Unrestricted Immigration

[Bedlam]

Over in N&P there was recently as a reaction to the recent events in the US in relation to illegal immigration. Although it quickly spiraled off to an extreme I though it would be interesting to have a discussion of the effect of completely free immigration with anyone being allowed to move from country to country freely and being considered a citizen of whatever country you are currently in effect rights and responsibilities of being a citizen (if any)?

It would seem likely that such a world would probably be immical to what we would currently consider a nation state but would it be more likely to result in a world wide homogeneity or would it result in even more extreme differences as people moved to area's that match their belief's?

If one country has universal free at point of delivery healthcare is it fine for people to move to that country if they get sick but then just move away to a lower tax rate country when they're better?

If a country has conscription (military or otherwise) from say 18 to 21 is it acceptable to just move to another country for those years and then return to benefit from the cheap labour (although I don't actually know if this normally works as a net gain or loss for countries which implement it) from those who don't choose to leave (after all they could the same, although family ties or other limits might prevent them)

[Ralin]

If one country has universal free at point of delivery healthcare is it fine for people to move to that country if they get sick but then just move away to a lower tax rate country when they're better?

Just off the top of my head, 1) As a presumably universal healthcare supporter do you normally believe there should be a "Yeah they don't deserve it" exception to that care? If not, what would these people be able to do to abuse the system that they couldn't do now via visa-free access agreements that are already very common? Do you think Americans who get sick in Canada or the UK should be billed America-like prices? Is there a realistic way to separate the Americans abroad who need care from the ones who went there for free healthcare that should be told to get fucked?

[bilateralrope]

You've got to consider what happens if there are a lot of people who spend their life in one country. Then move somewhere with free healthcare when they need it. That's going to be a major cost on the country with free healthcare, likely degrading their healthcare system to something their taxpayers can afford.

How can a country like the UK (68 million people) afford to maintain the NHS if they also have to cover people from somewhere like the US (334 million) ?

what would these people be able to do to abuse the system that they couldn't do now via visa-free access agreements that are already very common? Do you think Americans who get sick in Canada or the UK should be billed America-like prices? Is there a realistic way to separate the Americans abroad who need care from the ones who went there for free healthcare that should be told to get fucked?

The way it works with New Zealand hospitals is:
- If an international visitor needs emergency care, they get it for free.
- If it's not emergency care, they have to pay for it*. Unless the NZ government has a deal with their government about it.

But that falls apart with the unrestricted immigration that Bedlam talks about, because anyone who is physically here is treated as an NZ citizen.


This doesn't just affect healthcare. It's also going to hit government benefits (unemployment, superannuation/social security, sickness) where someone can work and pay taxes in one country. Then move to a country with a more generous benefit when it's an advantage to them.


*I don't know what prices are charged.

[Bedlam]

Just off the top of my head, 1) As a presumably universal healthcare supporter do you normally believe there should be a "Yeah they don't deserve it" exception to that care? If not, what would these people be able to do to abuse the system that they couldn't do now via visa-free access agreements that are already very common? Do you think Americans who get sick in Canada or the UK should be billed America-like prices? Is there a realistic way to separate the Americans abroad who need care from the ones who went there for free healthcare that should be told to get fucked?

I don't think there is anyone who doesn't deserve medical care, however, I don't see it as possible for a limited population to pay for care for the whole world in a situation where anyone can move to the area providing the care without having to contribute. Do you think it's possible?

Any agreements made in the current world are that agreements made between governments and presumably at least partially balanced. In a theoretical unrestricted immigration universe it's unlikely those agreements would be in place or be possible.

I guess one way to separate between accidents and exploiting the system would be when they are aware of their condition obviously being hit by a bus crossing the road is different from 'I was diagnosed with Cancer a fortnight ago so I decided to come over here for treatment'. Obviously can be hard to prove in many cases.

[Solauren]

Immigration restrictions are needed for the simplest reason; Economics.

That's why most countries let you immigrate in if you find employment in their country first, or give you a fixed amount of time to find employment.
Simply put, no country in the world can afford to take care of lots of people that are not contributing to the economy of that country. At least, not for very long.

