Ideal immigration policy

[CorruptUser]

Yes, I actually agree with Trump *hurk* that the H1B visa should prioritize the highest paid applicants first.

As for proving that they looked for an American, the proof usually amounts to "we posted a terrible job description on monster.com with insane experience and education requirements for little pay, and even though dozens of applicants met the requirements we didn't give them a callback since if they are applying it means they are incompetent"

[Pfhorrest]

So the social cost problem is exclusive to illegal immigrants, since legal immigrants will be paying taxes, which should be covering all the regular costs of existence.

Not necessarily, which was a lot of what I was mulling about in that first post. If that was true, the solution would be simple: just let anybody immigrate legally. If you catch an illegal immigrant, just document them and bam they're legal and you can send the IRS after them for failure to pay taxes like any other citizen.

But because that's not necessarily true, that solution doesn't work. It's not necessarily true because the immigrants who are coming in won't necessarily have incomes high enough to pay taxes enough to fund the services they'll be making use of. That's the only real concern I have about immigration: I would say "just let everybody immigrate legally" except that creates problems when combined with a tax-funded social welfare system, and I'm mainly concerned with finding solutions to those problems that aren't just "then don't let any immigrants in" or "then don't have tax-funded social welfare".

[natraj]

the only reason that creates problems is because our tax system is set up specifically to allow rich people and corporations to avoid paying taxes as much as possible. if we fixed taxes to actually tax corporations and rich people in proportion to their money it would be largely irrelevant the poor people who are not making as much/taxed as much. but because america has bizarre ideas about money and rich people and somehow thinks its totally okay for people to starve in the streets while other people just sit on billions of dollars forever, we argue about the economic "problems" of just allowing anyone to immigrate legally which are only a problem because, here as everywhere, we don't care one bit about how to actually deal with poverty.

[Thesh]

Border restrictions exist to maintain global inequality, and so I feel the best immigration policy is the one that leads to less of a need for border restrictions over time. IMO we should have temporary programs for training and education, for people who are going to return to their home country and apply their skills knowledge to create more opportunities at home, and we should have permanent programs for people who are unlikely to have opportunities in their home countries.

[Pfhorrest]

the only reason that creates problems is because our tax system is set up specifically to allow rich people and corporations to avoid paying taxes as much as possible.

It's a problem whether or not we've got those kinds of internal problems. However the current tax and welfare system is set up, every person already in the country pays some amount of money to fund the system and gets some amount of benefit from it. If more people come into the country who on the whole get more benefit than they pay into it, then either the people already in the country have to pay more to cover that (all of them, even if the burden is distributed proportional to income), or else the amount of benefit to go around has to go down (for everyone).

Even if we have a very progressive income tax system set up where the very rich shoulder most of the burden, putting more demand for services without proportionally increasing funding for services means that either costs go up or service goes down.

[natraj]

right but what i mean is the idea that we should have any difficulty at all finding money for necessary services, right now, is only even there because of artificially created scarcity in place so that rich people can get even more staggeringly rich. there is many times over enough wealth in this country -- even enough in our current budget if you DIDN'T raise taxes and just halved our nonsense military budget, but personally i think taxes should be higher anyway -- to pay for better healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. the idea that there would be too many people and a drain on our budget is only in place because we don't, actually, budget in ways that prioritize these things in the first place; we take care of rich people's wallets first and other things second.

i don't know how to answer the question without taking that into account. an ideal immigration policy would allow people to immigrate who want to immigrate, but that can't be divorced from overhauling basically everything about how we organize our economy anyway.

[Ginger]

I don't think we do prioritize making the rich richer above all else. We have multiple things in our national budget we must account for and making rich people richer is only done by them gaming the system not an actual function of our economy itself. And yes if we halved our nonsense military budget and used it on education, infrastructure and social programs for examples then that would make our country hella better so I agree on that. Anyways, despite what I just said about the game not being set up to be gamed by rich peoples, they still do anyways. The top one percent, or even smaller than one percent, has a stranglehold on our nation--In my opinions. That would heavily influence how we deal with new immigrants in a hypothetical policy, because those rich peoples that have strangleholds shall lobby for increased borders, increased laws restricting new immigrants, and to keep funding our country the way it has been. I agree with natraj that an overhaul of basically everything about our current economic systems would be needed to make new immigration policies feasible and workable.

