I recently finished the book Exodus - How Migration is Changing Our World. It is about the movement of people from poor countries to rich ones, and examines what effects this movement has on all of the parties involved. I didn't agree with it all the way, but I think it does a great job of asking hard questions and looking at the issue from the perspective of everyone affected. Being as I live in Canada it is no surprise that most of my exposure to immigration discussion has been centered on whether or not it is good for current Canadians if new people move here. Exodus examines the subject from that perspective, but it also spends a lot of time talking about the effects on the immigrants themselves and the people left behind in the poorer countries from which they come.
In political debate the subject of immigration often comes down to left vs. right shouting matches. The left wants all the immigration and any opposition to that is racist, and the right wants no immigration and any opposition to that is destroying our culture. Naturally both extremes are nonsense, and both have some kind of point if you tone the rhetoric down some. A lot of opposition to immigration within rich countries is based on racism, but there are real concerns about how immigration levels change the culture of the countries people are moving to.
One key topic that is pivotal and controversial is the examination of why exactly poor countries are poor. Is it just historical, based on past behaviour? Luck? Or is it culture, and poorer, worse functioning countries are that way because of the behaviour of their citizens? Again, this discussion is a political minefield, but the explanation is a bit of all of each of these simple answers. Colonialism left all kinds of troubles and issues in poorer countries, but some countries have pushed beyond a troubled past, marred by invasion and occupation. Some countries are lucky to have valuable resources, but those resources do not explain much of the difference in standard of living.
Exodus explains that much of the difference between countries can be explained by mutual regard between citizens. If you think of everyone else in your country as someone close to you, someone you should respect, and insist on the same behaviour from them, your country will prosper. When nurses steal all the drugs from hospitals to sell on the black market, the country suffers. When crime is so rampant that everyone must spend tons of money on security guards, the country suffers. When bureaucrats demand bribes and squander money via corruption the country suffers. Countries that are rich tend to have high trust among citizens and people do not overlook transgressions by others, even if those others are close to them. Of course every country has some degree of corruption, but less corruption is hugely beneficial.
If a rich country wants to maintain its standard of living, then any new arrivals must take on its current culture. They don't have to have all the same holidays, modes of dress, etc. but they need to buy into the basic ideals and customs with regards to law and corruption. If they do not, the standard of living in the country will suffer. It is reasonable to demand certain cultural standards, but it is easy to tip over and demand far too much, and of the wrong types.
I definitely think Canadians need to be concerned about racism, particularly against immigrants. I also think that we have to carefully manage how many people we bring in to make sure we have the infrastructure to support them, and also make sure that we maintain the parts of our culture that give us the wealth and privilege that the immigrants are seeking. We can't expect to have open borders and welcome anyone who wants in while maintaining our standard of living, so we need restrictions, and those restrictions are going to be complicated and difficult to decide on.
The simple fact is that immigration cannot be boiled down to Good or Bad. It is a complicated thing that is governed by extremely complex systems, and how we approach it hugely affects our outcomes.
One thing in Exodus that I was especially interested in is the discussion of nationalism. I have been wont to say that nationalism is poison, but Exodus does point out that nationalism does have some benefits. It tends to reduce corruption and increase mutual regard, convincing citizens to do things for one another. The basic argument is that nationalism is good for the economy. The author carefully states that nationalism was, in the past, a huge source of wars and conflict, and this is an obvious downside. He thinks though that this is a thing of the past, and we shouldn't worry much about that anymore.
I think he is delusional on this point. Nationalism may well improve the economy, but wars are still happening and they aren't gone forever. Nationalism is a danger to humanity at large, particularly since one of our greatest existential threats, nuclear war, is vastly more likely to occur between two states in the throes of nationalist ideas. I am totally willing to take a hit to my standard of living to push the possibility of war further to the wayside, and it isn't even close.
Anyone who thinks that nationalism isn't setting us on the warpath anymore should look carefully at the US and the wars it has been continuously involved in for the past several decades. Would Russia have been involved in the military actions it has over the past few years if it weren't so tightly in the grasp of militant nationalism? I think not.
While I disagree with some of Exodus, I do think it raises a great many useful points. If you haven't thought a lot about immigration from a variety of viewpoints you will probably learn a few things, and the book is easy to read and clear. One final caveat though - the author likes to use formulas and graphs to make points, and sometimes they are misleading. You can't take an enormously complicated topic, boil it down to 2 numbers, and then pretend that putting those numbers in a formula gives you good data out the other side. Economists are fond of simple math representing labyrinthine issues, and such behaviour should be given a generous helping of side eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment