4 ms·
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.
by Kazamai 9y ago
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.
- ForHackernews 9y agoFTA: > 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
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mnm2 9y agoYeah, make the poor pay more That's the solution! They depend on government handouts or other donations and making them pay more will solve the problem now
- fche 9y agoFTA: > open borders also FTA: > why not charge them more for visas Someone forgot what "open borders" means.
- ForHackernews 9y agoDoes anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this: > To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so. You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than the authors of the article.
- fche 9y agoIf his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.
- ForHackernews 9y agoMaybe you should try reading the article to see what the article is about.
- fche 9y agoRereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the term "open borders" any more acceptable.
- grayarea 9y agoDo you really think that if a billion people wanted to migrate in a few months we would have anyway of stopping them? They would have to be motivated by something pretty terrible and yet allow them mobility at the same time. Like say a war. Which we see all the time.
- ben_w 9y agoThat 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?
- gumby 9y ago> if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The article specifically discusses this.
- fche 9y agoIs this the part you're referring to: "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work." Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
- conanbatt 9y agoNobody is forcing you to. The application of migration restrictions is forcing other people to not move. In terms of individual liberties you lose nothing in this case.
- fche 9y ago> you lose nothing Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing". If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
- conanbatt 9y ago> then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing". Taxed to pay them what. If you have a beef with welfare programs in the us, you should take it with the welfare programs. Foreigners never had a voice or a vote in terms of what qualified for such kinds of programs. > If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either. This argument could be made verbatim against many things that today are considered bigotry or illegal.
- pmarreck 9y agoYou proved you didn't read the article. Nice work.