Governments can and should absolutely limit immigration to those who will not be a large financial burden to the host country. There is no moral obligation for the citizens of host country X to pay for people from country Y to live amongst them if they cannot support themselves.
This argument makes no sense to me. It’s most closely analogous to someone demanding to live in my spare bedroom, and then demanding compensation when I refuse. Even if my brother who lives with me invites them in, as the owner of the house I have the right to say no. Similarly, the voters who have collective ownership of our country have the right to say no to more people entering even if some individuals would like to let them in. I don’t mind you trying to persuade the voters that it would be a good idea to let in more immigrants, but it is in no way a moral obligation.
Governments can and should absolutely limit immigration to those who will not be a large financial burden to the host country. There is no moral obligation for the citizens of host country X to pay for people from country Y to live amongst them if they cannot support themselves.
The same may be said about all welfare recipients.
This argument makes no sense to me. It’s most closely analogous to someone demanding to live in my spare bedroom, and then demanding compensation when I refuse. Even if my brother who lives with me invites them in, as the owner of the house I have the right to say no. Similarly, the voters who have collective ownership of our country have the right to say no to more people entering even if some individuals would like to let them in. I don’t mind you trying to persuade the voters that it would be a good idea to let in more immigrants, but it is in no way a moral obligation.
"collective ownership" does not exist
I guess that proves it. Open the doors!