And before anyone makes it - Yeah, children and invalids don't contribute to the economy of the country, but in the case of children, their parents should be. In the case of invalids, they probably did at one time, or can't due to reasons way beyond the invalids control. And in some cases, they have people that are taking care of them/contributing on their behalf.
(Depends on the individual countries social network/support/etc).

With that in mind - Any given political region has finite resources that they can spend on non-contributors. Canada has been finding that out the last few years due to a relaxation of immigration laws, and people coming in and not finding work/having suitable skills/just going on social assistance and not bothering.

Note: it's more the "not finding work or having suitable skills' with immigrants then the 'just going on social assistance'. Quick frankly, I've known more 'born in Canada in a family with working parents but I went on welfare cause I'm lazy' then I have 'migrated to Canada to get free money', by a considerable margin.

= = =

At a more local level, easier to understand level - I make a good living, and my wife works (min. Wage job, but she refuses NOT to work and contribute to our bank account/mortgage). We could have afforded children (2 - 3) if we'd been that lucky.

However, we could not look after my parents, and my wife's dad + brother (handicapped), and our siblings/their kids if something happened, without something breaking economically. Not for more then a few weeks at most. My wife and my combined income would have to double for that.
We'd have to reorganize our house if anyone moved in with us for any length of time, but that's a side issue. In theory, we have the room for 2 more adults to have their own bedrooms, or for my sister-in-law and her husband to have one, and their daughter her own.

But could we afford to free 2 more adults? To cloth them? To pay for them to have vehicles? Not at all.

Countries are the same, just one a much bigger scale.

= = =

Even ignoring resource considerations, even ignoring economic considerations, (i.e a post scarity/Star Trek level utopia of tech) there are another considerations;

Off the top of my head, they include

Public Safety.
Let's face facts - there are some not very nice people out there. Most countries have enough problem dealing with the 'home grown' assholes, without importing more.

Biological Safety -
The Covid-19 pandemic ran out of control with restricted immigration before complete border lock-outs. Imagine if immigration had been unrestricted?

Housing -
You can only construct residences so fast. Unless you want people to be living in tents?

=
Anyway, my 2 cents.

[Ralin]

I don't think there is anyone who doesn't deserve medical care, however, I don't see it as possible for a limited population to pay for care for the whole world in a situation where anyone can move to the area providing the care without having to contribute. Do you think it's possible?

Any agreements made in the current world are that agreements made between governments and presumably at least partially balanced. In a theoretical unrestricted immigration universe it's unlikely those agreements would be in place or be possible.

No country can provide unlimited social services for the rest of the world, no. But the entire rest of the world isn't going to be flying to Canada or the UK to get expensive medical care. Or even anything more than a fraction of the people in the US who need it. And of the ones who do, seems to me that after the third or fourth time they and their families are going to start considering the positives of just moving there, getting jobs and paying taxes in a place where they can constantly benefit from that free healthcare instead of buying plane tickets when they need something really important done.

I don't personally think literally unlimited and unrestricted immigration is viable or desirable. But I'm pretty okay with letting anyone with a passport in if we don't have a specific reason to keep them out, letting them pay fifty bucks for a foreigner's ID they can use to work legally and giving them citizenship after five years if they don't give us a reason to kick them out. And if someone doesn't follow the system instead of fucking their life up by kicking them out we should just treat it like a traffic violation.

Relative to how things are now that is basically unlimited immigration and open orders.

Biological Safety -
The Covid-19 pandemic ran out of control with restricted immigration before complete border lock-outs. Imagine if immigration had been unrestricted?

Honestly, probably not much different if people were otherwise as unwilling to get with the program as they were in real life.

[Solauren]

I don't personally think literally unlimited and unrestricted immigration is viable or desirable. But I'm pretty okay with letting anyone with a passport in if we don't have a specific reason to keep them out, letting them pay fifty bucks for a foreigner's ID they can use to work legally and giving them citizenship after five years if they don't give us a reason to kick them out. And if someone doesn't follow the system instead of fucking their life up by kicking them out we should just treat it like a traffic violation.

Mostly agree.

