I'm shocked by the callousness of this comment. 100,000 people died, people who have nothing are fighting for survival in conditions you cannot begin to imagine. You are at least 10 times richer than the desperately suffering people you're casually insulting, yet you would simply throw every last one of them to the dogs, without contemplating allowing even a single one of them to escape.

This is a situation that requires gravity and solemnity, not sickening sarcasm like yours. If we're going to continue to offer zero additional visas to people who want to leave the hellish situation in Haiti right now, and thereby force everyone else there at gunpoint to stay, then that's our collective decision --- but that is an extremely serious act that should be undertaken with extraordinary care and reluctance.

My article said absolutely nothing about "open borders" --- you made that up out of thin air. What it did say, if you had bothered to read it, is that we should contemplate letting in somewhat more Haitians now than we usually do. In a typical recent year we have admitted 21,000 Haitians as legal permanent immigrants. Believe it or not, those people did not destroy America, and not one of them has the tiniest responsibility for our economic crisis. We could let in somewhat more without sacrificing any of our prosperity, as you would discover if you bothered to read the research of economists like Giovanni Peri.

But what possible incentive do you have to acquire the facts? It's much more comfortable to pretend that Haitians aren't real people, that their suffering doesn't matter at all, that not one single Haitian should be permitted to escape the hell they're in, and go on enjoying your birthright of a life vastly more comfortable and secure than theirs.

There are plenty of people struggling here in the US. Haitians immigrating here would be a terrible idea. Go to eastern Kentucky if you want to see poverty. US citizens should solve their own poverty woes before taking on other nations. How would Haitians survive in the us? What would they do? Survive on bleeding US tax dollars? Or welfare? The US has to much deficit now. What's the probability they would become productive us citizens? I believe it's low considering I see Hispanics locally who maybe living in better conditions than they were, still live below poverty levels, surviving off of gov aid, and contribute little if any to the GDP. There are other ways to help Haitians and I suggest we explore those opportunities before immigrating them to a nation struggling to survive it's self. For instance, rebuild the infrastructure to be a model for the globe. It's a small country and would take far less to build a model modern infrastructure than a country like the US, Canada, Mexico, Angola, etc. Build this along with modern multifamily residential buildings (not public dorms but real residencies), roads, and multi-grade (k-12) schools. Starting with these core civil entities, I believe Haiti can begin to rebuild it's self. By the way, on easing adoption requirements for Haitian children to come to the US, I feel, is a great idea. Why isn’t China doing more since their economy is in such a boom time? They put enough money into other Southern Hemisphere nations why can’t they contribute more to Haiti?

Wow, Michael, I think you're upset that Dataguy called you a moron. You're not a moron. You just seem like a compassionate man who lives in the rarefied air of academia and therefore doesn't have to worry about competing with immigrants for a job.

Your solution to Haiti's poverty problem wouldn't be effective, I'm afraid. We don't have enough jobs for the people who are already here. Moreover, there are plenty of countries in the world that are also desperately poor. We can't take in every single poor person in the world. What about all the other poor countries?

We should do everything we can to make Haiti a better place to live, so people won't have to leave. We should do something that actually improves the country's government and infrastructure (not to mention their environment), instead of the Band-Aid solution you are proposing.

Just letting any Haitian who wants to emigrate to the U.S. come here will allow them to send remittances to their families, but that won't do anything to change the country's corrupt government or the grinding poverty of those who cannot afford to leave and who don't have a relative living abroad.

Let's be honest here about several things. Dataguy is right and Michael Clemens is wrong. Low skill immigration is bad for the U.S. Indeed, it disastrous for poor and working class Americans. Of course, it does make upper class elites feel good about themselves by showing how noble and enlightened they are... While at the same time making sure that they have an endless supply of cheap servants... Nice.

If upper class elites aren't willing to invite Haitians into their own homes, they have no business advocating admitting them into the U.S.

I find the references to Peri highly ironic. If you actually read Peri's papers you find that they show massive declines in the wages of unskilled workers in California. Of course, Peri denies any linkage. Worse, Peri actually claims that unaffordable housing is a "benefit" of immigration. Nice.

Of course, immigration did play a material role in the current economic crisis. The Bush administration promoted the housing bubble as a way of making poorly paid immigrants think they were somehow going to join the American Dream (and vote Republican). Since better wages for immigrants and less skilled American workers was anathema to Bush and his cheap labor exploitation crowd, the housing bubble was a necessary substitute. Note that they housing bubble employed immigrants to a highly disproportionate extent and low skill (substantially Hispanic) immigrants were are the core of subprime debacle. Indeed, the Bush administration went to pains to make it possible for illegal aliens (yes, overtly illegal residents of the USA) to get subprime loans.

It didn't work out real well now did it?

Here's a better idea. Have the people of Haiti take responsibility for their own country and let them work to improve it.

For a detailed post on this subject, I suggest "Immigration from Haiti is a terrible way to help" (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/01/immigration-from-haiti-is-terrible-way.html). Note that the author is a Swede of Kurdish ancestry.

Let's be honest here about several things. Dataguy is right and Michael Clemens is wrong. Low skill immigration is bad for the U.S. Indeed, it disastrous for poor and working class Americans. Of course, it does make upper class elites feel good about themselves by showing how noble and enlightened they are... While at the same time making sure that they have an endless supply of cheap servants... Nice.

If upper class elites aren't willing to invite Haitians into their own homes, they have no business advocating admitting them into the U.S.

I find the references to Peri highly ironic. If you actually read Peri's papers you find that they show massive declines in the wages of unskilled workers in California. Of course, Peri denies any linkage. Worse, Peri actually claims that unaffordable housing is a "benefit" of immigration. Nice.

Of course, immigration did play a material role in the current economic crisis. The Bush administration promoted the housing bubble as a way of making poorly paid immigrants think they were somehow going to join the American Dream (and vote Republican). Since better wages for immigrants and less skilled American workers was anathema to Bush and his cheap labor exploitation crowd, the housing bubble was a necessary substitute. Note that they housing bubble employed immigrants to a highly disproportionate extent and low skill (substantially Hispanic) immigrants were are the core of subprime debacle. Indeed, the Bush administration went to pains to make it possible for illegal aliens (yes, overtly illegal residents of the USA) to get subprime loans.

It didn't work out real well now did it?

Here's a better idea. Have the people of Haiti take responsibility for their own country and let them work to improve it.

For a detailed post on this subject, I suggest "Immigration from Haiti is a terrible way to help" (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/01/immigration-from-haiti-is-terrible-way.html). Note that the author is a Swede of Kurdish ancestry.

Dataguy criticised the author's assumptions and Clemens responded with behaviour that confirms every liberal stereotype in the book. Let’s recap shall we?

1. He got a bit hysterical. Clemens’ counter-attacked by initially focusing on the critic’s tone. “I'm shocked by the callousness of this comment... This is a situation that requires gravity and solemnity, not sickening sarcasm like yours.” Crying “oh the humanity!” whenever a liberal’s argument is criticized is all too typical.

2. He immediately backpeddled. Though the author’s article didn’t specifically say anything about “open borders” the poster did not “make this up out of thin air.” It is reasonable to assume that Clemens’ position on immigration is fairly “open border” if he is advocating letting a significant faction of the population of Haiti move to the US simply because it seems to make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

3. He attempted to claim the intellectual high ground by citing research (even including a pompous tone like any good academic should). “We could let in somewhat more without sacrificing any of our prosperity, as you would discover if you bothered to read the research of economists like Giovanni Peri.” As is often the case, the research cited does little to prove his point and only undermines his already questionable intellectual integrity.

4. He threw out unsubstantiated generalisations. “Believe it or not, those people did not destroy America, and not one of them has the tiniest responsibility for our economic crisis.” Really Mikey? Thanks for clearing that up.

