As with most economic policies, the degree to which it is implemented correctly is not linearly related to the quality of its outcomes: often one hole in corre

As with most economic policies, the degree to which it is implemented correctly is not linearly related to the quality of its outcomes: often one hole in correct implementation can torpedo the entire thing. In this case, providing a basic income is incompatible with open-borders immigration policy (i.e., limiting immigration to those who are likely to create more wealth than the cost of a basic income). On top of that, this is almost irrelevant to the discussion of basic income. This is not a problem with basic income, but simply "differences in expected income across countries". The higher expected income that the US produces ALREADY has the effect of drawing immigrants from poorer countries here, and we already have a system in place to prevent this from happening (too) en masse. This has been happening for over a century. I don't see why providing a basic income would appreciably increase this effect, or why the "flocking in droves" issue would suddenly become insurmountable when we've already been dealing with the same issue (without ruining the economy) for decades. Note that I'm discussing economic soundness here. It's totally possible that the vagaries of the American political system may prevent a key part of any economic concept from being implemented correctly, in which case all bets are off, of course.