4 ms·

Honestly, I have a hard time with the norms around "worker visas," internationally including the US. I can't understand the liberal (both right and left) prefe

Honestly, I have a hard time with the norms around "worker visas," internationally including the US. I can't understand the liberal (both right and left) preferance for something that seems (to me) at odds with freedom (as in speech). On one end of the spectrum we have thingslike middle east guest workers, almost an indentured service arrangment. On the other end, we have SV tech workers and similar elswhere. What protects the higher earning workers is their higher earnings, which gives them more options and leverage. Regardless most are bound to an employer, one way or another. They inarguably have much less freedom. They can't make the same choices (eg. work part time, career break). Other choices require bureaucratic approval (change job, start a business, go to uni). If citizens were subjected to these sorts of restrictions, it would be considered a liberal travesty. Since when is liberty subject to citizenship? To be clear, I'm not against skilled migration. In practice, i think there would be almost no negatives to allowing skilled migrants (same criteria) their freedom.

cylinder 8y ago
I'm an immigration lawyer and completely opposed to employer sponsored temporary visas. Either let someone in independently or don't let them in at all. The power it gives the employer is ridiculous.
masklinn 8y ago
> Since when is liberty subject to citizenship? Since citizenship has existed, meaning pretty much when the first legal systems arose? Providing different sets of rights and duties is the entire point of separating citizens and non-citizens. Hell, the greek polis were mostly about duties, the rights were mostly implicit and incident to being active in running the the community's affairs.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I'm speaking within the context of liberalism, as a set of ideals.
CalRobert 8y ago
I think this is one of the unintended consequences of strong welfare states. If your government spends $xx,xxx per resident per year then someone who arrives and doesn't contribute at least $xx,xxx is a net drain on resources. At the VERY least, you need to ensure your population produces at least $xx,xxx per year in gov't revenue. While I am strongly in support of things like free healthcare, education, etc. I can also see how adding residents who aren't net contributors threatens those systems. If Canada let any 60 year old American with health problems immigrae regardless of their ability to help pay for the health system it would reduce care for existing Canadian residents. After all, they're almost certainly going to cost more over their life than they kick in via tax. Of course, the same argument can go dark places, like forcing people to get exit visas to leave. After all, the state put a lot of money in to your upbringing, you owe them! Current visa regimes work pretty well to encourage this sort of behaviour. Young, educated people with lots of promise who will work hard (thus the tie to employment) or old people with millions can move. Others, well, can't. Barring that, sometimes less-educated people can move but in ways that try to ensure they don't become a burden (you work here for a set time and then you're kicked out) I sometimes wonder if the current system of heavy indebtedness for school and housing helps ensure people work as hard as possible and pay as much in taxes as possible as opposed to allowing them more leisure. Without having to cover a mortgage or health insurance, how many people would work part time? Or how many couples would have a stay at home parent? There were fewer formal barriers to moving not that long ago. The US had pretty much unrestricted immigration in the 19th century, but it also spent very little per resident. Passport restrictions in Europe showed up for WWI (well, briefly for Napoleon too IIRC) and never really left, probably because WWI also roughly coincided with cheap international travel.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Which is the problem with the gig jobs - yes people are employed but they don't earn enough.
- ianai 8y ago
  And you’re wrong. Population growth creates market growth. The humans that literally cannot contribute to the output directly create the broadest and often deepest demands. Babies need all sorts of things their parents wouldn’t otherwise purchase. Immigrants aren’t babies, necessarily, but they do increase market size. This is perhaps a very strong argument for UBI: empowering people with enough for the basics will ensure the contribution to market demand from population growth.

cylinder 8y ago

I'm an immigration lawyer and completely opposed to employer sponsored temporary visas. Either let someone in independently or don't let them in at all. The power it gives the employer is ridiculous.

masklinn 8y ago

> Since when is liberty subject to citizenship? Since citizenship has existed, meaning pretty much when the first legal systems arose? Providing different sets of rights and duties is the entire point of separating citizens and non-citizens. Hell, the greek polis were mostly about duties, the rights were mostly implicit and incident to being active in running the the community's affairs.

dalbasal 8y ago
I'm speaking within the context of liberalism, as a set of ideals.

CalRobert 8y ago

I think this is one of the unintended consequences of strong welfare states. If your government spends $xx,xxx per resident per year then someone who arrives and doesn't contribute at least $xx,xxx is a net drain on resources. At the VERY least, you need to ensure your population produces at least $xx,xxx per year in gov't revenue. While I am strongly in support of things like free healthcare, education, etc. I can also see how adding residents who aren't net contributors threatens those systems. If Canada let any 60 year old American with health problems immigrae regardless of their ability to help pay for the health system it would reduce care for existing Canadian residents. After all, they're almost certainly going to cost more over their life than they kick in via tax. Of course, the same argument can go dark places, like forcing people to get exit visas to leave. After all, the state put a lot of money in to your upbringing, you owe them! Current visa regimes work pretty well to encourage this sort of behaviour. Young, educated people with lots of promise who will work hard (thus the tie to employment) or old people with millions can move. Others, well, can't. Barring that, sometimes less-educated people can move but in ways that try to ensure they don't become a burden (you work here for a set time and then you're kicked out) I sometimes wonder if the current system of heavy indebtedness for school and housing helps ensure people work as hard as possible and pay as much in taxes as possible as opposed to allowing them more leisure. Without having to cover a mortgage or health insurance, how many people would work part time? Or how many couples would have a stay at home parent? There were fewer formal barriers to moving not that long ago. The US had pretty much unrestricted immigration in the 19th century, but it also spent very little per resident. Passport restrictions in Europe showed up for WWI (well, briefly for Napoleon too IIRC) and never really left, probably because WWI also roughly coincided with cheap international travel.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Which is the problem with the gig jobs - yes people are employed but they don't earn enough.
ianai 8y ago
And you’re wrong. Population growth creates market growth. The humans that literally cannot contribute to the output directly create the broadest and often deepest demands. Babies need all sorts of things their parents wouldn’t otherwise purchase. Immigrants aren’t babies, necessarily, but they do increase market size. This is perhaps a very strong argument for UBI: empowering people with enough for the basics will ensure the contribution to market demand from population growth.