4 ms·
I agree on 1 and 2, but don't see how 3 follows. If you live as an "illegal immigrant" you are playing life on a higher difficulty level already. UBI wouldn't a
by oskarth 11y ago
I agree on 1 and 2, but don't see how 3 follows. If you live as an "illegal immigrant" you are playing life on a higher difficulty level already. UBI wouldn't apply to non-citizens.
Of course you might argue that it very well should, but that to me is a different argument that comes at a way later stage.
EDIT: I believe this argument is confusing how the world should be with how the world can feasibly be at this point in time. Baby-steps :)
- bayesianhorse 11y agoThe biggest problem with paying welfare to immigrants is that it has to be paid upfront, long before there is a profit or cost reduction compared to not paying it. The problems with not paying are manifold: They are an underclass, without most rights and very poor. A proper healthcare system can't refuse them treatments, for all sorts of reasons, and poverty and lack of rights just increase health care costs. Then there is the lost potential: Those people do have children, often naturalized, or not, living in the country, but not getting the care, food and education they need, which also means they don't fulfill their potential benefits to society. I think refusing children basic welfare is about the stupidest thing a society can do. Both for financial and for humanistic reasons. It is completely irrelevant whose children they are.