sensible border policy
Created on: May 29th, 2010
not sure but I think increasing globalism and technology renders traditional nation states and geographic boundaries obsolete, and since they mean so little, they'll be more and more bloodshed over them.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.92) | 100 | 6 | 25 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5,969 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 52 | https://www.bing.com |
| 7 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 2 | http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/ |
| 1 | http://m.facebook.com/home.php?re3d8dcce&refid=17 |
I agree with the description in theory, but it doesn't factor in the expensive social services the "traditional nation states" provide out of the pocketbooks of the citizenry.
People (labor) should have the right to freely move just as we allow the nominally free flow of goods in the West. But labor needs to be reconciled with a more appropriate level of social services.
People (labor) should have the right to freely move just as we allow the nominally free flow of goods in the West. But labor needs to be reconciled with a more appropriate level of social services.
My desc. was tongue in cheek satire, but serious points should (sometimes) be met with serious responses. So I posted a few below. I yap about those pocketbooks a bit, but I never get around to addressing distinctions between domestic politics and the more anarchic international system which actively and violently provides 1st World hegemony over 3rd World markets. Maybe to be cont. on some other joke site's comment page...
I'm sorry, but by welfare, do you mean corporate welfare (tax subsidies/shelters/incentives) or social welfare (food, housing, and education)? Conservative estimates put the social expenditure at no more than 3-5% that of the corporate, and this is justified through trickle down economics (I think it's called trickle-down because the economy has a UTI, it also burns a little). Way I see it, the established residents are not poorer because of immigrants (and a strong case has been made that, as a nation, we benefit from the exploited illegal labor market and the taxes they do in fact pay, sales and even income tax, etc.), but immigrants have become a ready scapegoat for the dwindling middle class nonetheless. There's a lot of anger out there, and well there should be. I tend to feel it's a bit misdirected however...
Your Chomskyisms amuse me. I mean the Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP that take up 20% of the federal budget. And Social Security which is already insolvent without the addition of numerous low income workers. That's in addition to local welfare programs which would be a further drain on the national treasure.
Don't think you have to make this decision all on your lonesome, economists far more intelligent and educated than your or I have explained why open border policies would be disastrous thanks to the welfare state. If you want to remove all benefits, then we can talk.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/04/immigration_open
_borders_welfare_state
Don't think you have to make this decision all on your lonesome, economists far more intelligent and educated than your or I have explained why open border policies would be disastrous thanks to the welfare state. If you want to remove all benefits, then we can talk.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/04/immigration_open
_borders_welfare_state
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link