Jump to content

Talk:Free migration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

THIS ARTICLE IS VERY BIASED AND PRO FREE MIGRATION. SOMEONE FIX THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.39.52 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone could provide examples of open immigration. For example, if the US opened its borders to Mexico, to describe what would happen and how things would balance out. MShonle 06:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: above. What do you mean, balance out? I don't really understand how that would happen.

Anyway, are we sure that Canada offered a policy close to open immigration (for all Europeans) until the 20th century? I don't know either way, but it seems to me that, as a member of the British Empire, they would have restricted non-Anglo/Irish (perhaps French?) immigration at least until the late 19th century. I'm well aware that a lot of non-Anglo immigrants came to Canada as early as the 19th century - Ukranians and so forth - but I'm not certain that it's fair to say they had the same vastly open immigration policy for all of Europe that the US did. Anyone know for sure? Moncrief 06:20, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

By balance out I mean how we would reach a state of equilibrium... some cities would become cheaper to live in, other's would become more expensive to live in. Made me realize I should change the counter-argument to include the case where home values increase instead of decrease (done). Anyway, the ultimate result would be it wouldn't matter where you live so much, because every place would be equally attractive. But I'm not an expert in the econ side of this, so I'd rather not post. MShonle 00:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone object to renaming this "Freedom of Migration" or something along those lines. I was trying to google this to find essays on the subject, and using "Free immigration" found only critizism. "Freedom of Migration" gave me more hits. I'm not sure, but "Free immigration" seems like the term "Baby killers" in the abortion debate. Something only used by one side of the debate. [Not true at all MShonle ] If anyone has the correct NPOV term, please pipe up...--Zenyu 18:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Free immigration is the term used by its strongest advocates. It's similar to "free trade". If you search the web you'll find people talking about free trade as if it were the most evil concept known to man; but you'll also find the strongest advocates of free trade using that term too. If you want, create a new page for Freedom of Migration and have it simply redirect to this article. But the name of this article should not change because free immigration is already the neutral and academic term for the concept. MShonle 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well thinking about "free trade" I looked at what the Economist calls it, and it seems they call the concept "free migration". See:
So I'm changing my "Freedom of Migration" suggestion to "Free Migration", the problem with "immigration" is that it concentrates on just one side of the emmigration<-->immigration equation. The side that just happens to be the more controversial. "Freedom of Migration" is probably POV for the other side since "freedom" in English seems to have a more positive memes attached to it than "free" which tends to remind people of both the negatives and positives of allowing personal freedom. "Free Migration" also appears to turn up more useful google results. --Zenyu 18:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
"Free migration" sounds OK to me. (Note that only the first letter is capitalized, per our manual of style.) Please make sure to use the "move" button, rather than cutting and pasting into a new article. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The page has been moved. Note that free immigration is still around as a redirect, as is open immigration which is another term used by advocates. MShonle 19:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Zenyu, it sounds strange to me that you think "freedom" sounds more positive than "free" because you feel "free" gets associated with "freedom." Moreover, I think most serious discusions of the debate don't just focus on pure good versus bad; it's more that freedoms carry with them some costs (for example, less or sometimes no control) but overall the question remains "what is the most effective plan?" and liberty just seems to be the most effective overall. MShonle 04:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty for emigration?

[edit]

I changed

The Cold War saw a migration paradox in which the communist states forbid emigrants from leaving (on pain of death)

to

The Cold War saw a migration paradox in which the communist states forbid emigrants from leaving

While some communist states might have had the death penalty for illegal emigration, certainly not all of them did, and not for the entire cold war period.

RandomP 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced since aug 2006

[edit]

i'm going to be bold and remove unreferenced statements. if you want to re-insert them, please find references.

au revoir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

thanks, but...

[edit]

i looked into one of the references and it doesn't support the statement it claims to: "Many libertarians, socialists, and anarchists advocate open immigration, notwithstanding other noteworthy differences among these three political ideologies" This sounds like the citation sill say that libertarians, sociologists, and anarchists advocate open immigration, but if you click on the link you'll see the piece is very critical of free immigration because of the effect it will have on workers. and it doesn't say anything about sociologists. could whoever inserted this citation please explain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shows 'socialists', but not the others. - Francis Tyers · 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops, i thought it said sociologists. its still uncited but it looks like you are working on it. i'll leave the unicted stuff in if you two agree to continue polishing?
Yup, will do, if you could improve it I'd be glad too. You can add {{fact}} tags to parts that you find particularly egregious and I will endeavour to find sources for those first. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The economy

[edit]

This article is extremely biased. It's garbage. All it talks about is the economy, as if the only thing that should matter to humans is how much money they have... which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their happiness, culture, or quality of life -- besides sometimes having many negative effects on these things. I don't know how to fix the article without deleting the whole thing. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run a more interwoven world economy will lead to more understanding between people's and cultures, less war and predjudice and a higher quality of life for all. Its only in the short run that friction may occur, and that is where the government can step in to protect those who are "short term losers" in the market, through things like worker retraining programs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/the-ethical-case-for-an-open-border
    Triggered by \bopposingviews\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism sidebar.

