3 ms·

Citizens do matter, if the country has a social system, like the Europeans do. You can have either social support system, or open borders, but not both. It is

Citizens do matter, if the country has a social system, like the Europeans do. You can have either social support system, or open borders, but not both. It is unfair to those who built the system to open borders and deplete it on people, who neither built it, nor have intention to continue building it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jnbiche 8y ago
Well-argued. I agree 100%. But note that you can oppose this current system of enforcement being described in the article without being in favor of open borders.
esotericn 8y ago
This rests on the assumption that immigrants "deplete systems" and that citizens don't. They're both just people. If anything, immigrants are generally above-average in terms of dedication (for one, there's a sampling bias because they've just travelled across countries to come to yours). Limiting access to contributory systems (e.g. having a state pension require contribution) is reasonable, preventing someone from literally setting foot in a country or trading within a country is not that.
- vetinari 8y ago
  The visa-regime borders are not mutually exclusive with migration either. Actually, it ensures, that the country gets the well-driven ones. If you want to see, how to destroy a country fast, have look at the UN Global Compact for Migration. Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens!
  - objectivetruth 8y ago
    > Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens! I'm curious what you mean by this: either, a) the compact has language to the effect of "You must provide better services to immigrants than your own citizens." OR, b) the compact requires X standards of human services for immigrants and many countries don't even currently provide those standards for their citizens? Or something else? a) seems very unlikely. b) would make sense since a migration/refugee compact naturally wouldn't have standards about general citizen human service standards. Plus, if the compact does specify a basic level of human services, many countries, especially the US, already don't meet those standards for their citizens. Either way, that doesn't provide any evidence that net immigration "destroys a country fast."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jnbiche 8y ago

Well-argued. I agree 100%. But note that you can oppose this current system of enforcement being described in the article without being in favor of open borders.

esotericn 8y ago

This rests on the assumption that immigrants "deplete systems" and that citizens don't. They're both just people. If anything, immigrants are generally above-average in terms of dedication (for one, there's a sampling bias because they've just travelled across countries to come to yours). Limiting access to contributory systems (e.g. having a state pension require contribution) is reasonable, preventing someone from literally setting foot in a country or trading within a country is not that.

vetinari 8y ago
The visa-regime borders are not mutually exclusive with migration either. Actually, it ensures, that the country gets the well-driven ones. If you want to see, how to destroy a country fast, have look at the UN Global Compact for Migration. Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens!
- objectivetruth 8y ago
  > Social service-wise, it binds the countries to provide more for immigrants (even those entering illegally) than for their own citizens! I'm curious what you mean by this: either, a) the compact has language to the effect of "You must provide better services to immigrants than your own citizens." OR, b) the compact requires X standards of human services for immigrants and many countries don't even currently provide those standards for their citizens? Or something else? a) seems very unlikely. b) would make sense since a migration/refugee compact naturally wouldn't have standards about general citizen human service standards. Plus, if the compact does specify a basic level of human services, many countries, especially the US, already don't meet those standards for their citizens. Either way, that doesn't provide any evidence that net immigration "destroys a country fast."