immigration

[Jebus]

Interesting discussion. Here are a couple of additional points to consider:

Would an immigrant from a war-torn country add or subtract from the total sum of non-human animal suffering?

Does the number of immigrants a country takes in affect that country's charitable contributions to third world countries?

I would without a doubt answer "add" to the first question. I'm not sure about the answer to the second question but I suspect that a country that spends a lot of its resources on accommodating migrants will lower its contributions to parts of the world where small amounts of money can have a huge positive impact.

[inator]

Here are my thoughts on this:

Would an immigrant from a war-torn country add or subtract from the total sum of non-human animal suffering?

It's difficult to say. It will raise demand for animal products in the recipient country and lower demand in the country of origin. The only variable here is whether the consumption will differ depending on the country they end up in.

We know that animal product consumption/person is low in underdeveloped countries, becomes higher in developing countries, reaches a maximum, and then demand starts to go down again the more developed it gets. Taking a person from an underdeveloped country and putting them into a deveoped one will probably raise demand a bit, but at least it bypasses the "developing" phase, which they would have evolved into soon enough. A move from a developing country to a developed country should lower the demand in time, if only for the next generations.

Does the number of immigrants a country takes in affect that country's charitable contributions to third world countries?

Well there are two main ways in which aid is given: non-governmental humanitarian organizations, or governments/governmental institutions bilaterally aiding other governments.

The effectiveness of governmental aid shouldn't be affected too much because:
1. Data points towards the fact that immigrants don't hurt the overall national economy, the contrary is actually true. It's not charity. Taking in many migrants at a time could theoretically put some temporary residual strain on the economy, but this should be reversed after the migrants are allowed to enter the labour market (which depends more on the local policies than on the migrants themselves). It's like when a company hires a new person - it takes a few months of learning and adapting until the investment pays off and that person starts creating profits.

2. Bilateral aid is actually one of the least cost-effective types of aid, because much of the money gets "lost" due to corruption and incompetence in the recipient government.

3. That "aid" is conditional, which mostly means: I give you money to help you with a certain issue, and with that money you have to buy materials/technology/weapons/etc. from me to fix the issue. You're actually helping me too by creating demand and boosting production in my country.
Or: Foreign individuals are temporarily supported financially while they live in another country (scholarships for students, researchers, guest workers etc), but that money never actually leaves the local market, it's reinvested.
It's usually win-win.

I don't think humanitarian NGOs should be affected. They're usually the most effective because they bypass local governments and invest directly in a project. They also rely on donors, but I don't see why those individuals would consider the immigration policies of their country as part of their personal "charity quota".

[Jebus]

We know that animal product consumption/person is low in underdeveloped countries, becomes higher in developing countries, reaches a maximum, and then demand starts to go down again the more developed it gets. Taking a person from an underdeveloped country and putting them into a deveoped one will probably raise demand a bit, but at least it bypasses the "developing" phase, which they would have evolved into soon enough.

I doubt there would be a significant reduction in animal consumption among religious people when the country gets more developed. I would love to see some research on that. Unfortunately one must consider that If the person stays in the war-torn country there is a good chance that s/he will die or not be able to afford to eat animals.

1. Data points towards the fact that immigrants don't hurt the overall national economy, the contrary is actually true.

One must be careful not to look at statistics from the past where thriving economies like Germany accept a large number of immigrants or in the U.S. where immigrants perform work that Americans don't want to do. However, I believe the above statement is true if most of the following conditions are met:

The welcoming country has low unemployment.
The immigrants are skilled workers.
The immigrants are not too near retirement age.
The immigrants don't have too many kids.
The immigrants learn the language quickly.
The immigrants do not face unfair employment opportunities.
The immigrants don't send too much of their income back home.

2. Bilateral aid is actually one of the least cost-effective types of aid, because much of the money gets "lost" due to corruption and incompetence in the recipient government.

Can't a wealthy government bypass the government of the receiving country and donate directly to the charity? If so, why not?

I don't see why those individuals would consider the immigration policies of their country as part of their personal "charity quota".

Individuals mostly wouldn't but don't you think politicians might think that their kindness towards migrants gives them a free pass to ignore starvation and malaria for a couple of years?

[inator]

I doubt there would be a significant reduction in animal consumption among religious people when the country gets more developed. I would love to see some research on that.

I guess the more developed the country becomes, the less chance there is that religious people's kids and grandkids will become equally religious. Young people are influenced by their families, but also, if not more so, by other parts of their environment.
Anyway, I'd like to see some data on the religiosity/animal consumption correlation, though I do also think there should be a positive one (unless we're talking about Jains etc.).