[edit]

I removed the libertarianism sidebar since, according to the article, this position is advocated by more groups than just libertarians. "Notwithstanding noteworthy differences among these political ideologies, many libertarians, liberals, socialists, and anarchists advocate open immigration". Hence presenting only a single sidebar is not a neutral position. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Then add other sidebars. :) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIDEBAR, and refrain from editwarring. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may be appropriate. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring. First you requested a source. I gave you the source. Next you found another justification to revert my edit. Now what? I'm reporting this to a noticeboard to ask for suggestions from other editors. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, I reverted and started the discussion. Once again, see WP:SIDEBAR. That sidebar is inappropriate. Adding a plethora of other sidebars will result in massive clutter. Kleuske (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More reading materials: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX. Please read. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "source" you provided was a link to one of your own edits. If you think that's a reliable source, WP:CIR is applicable. Kleuske (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar is more than appropriate. I'll do everything in order to add it permanently to that article. What do you think is needed to add that sidebar to that article? Do you think there are needed other sources? I'm open to suggestions. (If you don't have any constructive suggestions, then I would consider your comportment as just hostile towards "libertarianism" or against me - even though I'm new here). 2. There are other articles with more than one sidebar. We can put the sidebars in a collapsed mode. Waiting for suggestions, if you have any... 3. The source was a Book about libertarianism and the basic libertarian positions. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading those pages. Stop acting like a bureaucrat. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think no sidebar of any political view should be added. I especially object to this one since it a) gives WP:UNDUE weight to one political conviction, b) is not one of libertarianisms main ideologies and is in fact disputed amongst libertarians. Moreover, given your response I have the impression that you're WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, but instead use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for your political views. I have requested a third opinion. Kleuske (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think there's space for more than 1 sidebar. I'll start editing the article in order to ad a section about libertarian theorists and authors who support and write about free movement of people. You are free to write about other ideologies/authors of other ideologies writing about free movement of people. If you are lazy and don't want to do that (add content from other ideologies) that doesn't give you the moral right and legitimacy to remove content that someone else adds, especially if sourced and is proportional to other parts of the article. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again... WP:BRD. Please gain consensus, which you have not. A promise to write something is not a valid substitute for actual sources or talk-page consensus. I still strongly object to a) the Libertarianism sidebar and b) the attitude you display here. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with more than 1 sidebar : 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarianism 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free migration is not an intrinsically libertarian idea; its promotion by the EU and CIS make that obvious (let alone the nationalist libertarians who reject it). The argument for multiple sidebars is essentially falling back on other stuff exists, which is a weak argument. Those examples show that multiple sidebars don't contribute meaningfully to navigation, and clutter up articles.

Also, GL, you would do well to understand that Wikipedia does in fact act under a bureaucracy; it even has official WP:Bureaucrats. It's a flexible bureaucracy, but it operates more by rule of law than by force of will, and is inherently cooperative in nature. If you're going to do more than just try to promote your philosophy here, you'll need to get used to that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Free migration is not an intrinsically libertarian idea". Neither are these 2 other concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarianism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty . Nevertheless they are very fundamental to libertarian theory and philosophy. Those 2 articles I've linked, as well as a great number of other articles, have more than 1 sidebar. That doesn't seem to be a problem in those articles. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalist libertarians – as exemplified by factions in the Tea Party movement – are very much opposed to free migration. And "doesn't seem to be a problem" is simply your opinion; I disagree. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "nationalist libertarians", although I know some people who call themselves in a such way. Libertarian theory and principles are very clear about free movement of people. (It's another problem the articles in Wikipedia are not very well writen to represent libertarian theory..). Also the Tea Party, although has some libertarian concepts as for example distrust of Washington DC in no way libertarian. Here's a source for you: " 95. Is the Tea Party libertarian? Overall, the Tea Party movement is not libertarian, though it has many libertarian elements, and many libertarians are Tea Partiers. [...] They share the libertarian view that DC tends to be corrupt, and that Washington often promotes special interests at the expense of the common good. However, Tea Party members are predominantly populist, nationalist, social conservatives rather than libertarians. Polls indicate that most Tea Partiers believe government should have an active role in promoting traditional “family values” or conservative Judeo-Christian values. Many of them oppose free trade and open immigration. They tend to favor less government intervention in the domestic economy but more government intervention in international trade. " (Jason Brennan(2012) Libertarianism What Everyone Needs to Know Oxfrod University Press (Page 142)) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And why should anyone take your word for it? It sounds like a No true scotsman to me. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to comprehend what you read. It's not my word. Is a quote from a reliable source. (Jason Brennan(2012) Libertarianism What Everyone Needs to Know Oxfrod University Press (Page 142)) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History section?

[edit]

I know nothing about this but would love to read the history of both restricted and free migration Dakinijones (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_migration&oldid=1258236598"