Yes, but how do you define “workers”? Do you mean people who have existing employment agreements before they enter the country? Or simply free movement of people across nations? Because then you come back to the point by Milton Friedman above - that would be incompatible with a welfare state.
Why, exactly, is free movement of individuals incompatible with a welfare state? What makes natural-born citizens less of a burden on the welfare state than naturalized citizens?
Not if redistribution crossed national boundaries. We already have a “global” economy. We could have “global” welfare.
Not to mention that as I said previously, it is possible to have some social democracy with somewhat open borders. So this sort of simplistic either-or doesn’t mean much.
Do you have me on ignore or something?
I agree with gatorslap. Free trade without free movement of labor isn’t really free trade.
Free movement of people. People don’t generally immigrate for a change in scenery. The vast majority of immigrants have come here to work, go to school, or start a business. I would have no problem with requiring immigrants do one of these things. I’m pretty sure that’s France’s policy towards immigrants from EU countries. As for welfare, the USA has a relatively limited welfare state as it is, but certainly, benefits should only be available to citizens and established resident aliens (the latter can be defined in a number of ways).
That’s not a public service. It is a valid issue, but I’m not clear on how it becomes more of an issue than it already is. Are you suggesting that free movement across the US-Mexico border would result in an influx of medical tourism?
You’re going to have to be less vague than “what if they have children?”
Possibly, where would you rather receive medical treatment? And if you give birth in the US your kids would get citizenship right?(do you check pregnancy beforehand?). In any case, I provided it as an example of how massive costs can arise even if you say people won’t be eligibile for public services.
In terms of “what if they have children”, I mean if they have children then there are additional costs - you can’t prevent them accessing health care or educational resources?
Also, there’s the issue of reducing the lowering of human capital and competitiveness if groups don’t catch up. See David Frum’s post.
Of course children born here are still citizens. But you’re just talking about population growth, at that point. And that would be a very good thing, IMO. More young working people are needed to support social services for the elderly. Look at Japan.
I’m not really seeing these “massive costs”. Yes, education costs money, but in return we get more productive members of society. Assuming they stay, which most will. If you had large numbers of children coming here for school, and leaving the country once they got their diploma, that would indeed be very costly. But it’s not a realistic scenario.
In terms of getting more productive members of society - again, read Frum or Alexiev’s articles above. The newcomers are not achieving at the same level academically so the standard of living will invariably decline.
I don’t really trust Frum on this kind of cultural issue, to be honest. He can be Mr Prejudice.
But surely the problem is the ethnic caste system in the USA? Normalizing immigration, and getting rid of the idea that over 3% of the populace are “illegal” (and close to 20% are suspect) might help matters.
Having immigration laws but amnestying everyone who breaks them just makes those who wait in line suckers. It rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior.