Alternatives to birthright citizenship

Read Will Wilkinson here and here.

Immigration restrictions are stopping us from preventing illegal immigration

Yglesias makes the apparently not-as-obvious-as-it-should-be point.

Immigration vs. Energy

You wouldn't like Senator Lindsey Graham when he's angry, explains Ezra Klein, with a follow up.

France to ban head scarves in all public places

The story:

France's ruling party says it plans to present a bill to parliament next month, which would ban the wearing of full Islamic veils in all public places. The party says the move should be seen as "a law of liberation."

A redditor comments:

As a French/American dual citizen, I have a possibly different perspective on this.

If this were the United States, I would be very much against this law, for entirely libertarian reasons. The United States is a nation of immigrants, and while there are always various groups trying to claim that their particular immigrant culture is somehow more "American" than someone else's (witness anti-Hispanic sentiment, for example, or the number of people that think that English ought to be legislated as the national language, or whatever) for the most part the concensus that thankfully eventually emerges is that unless you're Native American, you can stuff it -- your particular culture has no particular monopoly on what it means to be American, and no amount of whining will change that.

France, on the other hand, is not America. Unlike the United States, it is not a country of immigrants. There is such a thing, fair or not, as "French culture", and without making any sort of value judgment here, full-veil mandating sects of Islam do not qualify.

France has been relatively willing, despite not being founded on the principles the US was founded on, to welcome immigrants from other countries. Much of this perhaps was not altruistic, but rather fallout from France's ill-advised forays into colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly much of France's muslim population are in France now because they fought for France in the Franco-Algerian war in the 1960s and were forced to abandon their homes essentially because they chose the wrong side in that war -- something that France has been terrible about recognizing, frankly.

But I guess what I'm saying is that ultimately, the sort of "cultural chauvinism" that we have great disdain for here in the United States -- which this law would be an example of, in my opinion -- is a bit different in France (and in the rest of Europe, too). European nations have histories dating back millenia, they didn't develop their cultural heritage by melting together the traditions of myriad peoples over the last 250 years. That mixed character is precisely what makes the United States great, but the whole world is not the US.

Ultimately, if France decides that it wants to draw the line somewhere, if they decide that they want to be a secular society and that they don't like the symbolism they feel the veil represents, why shouldn't they ban it?

It's their country, after all -- and "they", unlike Americans, are a well-defined group.

I tentatively agree.

Rethinking brain drain

It's a good thing.

Quote of the day

"Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy ... Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."

—George Bernard Shaw

Line in the sand: San Diego–Tijuana border

One of my favorite photos...

Of towards the left is San Diego, USA. Right side is Tijuana, Mexico. (wiki entry)

Here's to hoping the next big topic after the health care craze will be immigration reform. I'm pretty excited about a Democratic majority finally having a crack at it.

I support wide open borders, with restrictions solely for known criminals/enemies and those with communicable diseases. Obviously our political system and xenophobic conservatives/southerners won't stand for borders that open, but any nudge in this direction (including amnesty) will be a useful improvement for the economy, social justice, our fabulous melting pot effect, and general prosperity. As any student of history knows, high immigration rates made the USA what it's been in years past. We've always been a nation of immigrants.

Immigration is enormously wonderful for development. Yet roughly since 1914/WWI, nationalists in more-developed nations have become so obsessed with protecting their relative power over less fortunate people, they've lost sight of how labor mobility benefits everyone in the long run.

One thing I also keep hearing from nationalists is that them darn immigrants oughta be required to learn English—that it should be a national language. Um, not really (xkcd). Let immigrants and future generations pick up the dominant language on their own. It's worked fine in the past, it will work fine in the future.

Besides, English's role as our globalized world's lingua franca is only going to increase. Too much intellectual capital has been invested for it to be otherwise: vast amounts of business, information, science, and other research and works of art have been produced in English. What does every odd person in Europe speak? English. On an international flight from China to Japan with a South Korean flight crew, want to guess what language "This is your captain speaking, ..." is in? English!

(Cross posted. For a bit more on the inanity of political barriers to labor and trade, a previous post.)

Americans now more libertarian

It seems an odd headline to write in today's "American Recovery and Reinvestment" bail-o-rama.  But look at this ABC/Washington Post polling of other issues (.pdf)...

		2003	2009
Gay marriage	Support	37	49
	Oppose	55	46
	Net	-18	3	+21	(6 years)
		1986	2009
Marijuana	Support	21	46
Legalization	Oppose	78	52
	Net	-57	-6	+51	(23 years)
		2007	2009
Amnesty	Support	52	61
for illegals	Oppose	44	35
	Net	8	26	+18	(2 years)
		1989	2009
Gun rights	Support	34	48
	Oppose	60	51
	Net	-26	-3	+23	(20 years)

Deconstructing closed-border nationalism

Wilkinson cheers:

Hey, utilitarians! This presentation by Lant Pritchett explains what you’re morally obligated to fight for: greater labor mobility. The argument is so drop-dead the only question is how long it will take for political philosophers to clog the journals with articles explaining the impermissibility of stringent migration restrictions. Can’t wait!

The utilitarian case for wide-open borders is indeed overwhelming. It always has been, but over the last century the people of more developed nations have cared more for erecting barriers to preserve power over others rather than allow the freedom of mobility that's in the world's best interest.

Line in the sand

It's the Mexico-USA border...at Tijuana-San Diego, I think.