5. He resorted to simple character assassination. He presumes his critic simply suffers from poor character and a cruel nature. “It's much more comfortable to pretend that Haitians aren't real people, that their suffering doesn't matter at all, that not one single Haitian should be permitted to escape the hell they're in, and go on enjoying your birthright of a life vastly more comfortable and secure than theirs.”

So Mr Clemens, given your position (that curing poverty in Haiti is simply down to depopulating it by letting the Haitians move to a country that doesn’t suck), what about all the other countries for which a similar strategy would work? Should we simply let Sudan, Zimbabwe, Moldova, Sierra Leone, etc. ship their entire populations to the US? Is it the western world’s responsibility to cure the ills of every other culture on earth?

The problem with most academics is they actually believe “All You Need Is Love.”

The jobs that Haitians, Mexicans and other immigrants take in the US are the jobs not one American, be it black, Hispanic or white would ever take. The people that are losing jobs in America are semi skilled middle aged men whose jobs are just going to other countries (cars manufacture, textiles etc), and posh "humanistic" jobs, that are the first to go in tight times( advertisement, arts, editors etc).

America is the scrooge of the world. It's the first world country with the worst relation between it's average income p/c and what it gives in aid.

I think it's a great article, it's not realistic because it would be political dynamite here in the US

I think the writer of the article is not an insane wack but someone who is looking for a solution to a problem. He sees the plight of these people and feels compelled to help. I admire you for that. But you assume that dataguy is not someone who just lost his job and his house and everything he has been working for all his life. All things being relative if that were the case, he is undergoing his own desaster, and I would be less inclined to critisize him.What I find so puzzling is the fact that if so much aid has been sent to Haiti over the years why has no progress been made? The country has a fraction of our population so where does all the money go? That would be a good topic to research. But as with all events they will come to an end and I think from what I have heard a rebuild of the infastructure has been long due. From great diversity come great things, and as long as people keep supporting the effort Haiti will emerge better than she was. Keep writing and keep caring we need people like you, by the way I am not a free border supporter. i would describe myself as more of a nationalist. I want our country to be stronger so we can continue to help people elsewhere, but it is important to help yourself first.

America is the "scrooge" of the world and has the biggest gap between its net worth and aid programs? Interesting. I find it amusing that you see fit to criticise the US' aid to Haiti when they are leading the effort and spending the most, proving 10% of all total aid (compared to the next highest percentage, Canada at 7%). The US must be pretty heartless and horrible to lead an aid effort to Haiti in the middle of the worst recession in 100 years, what a bunch of scrooges indeed!

I can't help but notice a defeaning silence in response to the crisis from the Muslim world, Morocco is the only Muslim country contributing anything. So much for Zakat. It seems like the kingdom could afford to cough up a few sheckels, don't you think? I bet you're not in a rush to criticise them, are you now?

Current unemployment figures do not count the people who are underemployed, or who have dropped out (given up) on job searches. They are not counted because they are no longer eligible to claim unemployment benefits. The last thing they need is more competition for jobs.

Why does the US have to take them in? Why not other French or Creole speaking nations like Canada, France, Senegal, etc? Why does it have to be the US? We already have 20,000 troops on the ground, we're the largest contributor of aid through USAID and private donations. Why not take in 100,000 Pakistanis after their earthquake? Or 100,000 Chinese after theirs? Let the Cubans, Brazilians and Venezuelans and others take them in to work there.

The best thing to do is to start paying people $2 / hour to help rebuild their country. Employ them inside Haiti to rebuild, organize, restart schools, etc. After WWII no one said we should let all the Germans immigrate to the US because life sucked living in a bombed out defeated nation. The Germans rolled up their sleeves, often worked for free, to remove all the rubble and rebuild the nation. I am willing to contribute to that type of fundraising effort - give the Haitians jobs to rebuild their homeland.

Pride of place is far more important to creating a civil society than remittances from abroad, while the remaining population continues to be unemployed, with a civil government that fails to respond to their needs.

