Pro-immigration advocacy outside the United States
Economic Growth
Increasing migration to rich countries could dramatically reduce poverty and grow the world economy by up to 150%. Open Philanthropy has long had pro-immigration reform in the U.S. as a focus area, but the American political climate has been very hostile to and/āor polarized on immigration, making it harder to make progress in the U.S. However, other high-income countries might be more receptive to increasing immigration, and would thus be easier places to make progress. For example, according to a 2018 Pew survey, 81% of Japanese citizens support increasing or keeping immigration levels about the same. It would be worth exploring which developed countries are most promising for pro-immigration advocacy, and then advocating for immigration there.
What this project could look like:
Identify 2-5 developed countries where pro-immigration advocacy seems especially promising.
Build partnerships with people and orgs in these countries with expertise in pro-immigration advocacy.
Identify the most promising opportunities to increase immigration to these countries and act on them.
Japan is coming from a very low base ā 2% of population is foreign-bornāvs. 15% in the US. A lot of room for more immigrants before āsaturationā is reached I guess. Although I imagine that xenophobia and racism is anti-correlated with immigration, at least at low levels [citation needed].
Should these countries be supported in their efforts (I read I think $0.1/āperson/āday for food) and the crises prevented such as by supporting the source area parties to make and abide by legal agreements over resources, prevent drug trade by higher-yield farming practices and education or urban career growth prospects, improve curricula to add skills development in care for others (teaching preventive healthcare and othersā preferences-based interactions), etcāas a possibly cost-effective alternative to pro-immigration advocacyāthen, either privileged persons will be able to escape the poor situation, which will not be solved or unskilled persons with poor norms will be present at places which may not improve their subjective wellbeing, which is given by the normsā internalization?
Displacement crises are large and neglected. For example, for one of the top 10 crises, 6,000 additional persons are displaced per day. Displaced persons can be supported by very low amounts, which make large differences. For example, $0.1/āday for food and low amount for healthcare. In some cases, this would have otherwise not been provided. So, supporting persons in crises in emerging economies, without solving the issues, can be cost-effective compared to spending comparable effort on immigration reform.
Second, supporting countries that already host refugees of neglected crises to better accommodate these persons (so that they do not need to stay in refugee camps reliant on food aid and healthcare aid), for example, by special economic zones, if these allow for savings accumulation, and education, so that refugees can better integrate and the public welcomes it due to economic benefits, can be also competitive in cost-effectiveness compared to immigration reform in countries with high public attention and political controversy and much smaller refugee populations, such as the US. The intervention is more affordable, makes larger difference for the intended beneficiaries, has higher chance of political support, and can be institutionalized while solving the problem.
Third, allocating comparable skills to neglected crises rather than to immigration reform in industrialized nations where unit decisionmakerās attention can be much more costly, such as the US, can resolve the causes of these crises, which can include limited ability to draft and enforce legal agreements around natural resources or mitigate violence related to limited alternative prospects of drug farmers by sharing economic alternatives, such as higher-yield commodity farming practices, agricultural value addition skills, or upskilling systems related to work in urban areas. So, the cost-effectiveness of solving neglected crises by legal, political, and humanitarian assistance can be much higher than lobbying for immigration reform in the US.
Pro-immigration advocacy outside the United States
Economic Growth
Increasing migration to rich countries could dramatically reduce poverty and grow the world economy by up to 150%. Open Philanthropy has long had pro-immigration reform in the U.S. as a focus area, but the American political climate has been very hostile to and/āor polarized on immigration, making it harder to make progress in the U.S. However, other high-income countries might be more receptive to increasing immigration, and would thus be easier places to make progress. For example, according to a 2018 Pew survey, 81% of Japanese citizens support increasing or keeping immigration levels about the same. It would be worth exploring which developed countries are most promising for pro-immigration advocacy, and then advocating for immigration there.
What this project could look like:
Identify 2-5 developed countries where pro-immigration advocacy seems especially promising.
Build partnerships with people and orgs in these countries with expertise in pro-immigration advocacy.
Identify the most promising opportunities to increase immigration to these countries and act on them.
Related posts:
Which countries are most receptive to more immigration?
Understanding Open Philanthropyās evolution on migration policy
Japan is coming from a very low base ā 2% of population is foreign-bornāvs. 15% in the US. A lot of room for more immigrants before āsaturationā is reached I guess. Although I imagine that xenophobia and racism is anti-correlated with immigration, at least at low levels [citation needed].
Top countries by refugees per capita
The worldās most neglected displacement crises
Should these countries be supported in their efforts (I read I think $0.1/āperson/āday for food) and the crises prevented such as by supporting the source area parties to make and abide by legal agreements over resources, prevent drug trade by higher-yield farming practices and education or urban career growth prospects, improve curricula to add skills development in care for others (teaching preventive healthcare and othersā preferences-based interactions), etcāas a possibly cost-effective alternative to pro-immigration advocacyāthen, either privileged persons will be able to escape the poor situation, which will not be solved or unskilled persons with poor norms will be present at places which may not improve their subjective wellbeing, which is given by the normsā internalization?
Your question is very long and hard to understand. Can you please reword it in plain English?
Displacement crises are large and neglected. For example, for one of the top 10 crises, 6,000 additional persons are displaced per day. Displaced persons can be supported by very low amounts, which make large differences. For example, $0.1/āday for food and low amount for healthcare. In some cases, this would have otherwise not been provided. So, supporting persons in crises in emerging economies, without solving the issues, can be cost-effective compared to spending comparable effort on immigration reform.
Second, supporting countries that already host refugees of neglected crises to better accommodate these persons (so that they do not need to stay in refugee camps reliant on food aid and healthcare aid), for example, by special economic zones, if these allow for savings accumulation, and education, so that refugees can better integrate and the public welcomes it due to economic benefits, can be also competitive in cost-effectiveness compared to immigration reform in countries with high public attention and political controversy and much smaller refugee populations, such as the US. The intervention is more affordable, makes larger difference for the intended beneficiaries, has higher chance of political support, and can be institutionalized while solving the problem.
Third, allocating comparable skills to neglected crises rather than to immigration reform in industrialized nations where unit decisionmakerās attention can be much more costly, such as the US, can resolve the causes of these crises, which can include limited ability to draft and enforce legal agreements around natural resources or mitigate violence related to limited alternative prospects of drug farmers by sharing economic alternatives, such as higher-yield commodity farming practices, agricultural value addition skills, or upskilling systems related to work in urban areas. So, the cost-effectiveness of solving neglected crises by legal, political, and humanitarian assistance can be much higher than lobbying for immigration reform in the US.