politicians in democracies have at their disposal an amazing vote winning tactic. They can at any time exploit the in-group/out-group evolutionary bias, invoke a terrible, external threat, and most of the fearful masses will fall for it and vote for them and their get-tough-on-the-immigrants platform. And so, although I share your vision of a more free world, it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I completely agree with you. That's exactly what would happen, people would vote with their feet against dictators and abuse.
Borders are either to stop people from leaving or to stop people from arriving. In the first case it is dictators creating a captive audience they can fleece and manipulate. In the second it's the haves that desperately want to avoid being confronted with haves-not.
Take away the borders and you'll reach a natural state of equilibrium in a very short time. A lot of holy apple-carts will be upset by such a move.
How we could make it so that there could be the free movement of people? What would we need to do?
In my own personal experience I've crossed the US-Canada border many times, and I remember several times when the wait at the border was hours long. On top of that, I'm very frustrated with the immigration process to get into the US; it's something I think a lot about and I don't think this is for the better for anyone.
How could we make the free movement of people happen?
I'm going to think about this today and see what I come up with.
I'm somewhat of the feeling of the second paragraph. However, in some ways it is happening in the EU. As the EU enlarges, it generally creates a larger area of free travel/work/residence. Heck, if the US and Canada opened up immigration 100%, there wouldn't be hell because the countries are pretty similar. Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict. I think that's what the EU mitigates: as it expands to include countries as they attain a close enough level of development and other goals, movement/work/residence freedom doesn't mean mass chaos. If the EU, Aus, NZ, US, Can, Japan, and a few others offered open immigration between them, I don't think there would be a lot of chaos. So, it's genuinely possible to make significant progress from our current situation without the hell stage that complete abolition would involve.
Since I have the option to ask, I'm wondering if you see criticizing immigration policies as different from criticizing about anything else?
I've yet to see a border that made sense to me. It looks like there are people on the one side, and people on the other. And then there are people that would like to be on the one side or the other that are being stopped from going where they want to by people in the middle.
By what right those people in the middle are obstructing the people that want to move is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Let's just say that borders have a special place in my heart and that immigration policies by extension do as well.
I'm curious as to how much longer the Schengen space will subsist. As EU-skeptic parties rise in opinion polls again, it will not be long till all conceivable social issues are blamed on immigrants.
Several generations ago it was normal that Europeans had a major war once a generation. Every village in Germany, France, Britain has a monument in it with long lists of names of men who died. Today we can all move freely, work together, share ideas, in many cases even share the same currency, etc. That sometimes causes friction, people like to complain, and newspapers run the occasional sensationalist headline to sell copies. The reality is literally millions of EU citizens now travel in, do business with, interact with, study in, and (in the case of EU elections) even vote in each other's countries. We've come a very, very long way. It has become so normal it almost isn't mentioned any more. Does that mean everything is perfect when different cultures meet? No, of course not. But at least we're not killing each other anymore.
I hope next year when we reach the 100th anniversary of WWI (the sheer scale of the carnage is difficult for us to even fathom today) more is made of how far we've come. And if you think that this progress was all inevitable, consider as a counter example that in our lifetimes there was still ethnic cleansing happening in Europe in Yugoslavia. Peace is hard work, we should all be very thankful.
I totally agree with your view. As an european that sae the EEC become EU and (most) national currencies being replaced by the Euro, I am myself a supporter of tighter european integration and increasingly closer relations between neighboring countries. And I am sure that most of my fellow europeans will not like it if they ever have to start using their passports again just to go next door.
I believe the problem right now is that most european politicians fail to understand your last paragraph. They simply do not remember (as I do not, but I make an effort to imagine) what it was to be at war and the damage that this caused to Europe and the World in general.
When german leaders are quoted as calling southern europeans "lazy" and greek politicians evoke the Nazis as a defense thesis... you feel that something went really wrong. It's old wounds opening again and each one looking for the best way to put the blame on their neighbor.
Thank you for mentioning this. I was asked once in an interview (for a scholarship to business school) "do you think the EU is a success?" the answer of course is a resounding 'yes' for the reasons you mention. The primary goal of the EU is European peace and that is has delivered wonderfully. Politicians can fight over fiscal this and fiscal that, but so long as they fight with words not guns we can live in peace. We owe the founders of the EU a great debt of thanks.
No doubt that the EU is a success. I'm just saying that there's a (high) risk that it will degenerate if political discourse doesn't change. Words may lead to hate and hate may lead to war.
I hope human progress will keep this from happening, but these are probably the most critical times for the EU since its beginnings as ECSC.
Bah. Immigrants always have been blamed for everything bad, in Europe as everywhere else in the world - but the Schengen Accords work both ways, and Germany and France want those markets. They'll never go away.
"Some might prefer Canada or the US, but it would likely be generally equivalent. In those cases, I guess I don't see the reason why controls are still strict"
Well, are they? Border control at US/Canada seems to be more for everybody else rather than Canadians/Americans.
Most people are 'waved' through. Except for the need of a work permit, I'd say it's pretty non existent.
Depends on the side... when crossing into the US (as a Canadian) everyone in my car was taken separately into a tiny room and grilled by an agent, and our car was searched extensively. The whole process took about 3-4 hours, all of us had clean criminal records and were just passing into the US for a day to be tourists in Maine. On our way back the Canadian agent waved us through.
I've been through many airports' passport control and customs. I haven't had a major issue. With the Canadian/US border in NY. Thats another story. I've had to park to the side and go to a different area while the car got searched and they grilled me about everything I did during the weekend [US side]. The Canadian side was worried I'd steal all of their jobs during the weekend. This was all for a quick weekend trip to toronto.
I think the problem is that some (most?) people are born with a disadvantage, not that the he has some advantages. I don't see how giving anything up is going to do any good.
Things like this seem to come up often on HN. Why can't we speak out against a system while participating in it for lack of a better alternative currently?
You certainly can; that's what the OP is doing; but the parent says you shouldn't. I'm just pointing out that he's not really living by his word, contrary to what he says.
Actually, United States citizenship doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I have a dual citizenship, so I can compare entry procedures. I was always baffled when US immigration asks me questions about what work I do or where I'm headed when I'm entering the country. I couldn't see how it was any of their business.
In most (if not all) of the EU, an immigration officer being presented a native passport has exactly two choices: a) let the person in, b) get the police to arrest him on the spot. In both cases the person is under the local jurisdiction.
It seems the United States has a legal gray area around its borders, and a very black area outside of its borders (think Guantanamo). There are reported cases of people being detained or harassed. So being a US citizen doesn't let you travel worry-free either.
I also get this as US Citizen and there is nothing stopping you from entering the US except your patience. You could refuse to answer and then be detained for further interrogation. but eventually they'll have to let you go. Most people, myself included, have an event to attend or plane to catch so we answer to get it over with, quickly.
One time I was going to a wedding and I didn't know where it was because my family sent a cab to take me to the hotel. Border guard told me to go to the payphone (hadn't used one in years) and get the address. I complied then asked her what was preventing me from walking out the airport. She told me absolutely nothing. Although I imagine some information would probably be enterred in the USCIS database.
If this is indeed the case (I heard otherwise, scary stories about the legal immigration gray area, but don't have the time to hunt down relevant URLs at the moment), then why do people put up with this sort of harrassment?
I mean, the land of the free, and all that — and border guards tell you to go to a payphone to get the address of the place you're going to? This just doesn't make sense.
Like I said, timing. Most citizens clearing immigration know they have a legal right to return. They don't know how long CBP can detain them. I think the rules say a "reasonable amount of time" without actually assigning a hard value.
I'm a non-resident Australian citizen (ie, i've lived overseas in a variety of places for 15+ years). When I go to Australia I fill out the visitor card (because i'm non-resident) and use the Australian Citizen line at immigration.
The last few times i've been they essentially ignore the visitor card, (literally) say "Welcome home" and let me in within 30 seconds.
Hearing that after being away for years (for me) and arriving jetlagged after a long flight is pretty emotional. The immigration officers probably just have a game amongst themselves to see how many people they can get to burst in to happy tears.
Yes. Every time I enter the United States, I'm asked very specific questions about why I lived a year in Canada. I have never lived in Canada, but my very unique name (Michael Roberts - just try Googling me) obviously leads to considerable suspicion.
And they don't ask it like, "Oh, you lived in Canada, what was that all about." They very specifically are questioning my loyalty. Their attitude says if they were legally allowed to deny me entry, they'd love to.
I love entering my home country, NL. I hand my passport over, the agent looks at it for 5 seconds, hands it back to me with a smile and welcomes me home.
No fingerprinting, no taking pictures, no questions as to what I am doing or where I am going or how long I plan on staying, or what work I do. Nothing. A smile and a welcome home.
They ask these questions to me all the time and I'm a (non-dual) citizen. The EU and especially the UK is more intrusive about their questions. Switzerland is/was the least intrusive. China never asks me any questions, but Thailand and Japan might.
My experience in the EU is that, even for EU citizens, the UK and (a somewhat distance second) Spain can be quite intrusive. For the rest of the EU and Switzerland, they almost never ask anything.
But I definitely agree that China seems to be the "easiest" in this sense. No questions at all. :)
When I crossed over from Kazakhstan into China I got the most thorough luggage search I've ever had (never been to the US). Everything taken apart and went through; I was carrying the card game Citadels and had to struggle a little to explain what it was (my fault - I speak neither Kazakh or Russian nor Chinese, he spoke a little English). It was all very professional and courteous, and actually over quite quickly, but it was thorough, and having soldiers in uniform going through your stuff while you stand there in your pyjamas is always going to be a bit intimidating.
I've only ever had my luggage searched at customs in the states...multiple times, very thorough. I think they were looking for pirated DVDs or something.
It was only afterwards that I realised I'd been reading the hunger games on my kindle at the time (which they did get as far as turning on); pretty sure that's illegal. Oh well.
I have never been asked a single question at Swiss immigration (at Geneva airport), but its been 5 years since I lived there. It was just wait in the foreigner line for about 5 minutes, get through.
This isn't unique to the US. In the 5 years I had my green card, I received the best service from the USCIS and the worst from Canadian customs (despite being a citizen).
You're right: I'm here because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.
The problem with the US immigration system is that none of the people suffering in it can vote to change it. The purpose of my story is to raise awareness amongst US citizens who understand the importance of immigration to the economy that the system is broken, at nearly every level. I can't fix the system by complaining, but they can.
> But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.
I made my decision independently long ago. You really should ask yourself: if this is not enough to tip the balance for you (who has experienced it firsthand) why would it tip the balance for someone who only gets it second hand?
Nobody is going to fix anything because of this blog post, but you can make a statement that really carries weight.
But if you feel that your greencard is worth more than your dignity or principles then you've made your own bed and now you must lie in it.
Understand that my native country, Trinidad, has laws still on the books that make my sexuality illegal. You have to be pretty shitty to be worse at respecting my dignity and principles than that, so the US has a low bar.
But yes, I could pick some other first-world country to move to. In fact, I lived in the UK for seven years: in that time, I made as much progress in my tech career as I did in my first six months in the US.
I think America really is a land of amazing opportunity, and I believe action to change the system from the inside says more than staying out does. And I believe that America is full of decent, compassionate people who genuinely believe that fairness and justice are bedrock principles of their nation, and would be horrified to learn that this is how their country treats some people -- and I'm right, because I can see them saying so elsewhere in this thread.
This is indeed my bed, but I think I can change the sheets :-)
I went to college in the UK. Before, during and after, I worked at a series of startups. I gained experience in PHP, MySQL, etc.. -- a slow but steady accumulation of skill. Then I got a job with Yahoo in the UK, who despite their (many!) flaws as a company are a world-class web development organization -- I learned more, but at much the same speed.
After a year, Yahoo moved me to the bay area, and the difference was shocking. The demands made of me professionally, the density of smart and talented people everywhere, the intensity of the focus on tech culturally and socially: it blew me away. I went from feeling like a spectator of internet technology to a participant at the leading edge -- in terms of the skills I had, the people I met, the sense of the industry's direction.
The bay area is where people invent the next big thing, continuously. London has improved substantially as a startup environment since I left, but it's still nowhere near the same league.
> But this kind of stuff is what tips the balance the other way, not for me, but for other people like yourself.
