> You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries
I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy.
> If you want to make an utilitarian argument
Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology.
This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something.
> We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in.
I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions.
> Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries?
Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots.
> You know, just like the US does it.
U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene.
> Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
"We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity.
> If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy.
> If you want to make an utilitarian argument
Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something.
> We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in.
I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions.
> Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries?
Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots.
> You know, just like the US does it.
U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene.
> Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
"We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity.
> If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.