4 ms·

Only if that's the only human right. It's impossible to run any kind of social safety net if an unlimited number of people can come in and bankrupt the social

by usrn 5y ago

Only if that's the only human right. It's impossible to run any kind of social safety net if an unlimited number of people can come in and bankrupt the social support. Democracy also becomes impossible because if the native population gets uppity elites can bring in immigrants to dilute their votes. Mass immigration like this has, in the past, led to the end of large civilizations such as Rome. Finally uncontrolled immigration economically crushes the native population by suppressing wages and causing asset and property price inflation. It's great for GDP over the short term though. There's also the cultural and racial dilution thing but that's a controversial idea to say the least. EDIT: I can't respond to you because my posts are throttled, but how does this work with your children? You have the same vote dilution problem in the new country but now it also opens up the opportunity to do the reverse if they're allowed to vote in the old country. Your "very long term" is likely multiple generations away. Should we be crushing the lives of multiple generations of our populations just take the best workers from these other countries and delay their development?

xyzzy123 5y ago
I do wonder if the conflicts are truly fundamental, or whether they could largely be engineered around at a practical level (without abolishing any existing states). Put another way, is it a philosophical or a practical problem? Seems a lot of the problems can be reduced in severity if citizenship (your primary link to national sovereignty and its corresponding benefits and obligations) and country of residence are separable concepts. It seems like the Schengen Agreement is a (limited) example of a system that allows freedom of movement while retaining national sovereignty. It's not the whole world though, and I don't really know how the issues you raised are being addressed. After a brief bit of research (I am NOT an expert) it looks like: > It's impossible to run any kind of social safety net Welfare remains complicated (as it always seems to be everywhere at all times...); by default you'd be covered by your home country which will probably not pay you unemployment if you move overseas. However, there might be bi-lateral agreements in place between countries to "cover" each other's citizens. Seems fair. > Democracy becomes impossible ... You vote in your home country, unless you go through the citizenship process of your host country. > Finally uncontrolled immigration economically crushes the native population by suppressing wages Probably, yeah. Very long term, hopefully we'd see more similar development levels world-wide and this could become less of a problem. You could also phase it in over a few decades, and/or have a growing "free movement" zones between areas. > There's also the cultural and racial dilution thing Yeah not sure about that one. > EDIT: I can't respond to you because my posts are throttled, but how does this work with your children? Well, first of all the can is kicked down the road by 20 years, which is beyond most politician's threshold of patience and avoids the worst immediate abuses ;) But I can speak to this directly because this is actually my situation! My family is resident in Australia. But I am a New Zealander, I can live and work here but I can't vote or claim welfare and am not a citizen. My kids (who were born here) are actually New Zealanders until age 10 at which point they can apply to become Australian citizens. From my perspective, my kids are Australians! They're not any different than anyone else born here, they grew up in the culture, reflect local values, and are the product of a similar level of educational investment as other Australians. I admit that I'm biased, but I don't see that it causes a lot of problems. In general it seems possible to retain the concept that countries decide who gets to be a citizen - it might not be automatic by birth, and parents would need to weigh up the rules when choosing a host country.

by usrn 5y ago

xyzzy123 5y ago

I do wonder if the conflicts are truly fundamental, or whether they could largely be engineered around at a practical level (without abolishing any existing states). Put another way, is it a philosophical or a practical problem? Seems a lot of the problems can be reduced in severity if citizenship (your primary link to national sovereignty and its corresponding benefits and obligations) and country of residence are separable concepts. It seems like the Schengen Agreement is a (limited) example of a system that allows freedom of movement while retaining national sovereignty. It's not the whole world though, and I don't really know how the issues you raised are being addressed. After a brief bit of research (I am NOT an expert) it looks like: > It's impossible to run any kind of social safety net Welfare remains complicated (as it always seems to be everywhere at all times...); by default you'd be covered by your home country which will probably not pay you unemployment if you move overseas. However, there might be bi-lateral agreements in place between countries to "cover" each other's citizens. Seems fair. > Democracy becomes impossible ... You vote in your home country, unless you go through the citizenship process of your host country. > Finally uncontrolled immigration economically crushes the native population by suppressing wages Probably, yeah. Very long term, hopefully we'd see more similar development levels world-wide and this could become less of a problem. You could also phase it in over a few decades, and/or have a growing "free movement" zones between areas. > There's also the cultural and racial dilution thing Yeah not sure about that one. > EDIT: I can't respond to you because my posts are throttled, but how does this work with your children? Well, first of all the can is kicked down the road by 20 years, which is beyond most politician's threshold of patience and avoids the worst immediate abuses ;) But I can speak to this directly because this is actually my situation! My family is resident in Australia. But I am a New Zealander, I can live and work here but I can't vote or claim welfare and am not a citizen. My kids (who were born here) are actually New Zealanders until age 10 at which point they can apply to become Australian citizens. From my perspective, my kids are Australians! They're not any different than anyone else born here, they grew up in the culture, reflect local values, and are the product of a similar level of educational investment as other Australians. I admit that I'm biased, but I don't see that it causes a lot of problems. In general it seems possible to retain the concept that countries decide who gets to be a citizen - it might not be automatic by birth, and parents would need to weigh up the rules when choosing a host country.