If the country is already dominated by highly religious people, then it probably won't become that developed anyway. It's difficult for an economy to flourish in overly ideological climates (unless they find an extremely valuable natural resource... and other countries still don't decide to bring 'democracy' to them).

Unfortunately one must consider that if the person stays in the war-torn country there is a good chance that s/he will die or not be able to afford to eat animals.

Yes, but they won't stay in war-torn countries. They will flee, the question is only where they'll go.
From an animal products consumption perspective, it would probably be better if they ended up in a developed country rather than in a developing one which a) wouldn't make a big difference in their consumption and b) might find the refugees to be a bigger burden, possibly destabilizing the area and therefore slowing down its development rate.

However, I believe the above statement is true if most of the following conditions are met:

The welcoming country has low unemployment.
The immigrants are skilled workers.
The immigrants are not too near retirement age.
The immigrants don't have too many kids.
The immigrants learn the language quickly.
The immigrants do not face unfair employment opportunities.
The immigrants don't send too much of their income back home.

Yes, it would be difficult to take on a large amount of immigrants in a milieu of chronic unemployment. Unless they bring new business ideas with them that will create demand, but won't compete with the existing employment opportunities (maybe exotic services, cuisines etc).
But we can't really claim that the developed countries that have recently taken on a large number of refugees are suffering from an oversaturated labour market in most sectors.

It also depends on what kind of skilled workers the country lacks in. In developed countries it can sometimes be difficult to fill positions that don't require very qualified people.

Can't a wealthy government bypass the government of the receiving country and donate directly to the charity? If so, why not?

Interesting question... but that's just not how Realpolitik works.
Governmental aid is often directed according to strategic political considerations, it's a foreign policy tool.
Governments don't usually invest directly in solving an issue, they give state-to-state aid under the condition that the issue gets solved.
Failing to do so would be interventionist and miss an opportunity to form profitable bilateral political relationships.
If governments ever bypass other governments, it will usually be to "aid" anti-government rebels.

When one country donates money or resources to another, there are always conditions attached. These conditions will often be in the MEDC's (more economically developed country's) favour. For example the controversial Pergau Dam project in Malaysia, where Britain used aid to secure trade deals with Malaysia. Other interests could be to support allies in a difficult region and gain influence in that area. Or maybe to help stop the inflow of illegal immigrants from a certain country.


Then there's also multilateral aid - supranational organizations (still governmental, like the IMF, the World Bank, etc) usually try to push reform so that a country will stop being a problem for stability. Here, development aid mainly means conditional loans, not a gift.
The idea is to jump-start economic growth. However, this is often ineffective for diverse reasons, I could talk for ages about why that is.
Generally it's either because of corruption/incompetence, or the money gets consumed and not invested, or because it may result in 'Dutch disease' effects - currency appreciation due to inflows of foreign aid can lead to less competitiveness for multiple economic sectors, because imports become cheaper and exports more expensive for other countries to buy.

It appears that even with these multilateral institutions, contrary to their claims, the self-interest of the donor governments often supersedes attempts to discriminate among recipients according to the quality of governance.
There continues to be little ‘ownership’ on the recipient side in spite of repeated attempts at reform (there are exceptions though). That is, even if the conditions imposed by donors are not fulfilled, aid continues to be disbursed, making the recipient economy dependent on it.
IMF estimates of the potential economic gains to be attained from greater liberalisation of trade actually exceed the value of aid being disbursed to developing countries.

Individuals mostly wouldn't but don't you think politicians might think that their kindness towards migrants gives them a free pass to ignore starvation and malaria for a couple of years?

That would only make sense if the migrants actually did put a significant long-term strain on the budget. But they haven't yet, and there's no reason to believe they will.
The only time that OECD countries have put a break on the trend of rising aid was 2011-2012, because of global austerity.
Then it started going up again. However, as total aid became higher, assistance towards many of the LEDCs (least economically developed countries) continued to fall. (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/developme ... alling.htm) Which speaks volumes about the method behind governmental aid.

We'll have to wait for the ODA statistics for 2015/2016 to see whether total aid contributions are falling again. But I doubt it.

I also don't think starving children should be affected too much, because:
- foreign aid is not as extensive as it seems (0,4% of GNI in the EU, 0,2% in the US in 2013, which was a record high)
- it tends to be ineffective in its current form anyway. Empirical studies have largely failed to provide a conclusive picture as to the extent that aid contributes to economic growth and development;
- above that, there's little question that foreign policy and political relationships are the most important determinants of aid flows. Which makes foreign aid less of a kindness and more of a self-interest.