3 ms·

"Secondly, the example you give is typical of news coverage about terrorism. Flooding the news with stories about the attack and the perpetrator, with which you

"Secondly, the example you give is typical of news coverage about terrorism. Flooding the news with stories about the attack and the perpetrator, with which you can gain exactly useful information since it's essentially an anecdote." Point taken: https://uebermedien.de/11488/kartenlegen-mit-kriminellen-auslaendern/ https://uebermedien.de/11488/kartenlegen-mit-kriminellen-aus... Direct link to the map: https://i.imgur.com/lBvUjTM.png https://i.imgur.com/lBvUjTM.png "It's not a very good argument, to defend a reduction of welfare payments to discourage immigrants from coming." I can't think of a better one. Or to speak with Milton Friedman: You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You can not have both. May I assume you are against a welfare state? "Immigrants are much more attracted to high salaries (which implies obviously that they want to work)" Most immigrants that I am talking about can hardly read in their own language. I can track down the statistic for you. " than by high welfare payments." Have you ever heard the word "welfare shopping"? They chose the country in Europe with the biggest payouts. "Even beside all that, you're clearly trying desperately to shoehorn your anti-immigration opinions into a discussion about an unrelated topic." I don't like that you give the impression I am against immigration. I am an immigrant myself and countries SHOULD attract immigrants. But it is a serious point of consideration that Portugal seems to avoid a specific kind of immigrant.

zozbot123 8y ago
> You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You can not have both. That's not saying that it's okay to "defend a reduction of welfare payments to discourage immigrants from coming." It's saying that if you don't reduce your welfare payments, you will eventually be discouraging immigrants from coming, probably by closing your borders. It's pretty much a political necessity. So Friedman's argument is actually the opposite, "let's reduce welfare so we can afford to have more immigrants here!" Or perhaps "you can have your generous welfare but be careful, this will eventually lead to discouraging immigration to the point of having de-facto closed borders, with all the unwanted side-effects of that."
- jayalpha 8y ago
  "So Friedman's argument is actually the opposite, "let's reduce welfare so we can afford to have more immigrants here!"" No, this is YOUR interpretation of this statement. First, the statement is neutral. Knowing Friedmans background it is clear that he was not a big fan of a welfare state (yet the idea of basic income is from him). "..we can afford to have more immigrants here!" No, the immigrants I was talking about would just not come anymore.

zozbot123 8y ago

> You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. You can not have both. That's not saying that it's okay to "defend a reduction of welfare payments to discourage immigrants from coming." It's saying that if you don't reduce your welfare payments, you will eventually be discouraging immigrants from coming, probably by closing your borders. It's pretty much a political necessity. So Friedman's argument is actually the opposite, "let's reduce welfare so we can afford to have more immigrants here!" Or perhaps "you can have your generous welfare but be careful, this will eventually lead to discouraging immigration to the point of having de-facto closed borders, with all the unwanted side-effects of that."

jayalpha 8y ago
"So Friedman's argument is actually the opposite, "let's reduce welfare so we can afford to have more immigrants here!"" No, this is YOUR interpretation of this statement. First, the statement is neutral. Knowing Friedmans background it is clear that he was not a big fan of a welfare state (yet the idea of basic income is from him). "..we can afford to have more immigrants here!" No, the immigrants I was talking about would just not come anymore.