Foreign business owners are scrambling to raise capital to stay in Japan

> That being said, Canada is also getting skilled workers it did not pay to raise, educate and train. It's getting a good deal, but it's not getting a free meal.

Canada’s moribund GDP per capita suggests they’re not getting a good deal. One big problem is that foreign education is worth very little because the standards are so much lower. Half my extended family in my parents' cohort moved to the U.S./Australia/Canada. They all had college degrees from Bangladesh, which was very favorable under the point-based immigration in Australia and Canada. Out of a dozen people, only my dad got a college-required job without further education. My uncle became a doctor after redoing medical school. And two cousins went to college in Australia and got professional jobs. That was it--everybody else got permanent residency based on paper credentials then took non-college jobs. And they lived in subsidized housing, and got a lot of support from the government.

I would be curious to see the statistics for what fraction of Canadian/Australian skilled immigrants actually get a job that requires their skills and credentials. I suspect that there's a high percentage of people who get permanent residency based on paper credentials, but who can't actually get a job. The American system of tying the visa to a specific job solves at least that problem. I suspect the rate of return for the Canadian/Australian system is poor outside of medicine + people who immigrate to attend college in Canada/Australia.

> which gives a glimpse into reality.

Fun :| Impossible that different people have different experiences? Not claiming you're wrong, the world is a pretty big place after all.

Rent extraction is bad, since it hurts productivity. Ill admit I am an unabashed Georgist, but the book Progress and Poverty by Henry George is pretty accessible. But basically this: Capital and Capitalists are good, they have money, then lend it for ownership, this creates innovation. Labor is good, you need workers, they work, they produce, its good. But Rent (extracting value from land, patents, etc.) is just a negative drain, labor has to pay rent, capital has to pay rent, but they don't really innovate and grow the economy.

> Not having states with citizenship is not a human right.

Double negatives in English are difficult to parse, and I can read this two ways:

- "There is no legal entitlement to migration."

- "Citizenship is a human right, and must be exclusionary lest new citizens dilute the value of existing citizenships, ergo any policy that makes citizenship easier to obtain is a violation of human rights."

As a statement of fact, the former is true, but I also wasn't arguing that you already have a legally recognized right to enter any country of your choosing. If you were arguing the latter, however, that is bullshit. Citizenship cannot be a human right because it is a status granted by a state. The state does not grant you your human rights[0], it can only promise not to interfere with them.

As for the historical counterexamples to migration as a human right, I can also bring up plenty of historical counterexamples to free speech as a human right. There have been just as many societies that tried to quell speech as there were societies that tried to quell migration. And, likewise, most people were not in a position to migrate, just as prior to the printing press and mass literacy, most people did not have an audience for their speech. But we would not say that "free speech is not a human right because a lot of countries tried to quash it", or "because most people in most times did not have the means to use it". That would be absurd.

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that when I talk of migration as a human right, I am not solely talking about immigration. Most historical examples of states suppressing migration were just as interested in keeping people from leaving as they were concerned with those entering. The king does not want his servants leaving for a better kingdom; so he welds the exits shut. This practice continued all the way until the Soviet Union made this policy so onerous that the US decided that it would only trade with "non-market economies" if they abolished their exit visas. Emigration is already a legally recognized human right and any country that does not let its citizens leave is rightfully attacked as despotic.

As for culture, uh... I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Even if every country in Europe were sealed off from one another, the culture of today would be dramatically different from 40 years ago, or 40 years from now. You just don't notice it because you're drifting along the same tide. Likewise, two different countries do not become the same merely because that tide is pulling really fast. France and Czechia were far more isolated 40 years ago, than they are now that the Iron Curtain is gone and the EU allows freedom of movement. They are still culturally distinct countries, even though they're moving in similar directions nowadays.

[0] There are countries in Europe that use their constitutions as a place to put general welfare and infrastructure goals. For example, in Finland, broadband Internet access is a "human right". For the purpose of this discussion we're going to only be talking about human rights as negative freedoms - i.e. the Anglo conception of human rights. I am not opposed to positive freedoms, but that's not what we're talking about.

How asking for more money is protecting anything?