Says who? How do you speak on others behalf? No offense, but your post (like many others) just sounds like someone who is upset that were inconvenienced for a day. If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?
The problem is, as you say, "the benefits outweigh the disadvantages". So, the US will continue to act this way until that statement gets less and less true. I'm not disagreeing with your premise, I just think your opinion would be a lot better served if you formulated your response to the actions against you in the proper way.
> The problem with the US immigration system is that none of the people suffering in it can vote to change it.
Your spot on with this comment. Until the people who are American citizens start suffering, you won't see any reform in this area. If you are actually serious about reform (and I hope you are, I believe it's needed) than you'll need a much more of a powerful argument than "I can't be inconvenienced at customs". Put some data together about how immigration is needed to create new jobs in America, and if those who are inconvenienced continue to be pushed away, then these jobs are a lot less likely to be created. Maybe it makes sense to create a sub-community of foreign entrepreneurs in the valley who all share your same thoughts?
> No offense, but your post (like many others) just sounds like someone who is upset that were inconvenienced for a day. If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?
It's not just 'waiting'. The problem is every time you cross the border there is the very real chance that the mistaken opinion of a border guard would cost you job and your ability to enter the USA for many years. The USA is also an air hub, and many flights would be closed off to you. It's not just an inconvenience.
They have some of the nastiest attitudes I have ever encountered in people too. I've never encountered a group that seemed to be so callous and seem to have a complete lack of human empathy amongst a good chunk of their members. They don't have to, they have a near complete power over you when your at the border.
If you are told you are being deported rather than denied you should state that you are 'withdrawing your application for entry' if you're under VWP, otherwise it can/is a 5 year entry ban.
I am trying to sympathize but I agree 100%. You seem to be complaining about being inconvenienced for a few hours as a result of your inability to be on-point with your profession for the few seconds that it matters most during your re-entry to the country. The world is full NOT bright people. You can't really expect them to know the difference between software and web developer. You just need to solve for that and make sure you make it easy for them to let you back in.
I did not write the article. It's not about being 'inconvenienced', it is entirely about the incorrect opinion of a border guard causing you to lose your job, income and whatever personal connections you have established in the USA even if you have been doing everything correctly.
Typically you have to pay for these 'inconveniences' with another flight (that you pay for), immigration lawyers and so on if it gets really bad. There is a complete power imbalance in that situation and due process, if any, is minimal at most border crossings. ANY record of shit going wrong at the border will result in you getting extra attention EVERY time you cross.
> very real chance that the mistaken opinion of a border guard would cost you job and your ability to enter the USA for many years.
I'm not sure I understand. If you are granted full legal rights to work, live, and breath in the US by the US border patrol organization (i.e. you have a visa), then there is zero reason a border guard can "mistakenly" not let you in. They can certainly "question" your ability, but that doesn't mean they have any right to immediately deport you without due process. Can you cite a source of this actually happening?
> If you have all of your papers sorted out (and nothing is fishy), what's so mentally anguishing about having to wait?
You are right, if you're sure you haven't done anything illegal, it will all be OK.
But the problem is that those people can really cause you trouble. Not only they can keep you waiting for hours (is there even a maximum amount of time they can hold you for at the border?), which can result in lost connection flights, etc. that won't be reimbursed, but they can also allege that there's something wrong with your data and threaten deportation. There's a comment in this thread from a reader that almost saw his wife deported to her home country for apparently no reason. Yes, you'll get to be heard by a judge, but not until you've spent a considerable amount of money, time and patience.
The problem is that those people don't seem to be penalized for their faults. Immigration/customs personnel bullying passengers is seen as OK by central authorities, as homeland security and the struggle against terrorism are the priorities. If in order to catch a couple of terrorism suspects we have to give the rest of the population a bad time, it's still OK. Better "safe" than sorry, right?
I think your faith in the electoral process changing things is simply that; faith. Hypothetically, what if this policy did impact large numbers of voting Americans, but both parties supported it? How would your vote help to change things then? I ask these questions because there are plenty of examples of laws that adversely affect voting Americans but fall into this category of policy supported by both sides.
I think there are problems other than inconvenience. You might have a job or property or family within the US. Being denied entry without the protection of due process where you are innocent till proven guilty can be a BIG deal.
> As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?
I disagree with this line of reasoning.
It is fully valid to complain about injustice and unfair policies. It's not a binary choice between complete avoidance and submitting to some arbitrary humiliation.
I might also add that you are speaking from a position of considerable privilege. Many of those who choose to emigrate to the US don't have as easy of a choice as yourself, in that they may hail from less friendly countries of origin.
I think it's really weird when people argue that the only acceptable response to problems is to quit.
Complaining is a valid response, too!
"Albert O. Hirschman makes a basic distinction between alternative ways of reacting to deterioration in business firms and, in general, to dissatisfaction with organizations: one, “exit,” is for the member to quit the organization or for the customer to switch to the competing product, and the other, “voice,” is for members or customers to agitate and exert influence for change “from within.”"
-Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
Most people start with 'voice'. It's when they're told to STFU that the strategy is shifted to 'exit'. This immigration situation would fit this. How far do you think you'd get in this situation with a complaint?
> I don't bitch about it, I don't begrudge the border guards their jobs or attitude
Is it because of lack of time? It seems like those are general problems and highlighting them in some form might help improve the situation.
Sometimes it just takes a model story "An investor is turned away by power tripping and unprofessional immigration officer" or something like that. Maybe it won't be the story but one of thousands out there.
I really don't think it is my problem to solve. There is no upside to me from writing that. Such blog posts you can find by the thousands, and yet nothing changes.
When Obama first became president I had some hope that things would this time change for the better. But he's as much a chip off the old block as the guys before him.
Let's just say that I'm disappointed in how the US has squandered its goodwill and potential over the last decade and a bit but it's entirely theirs to squander.
China and India are the entities that stand to gain the most from this and in another few decades you'll learn just how much was lost. The US is still #1 in exporting its IP (and is trying hard to get proxy laws enacted the world over by using the WTO/WIPO/Worldbank triumvirate as a means of strong-arming the unwilling), they've outsourced an irresponsibly large portion of their manufacturing capability and they're in debt at a level that can only be described as reckless.
This will go on for quite a while but it won't go on forever, if the US does not learn to play nice and responsibly with others then in the longer term this will take care of itself.
Look at what's left of the former superpower known as the UK to see how fast you can fall.
My writing or not writing a blog post is not going to make one shred of a difference in this respect, these wheels are moving and have an inertia of their own. Stopping them or reversing their direction will have to be done from within rather than without.
When I quit going to the United States I essentially gave up, thinking that within my lifetime things will not be getting any better.
Let's just say that I'm disappointed in
how the US has squandered its goodwill
and potential over the last decade
Perhaps your goodwill was misplaced? It appears as though you had hopes about politicians. But no politicians deserve your goodwill, whether you are a citizen or not.
> As long as you feel the benefits outweigh the downsides the only person you can complain to is yourself. You're still going there aren't you?
Albert O. Hirschman actually discusses many nuances of this idea in his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, which is about the conditions under which people choose to express dissatisfaction about the way things are going. His book is far too nuanced and complex to describe here, but one counter-intuitive point he makes is that exit, and the threat of exit, can make voice less powerful by making sure that those most dissatisfied with a situation (a corporation, government, etc.) can simply leave, without needing to resort to voice.
You're essentially arguing that exit is superior to voice, but in many circumstances voice might be more useful.
The book itself is highly recommended, and once you read it you'll see its ideas applicable in all sorts of unexpected situations (like this one).
> Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change.
Less immigrants would negatively affect the GDP? I've heard the opposite many times, but I'm not an economist. Why is that so?
There's no realistic situation in which having another person working in a country decreases its GDP. GDP is simply the sum of all goods and services after net exports and investments. Given that a working person is, by definition, producing a good or service, their contribution to GDP is always positive.
But the TLDR is: immigration brings skilled workers into the country, who produce more than they consume, raising GDP. So stopping the flow of immigrants causes GDP growth to slow.
Not only skilled workers, but also unskilled workers that are actually economically needed.
Both because there is a lack of workforce in some areas (farms, low-end services) and because, in some countries where inequality is higher, part of the population feels these jobs are "bellow them" but somebody still needs to do them.