[Chen]

right but what i mean is the idea that we should have any difficulty at all finding money for necessary services, right now, is only even there because of artificially created scarcity in place so that rich people can get even more staggeringly rich. there is many times over enough wealth in this country -- even enough in our current budget if you DIDN'T raise taxes and just halved our nonsense military budget, but personally i think taxes should be higher anyway -- to pay for better healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. the idea that there would be too many people and a drain on our budget is only in place because we don't, actually, budget in ways that prioritize these things in the first place; we take care of rich people's wallets first and other things second.

i don't know how to answer the question without taking that into account. an ideal immigration policy would allow people to immigrate who want to immigrate, but that can't be divorced from overhauling basically everything about how we organize our economy anyway.

Well there would eventually be too many people. Unlimited immigration where people are paying less than they're using is clearly unsustainable. There's a huge wealth and income gab within the US (for example) but the gap between the US and many many other countries in the world is also enormous.

[Pfhorrest]

I had a thought for a combination of policies that I think solves my concerns, maybe:

Let anyone into the country as a non-citizen resident, and they all quality for social services, but such persons are taxed a flat fee equal to the mean per capita cost of provisioning those services. (For my own basic income proposal, that cost and the basic income itself would exactly cancel out, so they'd only end up paying for in-kind services, like emergency rooms and the like, and effectively just wouldn't get the basic income at all). Failure to pay is a deportable crime. (Needless to say, other more usual severe crimes may also be deportable offenses; basically anything we would imprison someone for, we can instead deport them).

Any of them who want to become citizens (who, in addition to things like voting, are taxed progressively instead of a flat fee) are metered on an income-balanced basis as described before (i.e. for every rich immigrant admitted, so-and-so many poor immigrants are also admitted), such that the new tax revenue and new costs of services cancel out.

Except for whitelisted immigrants from countries with reciprocal immigration deals with us, who accept our emigrants as freely as we accept theirs and have comparable social services to ours that do not create an imbalanced pressure for immigration in one direction or the other. Those immigrants are pre-approved should they apply for citizenship.

It's still not as clean and elegant as I would like, but I think it's a start at least.

[Chen]

I had a thought for a combination of policies that I think solves my concerns, maybe:

Let anyone into the country as a non-citizen resident, and they all quality for social services, but such persons are taxed a flat fee equal to the mean per capita cost of provisioning those services. (For my own basic income proposal, that cost and the basic income itself would exactly cancel out, so they'd only end up paying for in-kind services, like emergency rooms and the like, and effectively just wouldn't get the basic income at all). Failure to pay is a deportable crime. (Needless to say, other more usual severe crimes may also be deportable offenses; basically anything we would imprison someone for, we can instead deport them).

Uh wouldn't that flat fee be much lower than the progressive rate for even the middle income people? Being taxed at the progressive rate would be a disincentive for a lot of people. You'd create a weird situation where becoming a citizen would end up costing you a LOT more every year. It would incentivize the poor to become citizens and they would pay less than they consume. The rich would remain in their flat bracket and pay for exactly what they consume. This still seems unsustainable.

[Pfhorrest]

That's what the second step, the metered admission of citizens, is for. The flat fee for non-citizen residents is just to avoid the alternative of denying them all social services entirely.

[Thesh]

I think if you are going to have limits on immigration, one possibility is to just have a visa auction. You might have some allotments dedicated for specialized purposes (preferably based on egalitarian principles), and then the rest can be auctioned off to the highest bidders. One compromise is to allow everyone an unconditional basic income based on a flat tax on personal income (not including UBI), but pay non-citizens from non-citizen income, and citizens from citizen income.

[doogly]

Ideal policy: lift the golden lamp.

[Chen]

That's what the second step, the metered admission of citizens, is for. The flat fee for non-citizen residents is just to avoid the alternative of denying them all social services entirely.

My point was the second step is detrimental to some people and thus they would remain non-citizen residents which seems undesirable.

[Pfhorrest]

If those people choose to remain non-citizens that's up to them.

I also like the idea of the auction, and combining that with my metering proposal. For every auction winner, allow in however many people from the bottom of the income ladder that the auction-winner offsets. That does mean that you get to people in the middle of the income ladder last, but they're also the ones least affected by the change from non-citizen to citizen so that seems okay.

[Chen]

If those people choose to remain non-citizens that's up to them.

Yes but if the rich stay non-citizens and pay exactly what they use and the poor become citizens and then get to pay progressive taxes (less than they use), you're going to be at deficit here. The progressive taxes basically make the rich pay for more than what they use to subsidize the poor. That doesn't work if the rich can choose to only pay what they use.

[ucim]

I still think you're looking at it all wrong.

It's not about money. Yeah, money is involved in everything, but controlling immigration is about protecting the kind of ideological environment we want to live in, because ultimately that is a big part of what defines a country - it's own goals and aspirations, and the goals and aspirations of the people.

Money enables them to achieve those goals, yes, but if immigrants change those goals, money is irrelevant. So, we should be looking first and foremost for immigrants who share our goals, not immigrants who will share their money.

Jose

[Thesh]

So, basically, we should adopt immigration policies based on nationalistic objectives? Yeah, fuck that.

[ucim]

Well, what is it that distinguishes one nation from another? That's at least a place to start thinking about the question from.

Jose

[Zamfir]

Well, what is it that distinguishes one nation from another?

borders, with a different government on each side

[Thesh]

A nation is simply not important, only the people. Borders can disappear or change with the stroke of a pen, but the people will still be there. We should focus on giving all people control over their own lives, not trying to dictate how others live theirs.

[Pfhorrest]

If those people choose to remain non-citizens that's up to them.

Yes but if the rich stay non-citizens and pay exactly what they use and the poor become citizens and then get to pay progressive taxes (less than they use), you're going to be at deficit here. The progressive taxes basically make the rich pay for more than what they use to subsidize the poor. That doesn't work if the rich can choose to only pay what they use.

If no rich immigrants decide becoming citizens is worth the progressive taxes, then no poor immigrants will be admitted to citizenship either. That’s what I mean by metering.

[ucim]

Well, what is it that distinguishes one nation from another?

borders, with a different government on each side

A nation is simply not important, only the people...

That's overly simplistic. While the different government is important, there are also underlying differences in the people, as they come from different cultural backgrounds, have different ideals, speak different languages, follow different superstreligions, and also live under different laws. And while on a basic level I think people all want the same things (insert any of the psychological pyramids here), in different countries they have formed different groups and different identities. Some live under a government under duress, others don't. That's not my point - my point is that there are real, actual differences between countries, that amount to more than the litany of laws a government imposes. There are real, actual differences between individuals too; just read the political threads to see some. These are the things that make up a country, a culture, an identity. They are real, and in some cases are worth preserving.

People are social animals, not solitary ones. We form societies, and then those societies help to form our progeny. Borders don't disappear with the stroke of a pen, they disappear with a lot of bloodshed. And the people that remain want different things from the other people that remain.

A nation is vitally important, inasmuch as the leaders of that nation dictate how the people will behave, and how the people will be protected from other people who don't behave "properly". And in a democracy, we don't give people control over their lives, we give them control over our lives.

So no, nations aren't distinguished just by the stroke of a pen, and citizenship is not an economic transaction. There's much more to it than that.

Jose

[Thesh]

Is your strategy to just dazzle us with so much bullshit so that we just don't know where to start? Please explain where any of that translates to "therefore, these people should not be allowed to live here".

[ucim]

Please explain where any of that translates to "therefore, these people should not be allowed to live here".

None of it does. The previous discussion revolved all around economics; IMHO that totally misses the point. This thread is about coming up with the "ideal" immigration strategy; I'm starting with the basic question of why there might need to be a "strategy" at all. "Why are countries different, and why should they be?" Without clarity on that question, discussing immigration (a detail emerging from that question) is futile.

Please explain what parts of what I said are "bullshit". (Note: "Bullshit" does not mean "something Thesh disagrees with" - it has to be stronger than that.)

Jose

[Thesh]

Bullshit in that you are using a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. Bullshit in that you just made a ton of arbitrary distinctions without actually making an attempt to figure out their relevance. The things that you are ascribing to nations have absolutely jack shit to do with nations; you are saying that people are different and therefore this is an important distinction between nations, but people are different even within a nation. It's irrelevant to what a nation is with respect to immigration. Where you say democracy is about allowing others to control our lives is just plain bullshit - democracy is about resolving conflicts; the more control you try and exert over others, the more conflict you have.

So, please, tell me where anything you said leads in any way shape or form to a coherent discussion about immigration policy.

It seems to me like you argue like this whenever you have something you want to say but don't actually want to come out and say it, so you make all these vague arguments that don't actually address anything.

