Pebble thats Stubby Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Does the OP believe that borders should be eliminated and open immigration be allowed worldwide? I'll answer that question even if I'm not the OP. (but please don't get upset if I'm unable to define my answer to your wanted lawyerish standards) I would like to live in a world where there is complete free movement of all peoples. Apart from a very few who by their own actions have been deemed detrimental to the local socieity they are trying to enter eg people who if being totally honest would tick the box " Is your purpose of visit to bring down the government of the country you are trying to enter" on the entry form. I am not sure how you could determin who the detrimental people are though in practice. Let me be clear I'm not talking about the poor or needy in any way shape or form. I don't think complete open boarders work in practice, especailly if only some places had the open boarder policy and the majority kept theirs closed. There is also the issue of social security, and how much the imagrants should be able to claim without having to work first. This would not be an issue if the Pot of money was infinate. However I also believe that every living person has the basic right to a minimum standard of life. And right now in the world there are probably more people that live lifes below where I would like that minimum standard to be. I truth I don't have any answers. I just want to live with in the ideal world of unicorns and rainbows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Pebble,It makes sense. And your concerns make sense too. I'm simply curious to see how far she wanted to take her ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Pebble, thanks for an honest reply. What you describe is a liberal (in the economic) sense utopia. In such a setting, unfettered immigration might indeed be beneficial for the host society. However, the Northwestern European social democracies are not that utopia. Instead, they instead have built extremely stable societies on enormous, trust-based social contracts that are based on redistribution of wealth. (Implemented through very high taxes and universal welfare systems.) There are no suggestion for how this model can continue if a significant part of the population will remain outside the labour market. In particular, it seems very difficult to maintain the level of trust and social cohesion necessary to maintain the social construct in a multi-cultural society. Human psychology does not seem wired for that behaviour, and I have little hope (nor sympathy) for a plan that requires us to “fix humans” first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Milton Friedman said you could have open borders, or you could have a generous welfare state, but you couldn't have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 John has a farm and Pete has a farm. John has 3 kids, Pete has 9. A generation from now, John and his wife pass away and his 3 kids are able to be sustain themselves on John's farm. By then, Pete and his wife have also passed away, but his 9 kids are not able to support themselves on his farm. They start fighting over the food and the ones that lose the fight come to John's farm and demand to share in its surplus resources. What to do? That's pretty much the problem statement. The answer to it, is: Have fewer kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 That's really not the problem though, look at the population density of Japan and Somalia. It's not about who has more people but level of development. Using your example it's more like Pete spends his money on booze and he and his wife start fighting. So their children go live at John's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 John has a farm and Pete has a farm. John has 3 kids, Pete has 9. A generation from now, John and his wife pass away and his 3 kids are able to be sustain themselves on John's farm. By then, Pete and his wife have also passed away, but his 9 kids are not able to support themselves on his farm. They start fighting over the food and the ones that lose the fight come to John's farm and demand to share in its surplus resources. What to do? That's pretty much the problem statement. The answer to it, is: Have fewer kids.That's not really the issue at all. The scenario should be more like:John has 3 kids and owns a huge farm, where he grows produce and slaughters meat to sell to larger corporations.Pete and his wife, due to a lack of access to contraceptives and an exceptionally high infant mortality rate, have 9 children, and a small farm which yields just enough food for them to survive on. They do not sell what they grow. Both John and his wife die and their children are left a healthy sum of money and the farm which they continue to work to earn more money and maintain their high standard of living. They have all received good educations and would be eligible for moderate to high skilled employment if ever their farm failed.Pete and his wife also die. His surviving children are left to manage as best as they can with their subsistence farm. If the crop fails, they will not eat. Chances are that many of the children are very young. It is unlikely they have received formal education. Perhaps I have over-exaggerated a bit, but really, the issue is far more than: we'll have less kids, duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulthosian Stark Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 What's been hugely brutal to me is the way the Spanish cities in North Africa treat the forced migration situation. Melilla and less so Ceuta have basically been illegally deporting people on the daily, caught on camera, with no international action. Of course some do make it through just fine but many don't and end up living near the fence till they either reach Spanish soil or Moroccan and Spanish forces beat them to the point they physically can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 How are they illegally deporting people? Whats' illegal about about it? Honestly curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulthosian Stark Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 How are they illegally deporting people? Whats' illegal about about it? Honestly curious. If you are a refugee and you set foot on European Union soil it's a human Rights offense based on the current stance of war refugees. Under EU law it is illegal to simply toss em back to the other side. Ive watched quite a few videos of large swarms of people who go en masse to bend the fence in order for some to be able to land on Spanish soil so they can be saved. They're mostly fleeing Boko Haram.Theyd beat the shit out of you after you got on Spanish soil, unlock a nearhBy gate and toss you back into Morocco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.