However, if someone doesn't follow the system, they deserve to get their life fucked up.
i.e I don't pay my taxes, I will have to pay fines and penalties (and interest), and possibly risk losing my house (The CRA doesn't do that very often by policy, but we can by law. I'm actually one of the people that argue in favor of it under specific circumstances)

That being said, its also how badly did they fuck their life up, and other circumstances.
i.e They were hospitalized for 2 years, bloody well extend any deadlines by the hospitalization time + another 2 years.


I'm also against automatically giving someone citizenship after 5 years, but I'm all for 'they can just go to the proper government agency, present proof of residency and employment etc, and then get it. Just dropping citizenship on someone that didn't ask for it seems wrong to me.


Also, realistically, you should be able to apply to move to a country, and get that Foreigners Temp ID, etc, at any of that countries Embassies.
i.e Mexican national decides to try their luck in the United States. Go to the embassy, present a passport (or fill out another application, I have no idea how hard it is to get a passport in Mexico, and it probably varies widely globally), and pay the $50, and then go cross the border.
(And maybe if they don't have the $50, they get it but it's only for 1 year until they go to a government office and pay that $50)

In that case, you have absolutely no reason not to go that route, unless you're up to something or would not otherwise by legally able to enter.

Heck, even allow it so that if a someone shows up at an Embassy, and says 'Hey, I'm from a country you don't have relations with, and just managed to get here', to let them apply.
I.e someone leaves North Korea, gets to South Korea, and then heads to the US Embassy and goes 'Hey, I'm from North Korea, and want to move to the United States!'

You'd virtually illegal immigration except by ACTUAL criminals.

[Ralin]

I'm also against automatically giving someone citizenship after 5 years, but I'm all for 'they can just go to the proper government agency, present proof of residency and employment etc, and then get it. Just dropping citizenship on someone that didn't ask for it seems wrong to me.

While I didn't specify yes I did mean if they apply for it and I'm pretty sure I did say that in previous posts.

Though I will point out that most of us didn't ask for our citizenship either and don't have the option of giving it up without major effort.

[Solauren]

While I didn't specify yes I did mean if they apply for it and I'm pretty sure I did say that in previous posts.

Though I will point out that most of us didn't ask for our citizenship either and don't have the option of giving it up without major effort.

I agree, being able to change your citizenships would be nice. Unfortunately, alot of countries don't even recognize joint citizenships, let alone that you gave yours up.
(Iran comes to mind)

[Tribble]

Appreciate this being moved to a separate thread since it was getting off topic a bit…

I’m curious as to those who feel that there should be limits on immigration as to what, if any, consequences there should be should someone enter a country illegally (of their own free will)? And if they don’t leave, staying in a country illegally?

E.g. If we pay a legal limit on say, 500,000 people per year, what happens to the 500,001+ person onwards? Do we turn them away? Or do we allow them to enter and stay? What happens if there’s a limit of 500,000 people, but say we end up having 600,000 people entering and staying anyways? What do we do if they refuse to accept that limitation and insist on staying?

What happens to people who claim that they were staying temporarily, but decided to stay permanently anyway anyways? Should there be any consequences?

Note again that I am not talking about refugees, human trafficked people, children, etc., as those are clearly different circumstances. I’m talking about people who voluntarily chose to try and immigrate to the country one way or another.

For those who feel that there should be no consequences for entering and staying in a country illegally (again of your own free will, which would not count for people who were human trafficked, children etc.) what is the difference between that and simply allowing for unlimited immigration?

I don’t see the purpose in placing theoretical limits on immigration while not following through if those limits are ignored. Either we have some kind of deterrent or we don't; if we choose not to, then we shouldn’t be wasting our time having laws that are effectively unenforceable. Better to just have a system where you can enter and leave at will IMO (barring criminal activity, of course).

On the other hand, if there IS going to be a deterrent to ensure that the limits on immigration are upheld, then the only realistic things I can see are fines, jail time and/or deportation… which is pretty much how it works already, at least in Canada.

On a related note, at least for Canada I fail to see why anyone would “need” to make an illegal and/or irregular border crossing, barring say some kind of natural disaster and/or emergency.

We’re bounded by three oceans, so that means everyone is either getting here by plane, by boat, or through the US, where there is plenty of legitimate border crossings that you can go to. So IMO odds are pretty good that if you’re coming into a country like Canada by crossing the border illegally… you’re already up to something. Why shouldn’t we enforce the border to ensure people go through legitimate entry points?

