I already started a thread just about this
a while back, but it seems to me that there is
a conflict between offering free services to everyone within a geographical area and letting just anyone into that geographical area, a conflict very similar to the "no borders on your bank account" concept Jose mentioned.
Yeah. You end up with free rider problems.
Even things like law enforcement and national defense can be services in this context. Building a safe, stable country isn't free. Or even easy, necessarily. The US has tried to build democracies elsewhere, and it's been...challenging. It's a hard thing to force. The US's record on nationbuilding was pretty good immediately post WW2, but dropped off pretty harshly afterward.
And that leaves us with the question of how best to manage them. To which I don't really have any good answers, hence that thread I linked at the start wherein I invite discussion of what immigration policy I should support, since I've kinda got no idea.
Everything does have tradeoffs, yeah. There's at least sane positions on both sides of how strongly we ought to enforce borders. These, sadly, are not the only opinions being expressed. We've got everything from overt racism to utterly impossible solutions(let them all in, pay for them). If we could at least axe those ideas, we'd still have differences, but at least the range of solutions being discussed would be more reasonable.
CorruptUser wrote:I'm snarking when I say that we should invade/annex Guatamala and give everyone there citizenship, since 1/5 of that country has already emigrated to the US, so we might as well make things easier and bring the border to them.
Maybe that should be the ideal immigration policy. No more sabotaging the third world, just straight up annexation and invasion until the planet is one giant one world country. Then there will be no such thing as a border.
Colonialism is a real world solution that's been tried. There are significant tradeoffs. Mostly, it's just really expensive. Dealing with Guatemala's problems would probably be a project roughly as expensive as Iraq? They're not identical, so this is pretty fuzzy math, but maybe order of magnitude accurate. If it's expensive to take people in and fix their problems, it's far more expensive to go to them and fix their problems if they want help or not.
Opening your own home, and letting others spend your money is a false dichotomy. With more people, especially people you didn't waste money growing from birth, the economy grows. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... lp-economy
So the kiddie/brown people concentration camps. Is that not an outrage anymore? Are we just stuck with a huge pile of them because we caught too many before we stopped jailing them?
It appears to have fallen out of media favor relative to Kavinaugh. I still see the occasional article, but it seems like it's viewed as much less of an outrage, yes.
As for the false dichotomy, yes, they do add resources, and grow the economy somewhat, but they are initially costly. Unskilled labor is of relatively little economic value. Currently, we screen to maintain fairly high value legal immigrants, as every other developed country does. This means they're not costly to the economy, but a full-on open border system certainly would be. Illegal immigrants already are, even with efforts to mitigate them. This doesn't mean you need concentration camps, but you do need some enforcement.