[jewish_scientist]

Iff a person is from a country that must be quarantined due to an epidemic or they are known criminals, then we should not allow them to immigrate into or emigrate out of the country.

My plan is rather simple and possibly naive, but I think it is rather robust.

[ucim]

Bullshit in that you just made a ton of arbitrary distinctions without actually making an attempt to figure out their relevance.

I'm not pontificating "the answer". I don't know the answer (to what the "best" immigration policy is). But I claim that economics is not the way to frame it.

Pick five countries - for example US, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, and Iran. You have to move for work; it's a ten year assignment. Which country would you like to live in? Which would you want to avoid living in? Why? That's what's different about these countries. That is what drives people to immigrate (or emigrate). That's the start of an immigration policy discussion.

Where you say democracy is about allowing others to control our lives is just plain bullshit

Even in a democracy, we live under a set of laws. Those laws are determined by the voters, even if indirectly. So the voters (citizens, in most cases) get to control the laws you live under. That's what I mean.

It seems to me like you argue like this whenever you have something you want to say but don't actually want to come out and say it...

I argue "like this" when I'm not advocating a point of view (we should, or shouldn't, admit poor people), but rather, a way of thinking that may lead to a point of view, and I do it when I see the way of thinking being bandied about does not fit my humble opinion.

If you're arguing a point of ideology because of a desired goal, you are doing it backwards.

Jose

[Pfhorrest]

Iff a person is from a country that must be quarantined due to an epidemic or they are known criminals, then we should not allow them to immigrate into or emigrate out of the country.

FWIW I have been taking this (the "if" part at least, not the "only if" obviously) for granted, but it is worth explicitly stating, thanks.

"Why are countries different, and why should they be?"

IMO they ultimately shouldn't be, in the long run. But, given that they are... then we have this immigration question.

And though I'm not sure I'd weight it enough concern to shape my ideal immigration policy, I do see the point about people with different values having a say in the democracy that rules you. It's really quite analogous to people with different resources being a part of the social safety net that protects you that I've been mostly concerned about.

Say for example you are, like me, a pro-choice progressive, but your country is, like the US, facing immigration largely from a country with a conservative Catholic and therefore anti-choice population (in our case, Mexico). There's another contradiction of goals there, much like the contradiction between free immigration and strong social safety nets: we want to be liberal and egalitarian and allow freedom of movement and so let the immigrants in, but if those immigrants are likely to be illiberal and want to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies, is that not a problem?

I think in both of those contradictions, the ultimate problem is that we live in a society where the people around us have control over us (through democracy and social taxes-and-welfare), and the long-term, truly ideal solution would resolve that problem and have people not subject to the control of the people around them. That's not as simple as "just go libertarian then" because the resulting unchecked capitalism also results in other people controlling you, so until we can figure out a long term solution to that problem (which I'm not aiming to discuss here), and have a truly free society, I'm trying to figure out a practical compromise between the goals of open borders, and social welfare / democracy.

[jewish_scientist]

Also worth mentioning, I used the word 'should' instead of 'can'. The former implies that given sufficient support for allowing the migration, sick people and criminals can migrate.

[Thesh]

I'm not pontificating "the answer". I don't know the answer (to what the "best" immigration policy is). But I claim that economics is not the way to frame it.

Pick five countries - for example US, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, and Iran. You have to move for work; it's a ten year assignment. Which country would you like to live in? Which would you want to avoid living in? Why? That's what's different about these countries. That is what drives people to immigrate (or emigrate). That's the start of an immigration policy discussion.

Your argument is the exact opposite of that. Your argument is for why immigration should be restricted - I personally think everyone should be allowed to live wherever the hell they want; the reason why this isn't allowed is because of economics. Your argument is that it should be restricted for other reasons, and you've given absolutely no reasoning as to why this should be.

Where you say democracy is about allowing others to control our lives is just plain bullshit

Even in a democracy, we live under a set of laws. Those laws are determined by the voters, even if indirectly. So the voters (citizens, in most cases) get to control the laws you live under. That's what I mean.

The impact that one individual or small group of individuals has on others through the law is limited to the point of irrelevance when it comes to immigration. You're defining it as dictating how others live because that's the only way you can think of to justify your point.

It seems to me like you argue like this whenever you have something you want to say but don't actually want to come out and say it...

