As regards immigration and third world aid: according to UN figures, relative to UDI , the  U.S contributes the least of all developed countries to third world aid (O.22 percent ), while Norway and Luxembourg contribute the highest levels of aid, relative to UDI (over 0.85 percent). The U.S lets in nearly a million third world immigrants a year while Norway and Luxembourg let in few immigrants. High immigration Canada and Australia also make low aid contributions to the third world. Low immigration Japan and Italy do make low contributions to third world world aid (0.28 percent of ODI and 0.29 percent of UDI respectively) but they have pretty much been in recession since 1990, so this is hardly suprising. I think the correlation I have suggested between low aid and high immigration deserves to be checked out.

On the topic of helping the developing world through immigration-I can’t see how it is cost effective. Currently large numbers of third world immigrants flock to cities like London, Los Angeles, Sydney and New York to do low wage jobs. Most of their wages go towards paying extremely high rents leaving little to sent back to relatives. Meanwhile, the native working class are pushed out by high rents and declining infrastructure. As I see it, neither the local working class nor developing countries benefit from this situation.  Furthermore, when I worked in London doing minimum wage jobs(TRYING to save for travels while backpacking) most of my thirld world co-workers were educated students who, one would hope, would be be better off doing skilled jobs in their own countries (I had an arts degree so I diddn’t have much choice about doing minimum wage work) 

Owen replies: Thank you for your comment, Mike.  As you might expect, I do not agree with anything you say here.

First, I am not aware of any systematic analysis of the relationship between immigration and attitudes towards development; but my instinct is that the relationship is the opposite of the one you suggest.  Countries that are more open to immigration and which benefit from greater diversity seem to me to be more likely to embrace the idea that they are part of a global communty to whom they have responsibilities, and there are likely to be strong constituencies for providing overseas aid.

The World Bank is a demonstrably effective provder of development assistance; and one of its strengths (not weaknesses, as you suggest) is the quality of its technical analysis and the intellectual calibre of its staff.  There is no corresponding evidence that providing support through small private contractors is as effective – and there are plenty of reasons for thinking that it is less effective.  If development were "simple" as you suggest, then it would have happened long ago.  It is a complex and difficult problem, and the World Bank is extremely well placed to make a very important contribution to it.  (I do not work for the World Bank, in case you are wondering, and never have.)

 Owen

Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

What the US is experiencing, on the other hand, is not immigration but Migration. Migration is a “natural phenomenon: it happens, and no one can control it.” Migration is an extreme catastrophe, where instead of assimilating into the culture into which a people moves, (as what happens with immigration) an entire population moves into an area and changes the political, cultural, and economic make up of a country or area. This phenomenon has happened many times throughout history and, and it is at work all over he Western hemisphere today.   Independently of what we may call it; a country in which 25 to 30% of the population identifies with another country, votes and participate in another countries election and remits most of their savings to another economy cannot be called the United States of America.   The immediate economic result of such massive migration is an erosion of the quality of life, an escalation in crime, a diminished life expectancy, literacy rate and infant mortality of our population just to mention quantifiable changes.  

Notwithstanding that some poor as a whole may benefit from being poor in an environment where poverty is richness as compared as the areas where they originate. In the long run openness to migration results in a disincentive to the needed ethical and political changes in the countries were the migrants originate.   The reason why our politicians are showing no leadership and constantly babble incoherent slogans is due to the fact that very soon; sometime within the next nine years the cost of Medicare-Medicaid and Social Security combined will exceed the revenue from employment taxes that have been used until now to cover for excessive government spending of the last quarter of century. When that event arrives the cost of these services would have to be paid in part with funds from other sources, meaning that Social Security and Medicaid-Medicare will be in competition for money with all other government programs including the military  

The meaning of this is that future governments would have no choice but to raise taxes or cut services to an elderly population. Unless they can convince a population of minority third world workers to pay increased taxes while receiving less services. The problem with that equation is that low skilled workers pay a smaller percentage of the tax burden while consuming more services. One $80,000 engineer produces more government revenue and uses less government services than four $20,000 agricultural workers.

A well-known Danish author once wrote a fable concerning 'hard won consensus'.otherwise known as 'groupthink'. It was entitled 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.

And opposition to immigration might not arise from failure to make distinctions, but instead from decidedly unprogressive, unfunky attachment to the idea of the nation state – an attachment shared by those Mexicans who recently marched through America's streets waving Mexican flags.