9 ms·

Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.

by 0x4f3759df 9y ago

andys627 9y ago
No. What do you base this on?
- clishem 9y ago
  Based on the fact that there is finite money for social welfare.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    There is also a finite, not infinite, number of people who would require social welfare for some periods of time. So...
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      If we spread out all the worldwide social welfare resources among all the people worldwide who would require social welfare, the average would be so far below the current levels of first world social welfare that it's basically the same as the system had been destroyed. It's not about finite vs infinite, it's about the notion that currently "the good social infrastructure" in the first world can cover a small portion of the global population, doesn't have much excess capacity, and is obviously not sufficient to provide a comparable level of life/service/whatever to everyone in the world. Dividing it equally would mean a regression to the global average which is unacceptably low compared to first world standards, so the first world would never accept this.
      - mnm2 9y ago
        > If we spread out all the worldwide social welfare resources among all the people We need to do this, everything else is nationalism Unf. I don't think your calculations sum up And yes: It's called "costs of living" and you ignore it (to be higher in the west") and then you blame them (for your own wishful ignorance) Where do you live?
smb06 9y ago
+1. I, as an immigrant, contribute to social security even though i am not a citizen and have no plans to become one and therefore will not be eligible to social security benefits even though i contribute to it.
conanbatt 9y ago
Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.
    - Zahlmeister 9y ago
      Meanwhile, if healthcare is profit-driven, suddenly it makes sense to recommend pointless treatments for revenue reasons. Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.
- pandaman 9y ago
  When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immigrants who are the 1st class citizens. So as long as you can make babies on the US soil you are going to get welfare no matter what. Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.

Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.

andys627 9y ago

No. What do you base this on?

clishem 9y ago
Based on the fact that there is finite money for social welfare.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  There is also a finite, not infinite, number of people who would require social welfare for some periods of time. So...
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    If we spread out all the worldwide social welfare resources among all the people worldwide who would require social welfare, the average would be so far below the current levels of first world social welfare that it's basically the same as the system had been destroyed. It's not about finite vs infinite, it's about the notion that currently "the good social infrastructure" in the first world can cover a small portion of the global population, doesn't have much excess capacity, and is obviously not sufficient to provide a comparable level of life/service/whatever to everyone in the world. Dividing it equally would mean a regression to the global average which is unacceptably low compared to first world standards, so the first world would never accept this.
    - mnm2 9y ago
      > If we spread out all the worldwide social welfare resources among all the people We need to do this, everything else is nationalism Unf. I don't think your calculations sum up And yes: It's called "costs of living" and you ignore it (to be higher in the west") and then you blame them (for your own wishful ignorance) Where do you live?

smb06 9y ago

+1. I, as an immigrant, contribute to social security even though i am not a citizen and have no plans to become one and therefore will not be eligible to social security benefits even though i contribute to it.

conanbatt 9y ago

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.

programmarchy 9y ago
This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.
  - Zahlmeister 9y ago
    Meanwhile, if healthcare is profit-driven, suddenly it makes sense to recommend pointless treatments for revenue reasons. Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.
pandaman 9y ago
When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immigrants who are the 1st class citizens. So as long as you can make babies on the US soil you are going to get welfare no matter what. Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.