4 ms·

I'm Australian, have lived in the US, and now live in Denmark. I'm also pro immigration, both for skilled and unskilled workers. However Non-Western (as defined

I'm Australian, have lived in the US, and now live in Denmark. I'm also pro immigration, both for skilled and unskilled workers. However Non-Western (as defined by the Danish Ministry of Statistics) has been financially costly for the welfare state, and the assumption that unskilled immigrant descendents will (as a whole) outperform their parents has not been realized. There's blame on both sides. Denmark doesn't do a stellar job of integrating outsiders despite ample funding. Likewise there are cultural incompatibilities, such as the handshake-citizenship debacle in a country that has arguably the closest gender equality in the world. My personal lesson is that immigration is really complicated. I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential. But in holding this standpoint you must acknowledge the very real costs incurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to

Causality1 7y ago
True, but I was primarily thinking of immigration from Western nations like Mexico and even Europe. It's surprisingly hard for, say, a British person to move permanently to the US. I'd like to see that changed.
- em500 7y ago
  Every Western nation has sub-replacement fertility rate now. Mexico is still slightly above, but will likely go below in the coming decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_1950_-_2100,_World_Population_Prospects_2015,_United_Nations.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_195...
simplecomplex 7y ago
By definition welfare is a net loss. Otherwise it wouldn’t be needed. How can it be bad for immigrants to get more than they put in, but not citizens? The “immigrants will get more out of welfare than they put in” is exactly how welfare is supposed to work!
- guerrilla 7y ago
  Many (most in some countries) immigrants are citizens, so I don't think that's the distinction you meant to make.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  Welfare recipients spend every penny they receive so it contributes to the economy by keeping money moving. It's not a zero sum game.
oska 7y ago
> I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential. Why? Why not improve their local environment to better help them "realise their maximum potential"? (I put your words in quotes because it's not a phrasing I like very much). Why create a world where people have to move to have better opportunities rather than creating a world where there are better opportunities in increasingly more places?

Causality1 7y ago

True, but I was primarily thinking of immigration from Western nations like Mexico and even Europe. It's surprisingly hard for, say, a British person to move permanently to the US. I'd like to see that changed.

em500 7y ago
Every Western nation has sub-replacement fertility rate now. Mexico is still slightly above, but will likely go below in the coming decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_1950_-_2100,_World_Population_Prospects_2015,_United_Nations.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_195...

simplecomplex 7y ago

By definition welfare is a net loss. Otherwise it wouldn’t be needed. How can it be bad for immigrants to get more than they put in, but not citizens? The “immigrants will get more out of welfare than they put in” is exactly how welfare is supposed to work!

guerrilla 7y ago
Many (most in some countries) immigrants are citizens, so I don't think that's the distinction you meant to make.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
Welfare recipients spend every penny they receive so it contributes to the economy by keeping money moving. It's not a zero sum game.

oska 7y ago

> I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential. Why? Why not improve their local environment to better help them "realise their maximum potential"? (I put your words in quotes because it's not a phrasing I like very much). Why create a world where people have to move to have better opportunities rather than creating a world where there are better opportunities in increasingly more places?