Dataguy, you speak the frank truth. The US cannot continue taking care of the world's downtrodden and poor. I have no problem with contributing to foreign aid, but to continue throwing endless funds at Haiti and like-nations has not obviously worked to achieve the objective of dismantling poverty and improving lives. There seems to be little or no accountability or oversight in such aid. How many years and how much money has the US alone, give to Haiti?

The impact of opening our borders in addition to the millions of illegals each year is grossly diminishing the quality of social services, resources, education, increasing crime rate, and hurting the tax-payer financially, because such allocation of resources decreases the availability of tax revenue to take care of our own needs...police and fire protection, maintaining infrastructure, improving public education, etc.

So then, we wonder why such services in which our tax dollars are supposed to pay for, are said to be underfunded! Why is it that people DO NOT see impacts such as this?????

Why must the USA be the focus of this argument? There are many other prosperous nations in the world, many have standards of living better than our own. There may be more jobs in developing countries than in America. Global problems require global solutions. What about Africa, lots of land, rich in natural resources, developing economies. We need not measure the Haiti problem in terms of how much money they can get back from expatriots. A safe environment, adequate food and a basic education may be the best we can ask for. The elimination of poverty may not be possible, a standard of living beyond the above may also not be possible.

@Westkentuckpride: You write, "How would Haitians survive in the us? What would they do?"

We're talking about letting in a few Haitians, not all Haitians. What those few Haitians would do would be similar to what the 532,000 Haitians in this country do: work hard to make a better life, just like the ancestors of almost everyone born here did when they arrived.

@Tabloidhack: You write: "Just letting any Haitian who wants to emigrate to the U.S. come here will allow them to send remittances to their families, but that won't do anything to change the country's corrupt government or the grinding poverty of those who cannot afford to leave and who don't have a relative living abroad".

First, as I've said several times, I never said a word about letting in all Haitians. I talked about letting in just a few. Second, yes it's true that emigration doesn't solve corruption. No one on earth has found a way to eliminate corruption in Haiti. The ideal would be a plan that does so, but neither you nor anyone else has one. The same goes for the "grinding poverty" you speak of. What's the better plan for reducing that? Aid? Trade preferences? Those things have been done in Haiti for many decades and have not worked. But you're sure they'll work now, and I don't know why.

@Pschaeffer: You are the only person I've ever heard of who thinks that immigrants caused the financial crisis. I suggest you write a piece for Foreign Policy explaining this innovative theory. Giovanni Peri's work, which I have read in detail and understand extremely well, shows that all immigration during 1990-2006 lowered the wages of U.S. native high-school dropouts by 0.7% --- cumulatively over 16 years (NBER working paper 14188). That is not a "massive decline", and it makes no sense to call it that.

@NSC London: On each of your points: 1. I find it outrageous when people make callous jokes about a people that has suffered the tragic loss of 212,000+ people, according to the latest figures. I won't apologize for expressing my outrage. 2. Backpedaling? My article said nothing whatsoever about letting all Haitians in, and I reiterated that. Some backpedaling. 3. I'm sorry you find it pompous to cite the best economists doing careful research on a subject. Perhaps I should cite anonymous posters like yourself, to appear less pompous. 4. You consider it "unsubstantiated" to point out that Haitian immigrants have not destroyed America. Apparently the fact that America is not destroyed isn't sufficient evidence for you. I wonder what would constitute sufficient evidence. 5. Calm down: I suggested letting in a few people from one place where even a small number would make a huge difference. Doing a small amount for some people makes sense even when one cannot singlehandedly solve the world's problems.

