4 ms·

Romanians cannot just move to Germany, because they are not in Schengen zone. The other East European countries also couldn't, they had 7 years long limitation

Romanians cannot just move to Germany, because they are not in Schengen zone. The other East European countries also couldn't, they had 7 years long limitation on movement (they could enter, but not work in the bordering countries). Nowadays, they can work there, but they still have no right to request social security or other social services. You can not have both free social services and totally open borders without ruining your economy. Pick one or another.

arcticbull 8y ago
(1) Just because a country isn't in the Schengen area doesn't mean that you don't have freedom of movement. Switzerland isn't but via EFTA most EU citizens are free to live there -- the Eastern bloc included. Same with Norway. (2) The accession process is meant to smooth the transition, nobody is suggesting opening up the floodgates tomorrow and seeing what happens, that's hyperbolic. Any abolition of movement restrictions would have to be gradual to be successful, and you could use EU accession as a model. (3) EU member states are required to meet certain very high standards on social services and welfare. The whole bloc has socialized medicine. Member states have reciprocity agreements ensuring migrants have access to the same level of care they'd get back home (look up EHIC cards for instance). This is not much different from how Canada administers social programs between provinces. Europe absolutely has free social services, democracy and freedom of movement -- and a very successful economy. The GDP of the EU is 21T PPP adjusted in 2017. The US is 18T.
- vetinari 8y ago
  (1) Not that free. You can enter for up to 90 days, without right to work or settle, with mandatory registration where you stay. After that, you have to leave, if you don't have the permit to stay longer or work. The only advantage EU citizens have is, that they can get the permit in Switzerland; all the others have to go to embassy in their home countries. Switzerland is a classic model of controlled borders and mandatory visa regime, which in some cases and for some purposes can be waived. (2) What happened in Germany and some other EU countries in 2015, is antithesis to gradual opening of the border. (3) That's only for the citizens of EU; not for citizens of third countries, i.e. not exactly what proponents of open borders fight for.
rjsw 8y ago
They could have moved to the UK but not all of them did.
- kaybe 8y ago
  The weather is bad there.. That actually is an important factor.
dnomad 8y ago
> You can not have both free social services and totally open borders without ruining your economy. Pick one or another. I suppose if you can't refute an argument with facts and clear reasoning you can always resort to lies and threats. Like so much anti-immigration propaganda that defies all historical evidence and economic analysis at it's basis it's just plain old fear and bigotry.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Note how you didn't give any single argument, just name-calling...
  - vetinari 8y ago
    He cannot, except some feel-good and virtue signalling slogans. The resources for social support in most developed countries are limited even for their own citizens; taking anyone would quickly overwhelm the system, that's a basic math, even without a napkin. For people, who do not have a good visualisation skills for numbers, there's this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE The point is, if you want to help the people in the rest of the world, you have to help them in their countries, which I wholeheartedly agree.

arcticbull 8y ago

(1) Just because a country isn't in the Schengen area doesn't mean that you don't have freedom of movement. Switzerland isn't but via EFTA most EU citizens are free to live there -- the Eastern bloc included. Same with Norway. (2) The accession process is meant to smooth the transition, nobody is suggesting opening up the floodgates tomorrow and seeing what happens, that's hyperbolic. Any abolition of movement restrictions would have to be gradual to be successful, and you could use EU accession as a model. (3) EU member states are required to meet certain very high standards on social services and welfare. The whole bloc has socialized medicine. Member states have reciprocity agreements ensuring migrants have access to the same level of care they'd get back home (look up EHIC cards for instance). This is not much different from how Canada administers social programs between provinces. Europe absolutely has free social services, democracy and freedom of movement -- and a very successful economy. The GDP of the EU is 21T PPP adjusted in 2017. The US is 18T.

vetinari 8y ago
(1) Not that free. You can enter for up to 90 days, without right to work or settle, with mandatory registration where you stay. After that, you have to leave, if you don't have the permit to stay longer or work. The only advantage EU citizens have is, that they can get the permit in Switzerland; all the others have to go to embassy in their home countries. Switzerland is a classic model of controlled borders and mandatory visa regime, which in some cases and for some purposes can be waived. (2) What happened in Germany and some other EU countries in 2015, is antithesis to gradual opening of the border. (3) That's only for the citizens of EU; not for citizens of third countries, i.e. not exactly what proponents of open borders fight for.

rjsw 8y ago

They could have moved to the UK but not all of them did.

kaybe 8y ago
The weather is bad there.. That actually is an important factor.

dnomad 8y ago

> You can not have both free social services and totally open borders without ruining your economy. Pick one or another. I suppose if you can't refute an argument with facts and clear reasoning you can always resort to lies and threats. Like so much anti-immigration propaganda that defies all historical evidence and economic analysis at it's basis it's just plain old fear and bigotry.

coldtea 8y ago
Note how you didn't give any single argument, just name-calling...
- vetinari 8y ago
  He cannot, except some feel-good and virtue signalling slogans. The resources for social support in most developed countries are limited even for their own citizens; taking anyone would quickly overwhelm the system, that's a basic math, even without a napkin. For people, who do not have a good visualisation skills for numbers, there's this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE The point is, if you want to help the people in the rest of the world, you have to help them in their countries, which I wholeheartedly agree.