Immigration is broken. But you cannot have open borders and a welfare system. It is completely unsustainable.
Reality check: (1) Immigrants are actually NET CONTRIBUTORS to the welfare system. (2) Immigrants (at least the poor ones you're apparently worried about) are hard-working and yearn for financial stability; leisure is an utterly alien concept to them. (3) As societies become more heterogenous, welfare systems decline, because of inherent racism/xenophobia. The various elements of the population don't want to contribute to welfare cause they don't feel in communion with those "others". (4) If the welfare system becomes overburdened, I say Great! It just forces us to fix our broken system sooner than we otherwise would have. (Although again mainly because of my points 1 and 2 this would never happen.) (5) We can charge immigrants an entry fee, or a tax premium, or we can exclude them from benefits altogether. Any of those options would be vastly more humane than the status quo where we keep these foreigners trapped in their unproductive backwaters making ~$1 a day, starving.
Please see my other comment on this thread here for more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632
EDIT: I think I should point out that the tradeoff is that this way of doing welfare is less efficient but requires less trust.
But that's beside the point since I was specifically addressing highly skilled immigration.
So no, sterilization isn't really an issue because what is considered high standards for living by the second generation go up, but for those based on the old standard, they end up leeching off the system where there is an unspoken social contract for natives that you contribute or always try to do better than the bare minimum and improve one's self. You can't assume that cultural value is instilled in immigrants from other countries, especially when the society has an honor system more or less based on that principal.
http://www.thelocal.se/20120907/43078 http://www.thelocal.se/20140829/reinfeldtrefugee-focus-puts-... http://www.thelocal.se/20131224/13060
There isn't shame in using welfare as a safety net, its there to catch you from following in to absolute destitution from which there is no climbing out of in many cases. There is shame or stigma with staying on it and not finding work, or not retraining to find work. Their is shame in unnecessary long term dependency of an able bodied person being on it. There is shame if everyone just up and decided everything I want is already being paid for, why should I bother. That's abuse, by doing so, you take away from others who truly need welfare to survive and aren't capable of finding work or disabled, you take money from other areas that need it like healthcare, parental leave, education, etc. That's finding a candy jar of free candy and just dumping all the candy in your pocket.
There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
A safety net is exactly what a welfare or other charity system should be. I'm simply suggesting that ensuring it's no more than a safety net should be backed up by more than just shame.
To be clear, the reason to not do something wrong shouldn't just be "because I'll get in legal trouble if I do"; laws should reflect morality. But that needs to be around as a backup for the sadly large number of people who will only pay attention to that and nothing less. Some people avoid littering because it's wrong and disrepectful to others; others avoid littering because it's illegal and will cost them a fine. Some people avoid drinking and driving because it could hurt or kill people; others only avoid it because it's illegal. Some people turn down charity because they actively want to be self-sufficient and contribute something; others will only do so if it is limited to need.
> There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
Agreed completely. There isn't any governmental or societal system that can function that way.
That's a truism. Investing money in one sector necessarily means it doesn't go to another. All that money spent on education is one that isn't going to space research, but most people would find that sort of statement abhorrent.
I think the key is picking a bare minimum standard, and any work beyond that is better. People need the incentive. Maybe it's just to buy booze, who cares? Working 5 hours a week must be better than actively avoiding work.
(perhaps not basic income, but that captures the idea of incentive to work while providing a worst-case floor for people. Perhaps the Scandinavian floor is unsustainably high.)
The non-workers still contribute to the economy with rent, food, bills, they're just horribly inefficient. Furthermore, 1 J.K. Rowling offsets a whole lot of people who actively avoid contributing. The possibility to live in poverty and create art has some pretty profound cultural effects.
I won't support my taxes going up in order to let people stay home and not work. I wouldn't even pay for that for my own kids, I'm surely not going to do it for some stranger's kids.
There are three cases that are far far more common, i'd guess 2-3 orders of magnitude. First, the person having a bad time. We've all worked with the guy who got cancer, or is going through a bad divorce, who just becomes worthless at work. Not everyone gets that bad, but some people can't keep it together. Those folks just need some time. In a year or two they'll get back on their feet and be amazing productive members of society.
Two, the crazy homeless guy. Part of that is not really being capable of asking for the help they need. I'm not sure what fraction are (i hate to say it this way, but there it is) fixable. I do know that getting drunk, passing out when it's 10 below, and going to the hospital consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Third, it's not true of everyone, but there are certainly people that just can't work. Hellen Keller, perhaps some disabled veterans. Maybe someday, but there's no hope today.
A zero tolerance policy might be best. I'd say, we're better off as a civilization recovering as many people as we can, and just suck up the fraud caused by the handful of losers. I don't know how to avoid that, but i agree with you, fuck that guy.
"Poor" isn't an intrinsic human attribute, it's a bad thing that happens to people. Forcing someone who's paid taxes for 20 years to undergo a forced medical procedure in order to benefit from the programs they helped directly fund is insane.
Open borders means the US should make it trivial to get a tax id and work. Fundamentally, that's what people want to do anyway, work. Some people may get small handouts for food, or perhaps more expensive handouts for healthcare. The dominating factor by far is the infrastructure. good roads, reliable power, access to good food and clean water, contract enforcement. That stuff costs way way more than a $50 food stamp.
You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that thinks adding more people to the market makes the market worse. I understand the concerns about open borders, but making things so fabulously difficult is just blindingly stupid. If people want to come and work, it's literally better for everyone.
Source: US immigrant, did the paperwork.
However most visa categories require you to leave the US within ten days if you no longer meet the visa requirements. So it's difficult to claim said benefits without messing up your future immigration chances.
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has.
What I was talking about was where a government agency sues to recoup funds when a beneficiary uses in a means tested program. That I've never seen and google doesn't seem to come up with any examples.