@Jayne: Germany was a rich, industrialized, developed country before it was destroyed. Haiti is not. "Rolling up sleeves" doesn't turn a poor country into a rich country. Haitians work extremely hard, and will work hard to rebuild. But rebuild to what? Before the earthquake, half of the people in Haiti were living on less than one dollar a day (measured at US prices, that is what one dollar could buy in the US). 'Rebuilding' to that would be terrible. But no one knows how to turn a rich country into a poor country from outside. Haiti is not comparable to China. China has a dynamic and rapidly expanding economy, Haiti does not, and is very unlikely to for generations. That's why doing what we can, for a few Haitians, is the right thing to do, and that has nothing to do with trying to solve all the world's problems.

For your information, there are some reports that the Dominicans didn't feel a thing. Which is weird. The earthquake also didn't produce any tsunami's.

And when did the DR become a world power all of a sudden? That's a third world country who's people are living in poverty. Only in the U.S. where the media can compare two third world countries and convince the public that the "gorillas" in Haiti are backwards because the DR's government has a few more dollars. Anything to to divert your attention away from the true history of US-Haiti relations.

What part of - the US doesn't want an accountable government in Haiti don't you understand?

They want a plutocracy that protects the interest of multinational corporations and the Haitian elite. If any politician tries to divert this small groups profits towards taking care of the general public, they get overthrown in coups........

The corporations and the Haitian elite like that they can pay workers a dollar a day. They like that they don't have to pay for health care, education, emergency response, good infrastructure etc. Get it?

The U.S. LOVES this corrupt government!

But being the snakes that some of them are, the press says: Look at those gorillas over there... And simple minded people repeat this B.S....

Look at Wyclef Jean and his family in Haiti (Raymond Joseph)... The US establishment is still pushing "Yele" after they snaked him and exposed his dirt. Yet another "look at the corrupt gorillas over ther" moment to divert attention away from the corruption going on at the Red Cross, USAID, the NGO's, the UN etc etc.

Thanks very much for this thoughtful comment, @Conejo73. I too was startled by the idiocy and smirking glee of some of these comments, revoltingly inappropriate in the face of the carnage that people in Haiti have suffered through absolutely no fault of their own. I am sure that these commenters are not representative of typical Foreign Policy readers.

MC,

David Brooks captured the mindset of folks like when he wrote

"They congregate in exclusive communities walled in by the invisible fence of real estate prices, then congratulate themselves for sending their children to public schools. They parade their enlightened racial attitudes by supporting immigration policies that guarantee inexpensive lawn care."

Thank you for redirecting focus back onto the source material to review what the author had actually written. I was begining to wonder if some of the other commenters had read the same article I had read. Disagreement is expected, but the lack of a basic understanding of what had been written was a big surprise.

The last thing in the world the United States needs is low skilled labor from failed societies. We should be skewing our immigration policy in just the opposite direction - towards well educated, English-speaking immigrants from functional democratic societies. These are the folks who add to the tax rolls and settle in without too much difficulty.

Low-skilled labor, on the other hand, exacerbates income inequality in this country, remittances have a negative impact on our balance of payments and the children of non-English speaking children are a burden on public schools. The best way to help Haiti is to help rebuild infrastructure and stop propping up corrupt governments. The Haitians have to figure out how best to organize their own society - and we need to realize that the process could be bloody.

Clemens, you're an overly sensitive and pompous person. How dare the lowly hoi poloi read and comment upon your proclamations? You sound like a pouting kid who can't take criticism of any kind.

Conejo, that still doesn't answer the question of what happens to the Haitians who can't leave Haiti or don't have a relative living abroad.

@Pschaeffer: That's funny that you bring up race. I never mentioned it once. Obviously it's on your mind as you contemplate the diabolical notion of letting a few Haitians into this country.

@Jeff H.: Were your own ancestors 100% high-income, highly-educated, English-speaking people? All of them? Most of my ancestors, and most of the ancestors of most Americans, were low-income, low-skill people when they arrived, and a large number were not English speaking. Far from being undesirable trash, those people built America. Many low-income, low-skill immigrants continue to work hard and build America today.