And last, even illegal immigrants contribute to move the economy. Everybody has to pay some level of taxes (even if only sales taxes) and has to consume goods. And illegals usually will try to "hide" and not use as much of public services.
I'm not advocating in favor of illegal immigrants. However, in my view, this is one of the main hypocritical reasons people in power complain about illegal immigration and, at the same time, don't do much to stop it nor to legalize those immigrants.
Where did you hear the opposite? An increase in the number of low-skilled immigrants might negatively affect GDP per capita, but it's hard to see how it would negatively affect total GDP.
This makes me like the US needs "a day with immigrants" day where every business founded or run by an immigrant suspends service to demonstrate to xenophobic Americans what they are losing when you remove the immigrant element from the country.
Jacques, I like and respect you, but if you think that the impact on the US GDP of immigrants leaving will ever in a million years be ascribed to immigrants leaving, you are living a fantasy.
I don't blame you for boycotting, though. Not a bit.
There was a stat here from a while back saying that half of all Silicon Valley startups were founded/co-founded by immigrants. There was another saying that all net job growth in the US in the last ~30 years was because of growth in the small/medium business sector.
So while it would take some time to see the results, and the casual factors probably not be put down to immigrants leaving (or being denied/not applying to enter the US to begin with), you would see an eventual impact on job creation and economic growth.
Perhaps the slow recovery after the 2007 crisis could be partially put down to the post-9/11 paranoia and making it more difficult for smart people to enter the US? It's total speculation on my part (something that occurred to me as I typed this comment), but an interesting idea nonetheless.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it will have a serious impact on America's economy, and I will be the first to agree that we deserve it. A shake-up will be healthy (maybe I'm a closet Trotskyist after all).
What I'm saying is that it will make no difference whatsoever in a free-market sense, because the free market presumes perfect information. The reduction in America's fortunes will never be ascribed to our lousy immigration policy - in fact, quite the opposite. It will be used to justify even worse policy. As is, in fact, happening right now.
So while it's nice to think "That'll show them," it won't actually show them. We're the country that originated Hollywood. We're really good at lying to ourselves and each other.
Also, America was on top because the Economist arbitrary invented a couple of metrics like "yawn factor" to put it there. Stupidest damn article I've ever seen. Come to the Rust Belt; I'll show you where it's not a good place to be born. In fact, if your parents make less than about $400K a year, you're better off in any industrialized country in the world.
> Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change.
No, there won't be much change, because those who make and enforce the laws are completely different from those affected by them.
No Customs & Border Protection officer will suffer personally if high-skilled immigrants don't (re)enter the US. And they can't change the laws anyway.
One of the main USCIS Service Centers, which processes Green Card applications, is in Nebraska. That's about as removed from where immigration happens as you can get.
As a U.S. expat, I can only agree with you. I emigrated to Canada fourteen years ago…and I don't ever see moving back for any reason whatsoever. I visit, because I have family there, but I don't enjoy it.
I'm happy here—happier than I ever was in the U.S., and much happier than I think I could be under the current U.S. political system and polarization. There are only a few places that I could see living in the U.S., in any case, and I don't like any of them enough to move from Toronto.
I've had an episode quite comparable to this one and it was the last time I visited the US. I don't bitch about it, I don't begrudge the border guards their jobs or attitude (I assume they get a lot of shit heaped on them every day, not an excuse for a non-professional attitude but I'm sure that it eventually wears you down). I simply took my few-hundred-K per year benefit for the US elsewhere, their loss.
Don't like US immigration? Good, don't emigrate to the US. Once enough people do this that it starts to affect the US GDP I'm sure there will be some change. As long as everybody accepts it this will continue or it will even get worse.
I had a pretty lucrative offer about two years ago to become involved in a company. The catch: the work had to be done in the United States. No thanks... But call me when the TSA is abandoned and the border guards are no longer treating immigrants like shit. You know, the way it used to be before everybody went crazy.
And on an off-topic and non-related note, additional conditions would be that Guantanamo is closed, the US ceases its drone program and the CIA gets thoroughly reamed for their 'renditions' program, including full exposure of all parties that were involved domestically and abroad.
Until then the US will have to do without me, I'm quite sure they don't care one bit.