Again, if the consensus is that there shouldn’t be any deterrents or consequences for crossing the border at an undesignated location, why bother having a border at all? Better to simply let anyone enter and leave the country anywhere they want to as they please, if there’s not going to be any consequences for them doing so. Why waste the effort in having laws we don’t want to enforce?

[Ralin]

I’m curious as to those who feel that there should be limits on immigration as to what, if any, consequences there should be should someone enter a country illegally (of their own free will)? And if they don’t leave, staying in a country illegally?

E.g. If we pay a legal limit on say, 500,000 people per year, what happens to the 500,001+ person onwards? Do we turn them away? Or do we allow them to enter and stay? What happens if there’s a limit of 500,000 people, but say we end up having 600,000 people entering and staying anyways? What do we do if they refuse to accept that limitation and insist on staying?

Mostly, none. If people want to live somewhere they should be able to. I'm from Louisiana and I don't have any special kinship with the people of Oregon that makes me more worthy of living in Portland than if I was from Canada and yet as long as I can physically get myself there I have as much right to live and work there as I do in Texas. Specific situations might exist where there need to be exceptions to that like if the entirety of China decided to move to Singapore, but for the most part that isn't going to happen.

Gets a little more complicated when we start talking about who gets access to social services and welfare benefits, but I mean. Countries like Canada that have universal healthcare take it as a basic principle that everyone who goes to a hospital seeking treatment. Basic principles like that shouldn't have "lol but not for you assholes" exceptions.

What happens to people who claim that they were staying temporarily, but decided to stay permanently anyway anyways? Should there be any consequences?

Note again that I am not talking about refugees, human trafficked people, children, etc., as those are clearly different circumstances. I’m talking about people who voluntarily chose to try and immigrate to the country one way or another.

For those who feel that there should be no consequences for entering and staying in a country illegally (again of your own free will, which would not count for people who were human trafficked, children etc.) what is the difference between that and simply allowing for unlimited immigration?

I don’t see the purpose in placing theoretical limits on immigration while not following through if those limits are ignored. Either we have some kind of deterrent or we don't; if we choose not to, then we shouldn’t be wasting our time having laws that are effectively unenforceable. Better to just have a system where you can enter and leave at will IMO (barring criminal activity, of course).

Mostly, nothing. It should depend on what they've done since arriving. If they've held a job or supported themselves off savings or generally just acted like a normal citizen they should be treated like anyone else. Ideally it should be a moot point because most of those restrictions wouldn't exist in the first place.

Ideally I'd like it to work like visa-free access+. Right now my American passport means I can walk into Hong Kong or Germany anytime I want and stay there for up to 90 days. If on top of that I could get a job and pay 50 bucks at any random police station or other suitable government office to make it a year long stay with a free renewal at the end how much would that change for the people already living there? Very little, I think. And it would make a huge difference to me and other people who for whatever reason want to move there.

On a related note, at least for Canada I fail to see why anyone would “need” to make an illegal and/or irregular border crossing, barring say some kind of natural disaster and/or emergency.

We’re bounded by three oceans, so that means everyone is either getting here by plane, by boat, or through the US, where there is plenty of legitimate border crossings that you can go to. So IMO odds are pretty good that if you’re coming into a country like Canada by crossing the border illegally… you’re already up to something. Why shouldn’t we enforce the border to ensure people go through legitimate entry points?

Again, if the consensus is that there shouldn’t be any deterrents or consequences for crossing the border at an undesignated location, why bother having a border at all? Better to simply let anyone enter and leave the country anywhere they want to as they please, if there’s not going to be any consequences for them doing so. Why waste the effort in having laws we don’t want to enforce?

While you didn’t specifically mention it wanting to enforce things like customs, declaring things brought into the country, keeping people from importing prohibited animals and plants etc are legit concerns (I would say stopping the spread of diseases and such too but haha I think it’s well-established now that the US doesn’t give a fuck about that). As for how to enforce that? Again, default to the same punishment everyone else gets. I guess if it's something especially heinous theoretically deportation should be on the table but it should default to something like those scary fines and potential prison time the signs at the Hong Kong border threaten for baby formula smuggling and rarely actually be applied.