@Tabloidhack: When hundreds of thousands of people are tragically killed, and people who cannot imagine such horror make inappropriate sarcastic jokes about those people, I feel outrage and I'll express that outrage. Too bad you didn't like it! If you expect me to welcome criticism of things I didn't say, like "let's immediately open the borders", that's not an expectation I can live up to.

Thanks, Plain Jane. This is a valuable point, and I particularly appreciate it since so many of the other comments here have little to offer but sarcasm, hysterics and insults.

Unlike those others, you pose an interesting question: Where would be the best place for new Haitian emigrants to go? To me, the U.S. is a natural destination since half of all Haitians who've left Haiti live in the U.S., and those earlier migrants would make it a lot easier for new migrants to get established and quickly become productive members of society.

But the other half of Haitians outside Haiti are spread over a large number of countries, suggesting that there are many other options, as you point out. If donor countries decide that migration should play some role in their efforts to help Haitians, then they should think and discuss how to share that responsibility. They do this already with refugees from war and persecution --- of which the U.S. has admitted an average of 80,000/year over the past several years, a number that is decided on in consultation with many other countries to share the burden.

Thank you for that sensible comment.

The statement of mine that you quote is a fact, not an opinion, and the authoritative sources for that information are linked in the article. I'm sorry that you find facts objectionable. If you have information contradicting this fact, and showing that more Haitians left poverty inside Haiti than outside it, please post that research here.

We have a cap on the number of refugees we admit each year (a cap which averages about 80,000 per year). Any cap requires picking and choosing, and that is difficult, when so many people are equally deserving, but we do it, because letting in some is better than nothing.

Thank you, PAB, I was really disappointed in the low level of these comments too. I appreciate your comment.

Very few commenters appear to have read my article. I said nothing about "carte blanche" for anyone. I just suggested letting in a few more, that's all.

The alternative to letting skilled people voluntarily leave Haiti is trapping skilled people in Haiti against their will. I invite you to think carefully about whether trapping skilled people in a place that has experienced negative economic growth for two generations is likely to be an effective, ethical development strategy.

You suggest that "pressuring for political reform" is the best long-term development strategy for Haiti. The US has been doing that for a very long time, and Haitians today are much poorer than they were two generations ago. Apparently that strategy does not work.

I am not suggesting "giving up on Haiti". I am suggesting that any poverty reduction strategy that is not based on what has worked best in the past to bring Haitians out of poverty is not a serious strategy. "Pressuring for political reform" has not worked, and is not a serious strategy.

I agree with you completely. At first, I was willing to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, but his comments here have demonstrated that he is a vain, immature, snobby person. He doesn't answer people's criticisms with facts and well reasoned arguments, but rather with a holier-than-thou moral superiority and peurile ad hominem attacks.

Hey Clemens, welcome to the real world. You don't get to control the dialogue, and you don't get to control people's thoughts. Stick to your academic journals if you don't want to hear someone daring to disagree with you.

It's bizarre that you consider this comment and several others to contain "reasoned arguments". Allowing someone into your country is obviously not the same as allowing them into your home. Very few of the Americans who welcomed your own ancestors into this country would have allowed your ancestors into their private homes. But they let them into the country anyway, because they knew that in most cases your ancestors would become productive members of society. Most of your ancestors did, and most Haitians do too. Whether I would want your ancestors, or any Haitian, to live inside my home is irrelevant.

It's too bad you considered my response to the earlier commenter "childish". When people make sarcastic jokes in a situation where, according to the latest figures, 212,000+ died, I find that sickening and outrageous, and I won't apologize for saying so. Sick jokes are to be expected of children; finding them inappropriate is to be expected of adults.

The consequences of trying to defend his article on the Internet, that is. I'd say that I'm amazed at the crraaazzy overreactions people are having to this article, but the truth is, I'm not... Judging by the responses here, one might guess the "common man" is easily threatened by the ideas of others!

I think it is important that there are researchers and academics and policy makers of all stripes who write of unconventional solutions to such large problems. I also think its fantastic the author is willing to discuss his work here (most wouldnt). Does that make me elitist?