"Basket Case" Nations: Emigration as the Only "Good" Option?

First, apologies for this rather sad term, although at least it's not as distasteful as one that's been bandied about of late. As someone who has always lived in the U.S., I remain supportive of immigration from all nations. However, I don't believe it's helpful for anyone to insist emigration is the only "logical" long term option for those who lack economic opportunity, especially given today's political backlash against immigrants in general.

Why have nations suddenly decided to pretend, that it is impossible to generate meaningful economic activity beyond the places it already exists? Only recall that highly valued production processes have been widely dispersed around the globe as long as anyone can remember, particularly tradable sector activity. Even though the organizational processes involved haven't always turned out well, in the whole they still provided means for wealth generation which nations previously lacked in many instances. This is no time to be giving up, on what has been a civilizational capacity for problem solving.

I get frustrated every time someone insists nations are hopelessly bound to present day cultural outcomes. How does anyone remain convinced in the potential of economics as a dynamic, "hands on" discipline - capable of assisting nations in general - if economists encourage policy makers to give up on the possibilities of multiple nations ever "getting their act together"? Especially since advanced nations have become so reluctant to take in millions who hope for a better life.

Normally I cite articles (particularly if I write an entire post in response such as this one), but recently I was frustrated by a poorly written opinion piece, from a journalist whose articles I once enjoyed. What might have been a fruitful discussion re immigration on this individual's part, was simply thrown to the wind because it was framed in an extremely partisan context. Apparently Trump was "reasonable" to express out loud that some countries simply weren't worth our time or attention. And yet, even though some villagers would be happier to find economic opportunity in their own villages if they could, we have the nerve to boast how much better our advanced nations are for these people, even as we simultaneously limit their entry. Limited entry is understandable, it's something many nations have to do. But proud boasting about our own good fortune, knowing full well that others in the near future won't be near as fortunate, is something I don't find acceptable.

If economics is to remain viable in the near future as a dynamic discipline, I suggest that journalists, politicians and economists at least think twice before blurting out variations on these three themes, even if one is pessimistic enough to basically believe them:

1) The poor will always be with us.
2) The poor regions of advanced nations will always be with us.
3) We can't "bottle" what works so that it will help anyone else, in our own countries or elsewhere.

Firms learned how to organize "bottled" productive activity and spread it across the globe. Given the chance, a new kind of firm could also "bottle" more productive means of local knowledge use for global dispersal, via time and knowledge as direct wealth creation.