3 ms·

That's definitely an argument that comes up, with purchase, in politics. I don't really think it has much (if any) validity. Taken as a whole, skilled migrants

That's definitely an argument that comes up, with purchase, in politics. I don't really think it has much (if any) validity. Taken as a whole, skilled migrants ar just to unlikely to be net recipients of redistributive governance. Skilled migration usually means educated, healthy, employable young (< 35-40) people. That's almost always a population in terms good tax/consumption ratios. I'd also note that I'm more comfortable (as a liberal) with denying migrants certain positive rights (eg unemployment payments) than basic freedoms. I think the welfarist-natuonalist argument amounts to a kind of "optimising-in our-favour." Why not get an even better tax/expenditure ratio out of migrants.

CalRobert 8y ago
I think we agree - skilled migrants are fine. I'm a skilled migrant (I hope!) and I pay more in income tax than about 90-95% of the people in my adopted country. But they wouldn't be thrilled if I'd tried to move here when I was 70. Unless I had a giant pile of cash, of course. I don't _like_ that it pretty much all comes down to money. I'd love to be able to say "this buddy of mine is a broke artist but he's super sound, great guy, plays the drums like nobody else and brings joy to all around him - that's the kind of person you want right?" but I don't know of a way to implement that sort of system without 1) being incredibly prone to bias and 2) being pretty expensive if you're not careful.