11–20 of 147 posts
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.
A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more protectionism than existed before (Brexit).
Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies (Puerto Rico).
That's about 5 London's. Where would these people live? Will cities magically appear from the ground?
UK favellas?
>European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male aren't the core of the issue? I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial conflicts. Then there is this: >If the worry is that immigrants will ou…
it just doesn't work that way. there's this thing called equality before the law, or something.
this sort of thing has been tried and US state and local governments are generally not allowed, by federal law, to deny the most expensive benefits and services to immigrants. it's, like, the US constitution and stuff.
note that educational services (i.e. schools) are a very large part of state budgets. like, sometimes the largest single component of a state budget. so the big savings would have to come from that sort of service denial, which again, is not constitutional.
Exactly who would be richer? You? me? A fisherman in the Azores?
This cartoon still says it best:
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.
That isn't a major risk — why don't all the people living in relative poverty in your nation move to the richest district of your richest city?
