If I had had the misfortune to be born in some hell hole on planet earth, instead of the greatest nation in all of history, the USA, I would have done all in my power to get to the USA. I cannot say if I would have entered the USA by breaking America's immigration laws, because such a statement would be a counter factual hypothetical. I have huge empathy for people who lost the birth place lottery, as I'm confident Bryan Caplan also has. My wonderment is why the greatest nation of all human history cannot find a better solution than the status quo.
The welfare system is designed to help our fellow citizens out of charity and a desire for social stability. It is not designed to support the poor masses of the world who have no right to be here. As a nation, we have a right to decide who we allow into our country and to consider the cultural, social, and economic impact on citizens. There is zero relation between denying entry to a foreigner and the ridiculous idea that we should expel a rightful citizen for making use of welfare.
People in grinding poverty in the third world who immigrate to the US may generally have a stronger work ethic than native-born US citizens with low or modest incomes, but that's less likely to be true of children of such immigrants who grow up in this country after having been born here or brought here at an early age.
It seems reasonable to assume that the productive capacity of an immigrant's progeny and the consequent likelihood that their tax contributions and the value of the fruits of their labor over the course of their careers will exceed that of whatever subsidies they receive at others' expense will generally depend on their intellectual capacity. From this premise, it follows that it would serve our economic interest and that of our own descendants to screen out dull-witted applicants for entry, as their own intellectual capability will be largely determinative of that of their offspring.
This is both pedantic and untrue. Not all nationalism is ethnic nationalism. For example, consider civic nationalism. But even if we grant that America is technically not a nation, just replace the word nation with country or state. It is a fact that the world is currently governed by states with sovereignty over their territory and the right to regulate migration. In a democracy, decisions about migration should follow the will of citizens. They have a right to regulate their territory, the same way you have a right to keep someone from setting up camp in the middle of your living room.
"Poor" "families" with children and without fathers are MANUFACTURED by laws that provide financial aid to poor (usually single) parents (usually mothers) but NOT to poor people who have no children under 18. A parent needs only to be over Age 16 to receive these benefits.
If I had had the misfortune to be born in some hell hole on planet earth, instead of the greatest nation in all of history, the USA, I would have done all in my power to get to the USA. I cannot say if I would have entered the USA by breaking America's immigration laws, because such a statement would be a counter factual hypothetical. I have huge empathy for people who lost the birth place lottery, as I'm confident Bryan Caplan also has. My wonderment is why the greatest nation of all human history cannot find a better solution than the status quo.
Well, in whose interest is it to find, and implement, a better plan. There's your answer.
The welfare system is designed to help our fellow citizens out of charity and a desire for social stability. It is not designed to support the poor masses of the world who have no right to be here. As a nation, we have a right to decide who we allow into our country and to consider the cultural, social, and economic impact on citizens. There is zero relation between denying entry to a foreigner and the ridiculous idea that we should expel a rightful citizen for making use of welfare.
People in grinding poverty in the third world who immigrate to the US may generally have a stronger work ethic than native-born US citizens with low or modest incomes, but that's less likely to be true of children of such immigrants who grow up in this country after having been born here or brought here at an early age.
It seems reasonable to assume that the productive capacity of an immigrant's progeny and the consequent likelihood that their tax contributions and the value of the fruits of their labor over the course of their careers will exceed that of whatever subsidies they receive at others' expense will generally depend on their intellectual capacity. From this premise, it follows that it would serve our economic interest and that of our own descendants to screen out dull-witted applicants for entry, as their own intellectual capability will be largely determinative of that of their offspring.
This is both pedantic and untrue. Not all nationalism is ethnic nationalism. For example, consider civic nationalism. But even if we grant that America is technically not a nation, just replace the word nation with country or state. It is a fact that the world is currently governed by states with sovereignty over their territory and the right to regulate migration. In a democracy, decisions about migration should follow the will of citizens. They have a right to regulate their territory, the same way you have a right to keep someone from setting up camp in the middle of your living room.
"Poor" "families" with children and without fathers are MANUFACTURED by laws that provide financial aid to poor (usually single) parents (usually mothers) but NOT to poor people who have no children under 18. A parent needs only to be over Age 16 to receive these benefits.
41% of births in the US are funded by Medicaid.
41 percent.
Thank you, LBJ. He rarely gets the credit for this that he gets for the Vietnam War.
Why is exiling people likely to collect welfare monstrous?