Comments on: Free Immigration Agreements?

By: Expat in Singapore

Expat in Singapore — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:03:46 +0000

Singapore doesn’t have freedom of speech, nor is it an ideal partner for either ‘free’ trade (due to the government control of it’s economy through GLC’s like Temasek) nor free migration as it has a openly racist and pro-chinese migration policy in place to this very day. For more details visit the blog http://www.asianracism.blogspot.com

By: sara

sara — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:48:46 +0000

hello
i am student of faculty of commerce in egypt . i hope to continue my education in usa , and work also to feel self confidence. and that i can live and make money depending on my own effort. also i wanna to see the high tech. and deal with many people with different cultures

finally , thanks for your listening

By: azeem muhammad

azeem muhammad — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:41:05 +0000

i liake very much australia because mentaly i want born in australia i am e educated .I love australia in these moment i work in italy.hello all of australians i love all of you with my heart.azeem thanks

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:47:10 +0000

Chris – why don’t we just hit up foreign firms for the discounted value of trade if you want to do the same to immigrants?

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:14:14 +0000

Chris – I agree that for many countries an entry fee makes sence. I don’t think it makes sence for New Zealand and I think that where other countries of similar living standard are willing to reciprocate we should lower that fee to nil.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:42:30 +0000

Chris… your suggestion makes sense in situations where there is high demand to move to Australia, but it is less valid with regards to countries with a similar standard of living. In those cases, restrictions are likely to prevent mutually beneficial migration for no reason.

And “free immigration” has nothing to do with a free lunch. It’s about the freedom to move anywhere voluntarily without government involvement. It is necessary to have some limits in Australia (because of the high demand to move here from some countries, eg China) but where possible and viable we should be seeking to remove restrictions to people’s freedom.

Not to mention the fact that freedom (including free movement) gives a real economic and personal benefit. The economic effect of allowing free trade or allowing free movement of factors (ie capital & labour) is the same. Both are positive.

And JC — I didn’t mention the US because I think there would be other easier, less controversial examples to start with, but of course it would be appropriate to explore an FIA with the US at some stage too.

By: Chris Lloyd

Chris Lloyd — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:37:40 +0000

Free movement of people is fundamentally different to free trade of goods.

The point of free movement of people is to give them access to a (presumably better) economy. If they do not pay for it then it is not trade at all – it is a gift. “The F stands for Free..” Do you also believe in free love and free lunches?

At the very least immigrants should be charged for the right of entry. This has the effect of attracting those who can best utilise our first world economy.

A chinese worker makes $20 per week (basically nothing) in China and can make k$50 for working life here. Net present value should be worth at least k$500, perhaps more. They can pay it back like HECS. Let them bid on line (blind), close the bidding at the end of each month, take the highest 10,000 people and announce the minimum successul bid. Better luck next month.

By: Club Troppo » Thursday's Missing Link on Friday

Club Troppo » Thursday's Missing Link on Friday — Fri, 18 May 2007 00:50:25 +0000

[...] John Humphreys argues that if we can make free trade agreements with other countries, why not also have free immigration agreements? [...]

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 18 May 2007 00:09:57 +0000

Yes it is. Adjustment costs are the only real worry. They don’t really matter unless you choke off immigration for decades for political reasons.

This is also a fairly sterile view of the world, not taking in entrepreneurial ability and so on.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Thu, 17 May 2007 23:43:19 +0000

So to paraphrase you are saying that as the capital to labour ratio rises then workers get more of the pie, however big that pie may have become.

Further more you are saying that even though capital is getting a smaller slice of the pie, the pie has grown enough to more than compensate.

Is that a fair summation.