I argue "like this" when I'm not advocating a point of view (we should, or shouldn't, admit poor people), but rather, a way of thinking that may lead to a point of view, and I do it when I see the way of thinking being bandied about does not fit my humble opinion.

If you're arguing a point of ideology because of a desired goal, you are doing it backwards.

So you're basically saying "This is the way you should think about this issue" while also saying that doesn't actually lead to a point or a coherent policy position. So... It's a load of bullshit.

[slinches]

I personally think everyone should be allowed to live wherever the hell they want; the reason why this isn't allowed is because of economics.

May I offer an example of why open borders doesn't really work?

If anyone can move anywhere, then minority populations from many areas could consolidate in one place and effectively take over and kick out anyone who doesn't agree with them. These politically and ideologically distinct peoples would grow and fight over land, eventually settling into distinct geographical regions. The end result is that you'd have borders and nations again, along with a lot more bloodshed along the way.

[Thesh]

If anyone can move anywhere, then minority populations from many areas could consolidate in one place and effectively take over and kick out anyone who doesn't agree with them. These politically and ideologically distinct peoples would grow and fight over land, eventually settling into distinct geographical regions. The end result is that you'd have borders and nations again, along with a lot more bloodshed along the way.

Everything to do with government is a purely human construct, and so if enough people get together they can, if they want, decide to do whatever they want no matter what - including not to following the law. They can even decide to invade a small country and kill everyone in it. It's basically an argument for why we should say "fuck it" and not be concerned with empowering anyone but ourselves, because some other people might abuse their power. Or you could work on fixing the problems that would lead to that becoming an issue in the first place.

[slinches]

It's basically an argument for why we should say "fuck it" and not be concerned with empowering anyone but ourselves, because some other people might abuse their power.

No, it's an argument that a somewhat stable arrangement of nations, while not perfect, is still better than the anarchy that open borders would cause. Borders and immigration limitations help keep the extremes of society in check by acting as an impediment to consolidation on a global level.

We need a balance. It can't be a free for all, but we have to be able to form groups with like-minded people to avoid persecution. Until everyone can agree on one best way to live, the next best thing I can think of is to have nations with enforced borders.

[Thesh]

You are literally making up threats in order to justify nationalism at this point. Where is your evidence that global free movement of people will lead to those problems? If you have closed borders, you should expect greater economic inequality - does that not lead to more instability than the possibility of an invasion by immigrants who plan to uproot their lives just to destroy your way of life?

Without the economic pressures, I'd expect that migration of people would be a lot more stable than it is today, anyway.

[ucim]

"Why are countries different, and why should they be?"

IMO they ultimately shouldn't be, in the long run.

Well, we differ here, at least while we live in the real world, with real people, who have real ideas about how others should behave. I think it's fine, and a Good Thing, that there are different kinds of people in the world with different ideas, and that there are different societies of people they can choose to (or not to) associate and identify with. Were we all the same, life would be painfully dull.

Pick five countries - for example US, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, and Iran. You have to move for work; it's a ten year assignment. Which country would you like to live in? Which would you want to avoid living in? Why? That's what's different about these countries. That is what drives people to immigrate (or emigrate). That's the start of an immigration policy discussion.

Your argument is the exact opposite of that. Your argument is for why immigration should be restricted - I personally think everyone should be allowed to live wherever the hell they want; the reason why this isn't allowed is because of economics.

I am not arguing that immigration should be restricted; just that if it is to be restricted, this is why. In any case, I personally think that you have no right to live in my bedroom. Nobody has the right to live "wherever they want". People live with other people, they impact other people, and they have an obligation to live in a manner that is compatible with those other people...while those other people have the obligation to tolerate the new people... all to a point. To sharpen that point (and risk Godwinning the thread), into your ideal community comes a large (enough) influx of Nazis, who end up taking over the school board, and set their sights on the land use commission. Kumbaya only goes so far; I would expect to see some resistance, even from you. Sure, one person may not have much of an effect, but there comes a point where there are enough to be able to have a significant effect; all it takes is a twitter account nowadays. It doesn't matter how many that is; just that such a quantity exists, and perhaps isn't unreasonable to consider in shaping immigration policy. (Yes, there's a downside - restricting an influx of unicorns and rainbows might not be the best idea, but I'm not advocating restricting anything. I'm saying these are the elements that might be important in shaping policy.

The Dominican Republic has experience with this - they let lots of people in from Haiti after the earthquake several years ago; many of those people have stayed and are now shaping Dominican politics in a way that the Dominicans don't want. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant and not my point - the point is, incoming immigrants shape the politics and future of the country, and existing citizens may want to take that into account. Perhaps to encourage immigration, perhaps to limit it, perhaps to help define who they want and who they don't want shaping their future.

So you're basically saying "This is the way you should think about this issue" while also saying that doesn't actually lead to a point or a coherent policy position. So... It's a load of bullshit.

I'm saying "This is the way we should think about this issue" while also explicitly not taking a stance on the issue. I haven't developed an opinion on what the ideal immigration policy should be. For you to claim that this means it doesn't lead to a point or position is... well, beef by-products of the highest purity.

Jose

[Thesh]

I am not arguing that immigration should be restricted; just that if it is to be restricted, this is why.

So you believe the only reason to restrict immigration is if people want to protect their culture, but you can't actually explain why, or don't know if that's okay? However, you are saying this is how we should all think about the problem... Yeah, that's a complete load of crap. The only reason we cannot have unrestricted movement of people, politically speaking, is because of the economic inequality today. You are arguing that we should ignore economic issues and focus on cultural issues, which you don't have a position on. So, I take it you would support completely opening up US borders today since you state you cannot think of a reason why it should not be the case (you just believe if there is a reason, it's because we need to protect our culture)?

Literally, everything you are giving as an example is a problem in the US, today, even if you only look at citizens. There is no reason to believe free immigration would make the problem either better or worse. Things change, people don't like change. Sucks for them.

[ucim]

So you believe the only reason to restrict immigration is if people want to protect their culture, but you can't actually explain why, or don't know if that's okay?

Well, you're stretching things to put words in my mouth. I am presently of the opinion that culture (widely interpreted to include laws and the governing system) is a big reason that should be considered. It is certainly a big consideration of mine were I to find a country to emigrate to. And if I can't explain why (why what?) or don't know if any particular thing should lead to immigration restrictions, yes, that is ok. I don't have to know everything. (It's just that I often do. )

The only reason we cannot have unrestricted movement of people, politically speaking, is because of the economic inequality today.

I won't call that a load of crap, but mainly because I don't like labeling things. Yes, money is important, but to just have your hand out is missing the point.

You are arguing that we should ignore economic issues and focus on cultural issues, which you don't have a position on. So, I take it you would support completely opening up US borders today...

If you have something to say, I'm listening. I will consider it in forming my opinions about the ideal immigration policy. I will then use that to help form (or change) my opinions on specific immigration issues facing the world today.

I will then program my arduinio with these policies, and unleash it on the world, bringing rainbows and ponies to all the world.

Jose

[Thesh]

So you believe the only reason to restrict immigration is if people want to protect their culture, but you can't actually explain why, or don't know if that's okay?

Well, you're stretching things to put words in my mouth. I am presently of the opinion that culture (widely interpreted to include laws and the governing system) is a big reason that should be considered. It is certainly a big consideration of mine were I to find a country to emigrate to. And if I can't explain why (why what?) or don't know if any particular thing should lead to immigration restrictions, yes, that is ok. I don't have to know everything. (It's just that I often do. )

You're telling us how we should think about issues, but not actually providing us with thoughts. You are telling us all of us are wrong for arguing the points we are arguing, while saying that you don't actually have points of your own. I really don't give a fuck about what you want - literally no one cares why you, personally, would choose to move where you choose to move. That is completely irrelevant to the conversation, which is about what immigration policy should be. As far as I can tell, you just want to play devils advocate, but without even making a contradicting point.

You are nothing but a troll. You don't want to participate, just derail.

[Pfhorrest]

Thesh, your complete open borders proposal is the one I would most want to allow, and has been my default stance on this issue I haven't had strong feelings about before. But do you not also see the conflict, in principle, between that principle, and other ones I think you and I both value, like democracy and social welfare?

Consider a hypothetical on a smaller scale. One state in the US implements an extremely progressive tax and welfare system. At first this seems great for most of its citizens. But that creates an incentive for poor people from other states to move there, and rich people from that state to leave. Unless other factors (natural or imposed) impede the movement of people that that pressure would otherwise create, just considering that factor alone, you would soon find the state has a much lower mean income, and so much lower revenue with which to provide the welfare to the much greater number of much needier people.

Of course since moving is nontrivial, there are some natural factors that will impede such movement. But you can see why there might be concern to ensure that such movement is limited, yes?