The Canadian list of "skilled workers" is a list of job types where they are current shortages. Some IT jobs were recently taken off the list, and it contains plenty of blue-collar type jobs:
I don't claim that they don't admit low-income workers, but that their laws discriminate in preference of high-income workers (that is, highly educated professionals). See their points system [1]. (It also discriminates on the basis of age, which would be a Human Rights violation if it was a private employer doing it. [2])
Some random other country doesn't owe you a thing and so they get to be selective about who they let in. In Canada you have to show you won't place "excessive demand" on their services, and it's defined as:
"Requirements for medical or social services of such a level as to threaten the sustainability of Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system, or deny or delay access to Canadians that would prevent the admission of an applicant to Canada."
Some random web link says that Excessive Demand was calculated to be $24,030 of health or social services over a five-year period. There's lots of stories of families with a mildly autistic child being denied residence in Canada, for example.
It's not in the best interests of a country to let an older person in who wont pay much tax and then try to collect social security and use health services as they get older.
Australia, for example, has a specific visa to enable retirees to live in Australia for a period of time. Note, however, that you need a lot of assets, a substantial income and proof of health insurance for the duration of the stay.
Plainly, to tolerate laws that explicitly discriminate against low-income and blue collar workers.
Genuine confusion here - are you taking the position that nations should not discriminate when choosing who they allow to immigrate, perhaps by preferring highly-educated immigrants?
Genuine confusion here - are you taking the position that nations should not discriminate when choosing who they allow to immigrate,
My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right. But separately, I think it's unjust that laws give preferential treatment for the wealthy (or education status as a PC indicator thereof). (Actually it's not just education; a lot of countries have explicit wealth discrimination in the form "investor" categories, for example the US' EB-5 program).
I have a small-government ideology; I believe laws should have highly compelling justifications, and I consider the two reasons for restricted immigration (one, central economic planning, and two, control of culture) not sufficiently so.
> My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right.
Any government is a sovereign nation. The laws are decided by a democratically elected legislature.
Are you proposing that state sovereignty should be abolished and power should be removed from a democratic legislature?
> I have a small-government ideology;
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
What is left is a big government with a small tax base (of former citizens).
---
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
This then forces poor countries with socialist tendencies to either re-evaluate their taxation policies or face a huge brain drain.
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
I don't propose that states automatically grant welfare to any visitors; it's free movement that I claim is a fundamental right, not free money. Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes, not in any immediate time period. Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote -- they could be a constitutional issue instead.
I don't see how, with these qualifications, this leads to a collapsed welfare state. Without welfare guarantees (at least not for new immigrants), there's no selection tendency for rent-seeking. Instead there's selection pressure for hard-working people, living in states where their efforts are undervalued (because of broken government or broken economy).
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
I think you've misunderstood your argument. You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
> Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes,
Whether you propose it or not, they will fight it. And they will get citizenship through other means (such as ancor babies and chain weddings).
> Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote
You know that in many countries illegal immigrants protest for welfare benefits (even though they are not citizens). Whether you like it or not, they will claim it.
If an immigrant has cancer, you cannot just send him away from the hospital.
> You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
The fact that low-skilled labourers are often a net-expense to most governments (i.e. more tax money is spent on them and their social ills).
The lower strata of society is also more likely to be involved in crime (which affects the rest of the population) and have explosive population growth. The latter is important since in 99.99% of countries, children born in that country gets citizenship.
It's very easy to develop and introduce an immigration scheme that will produce an influx of low-income and blue-collar workers. Points-based systems are not a replacement for the traditional immigration schemes, instead they are complementary to them.
It's obvious that it's discriminatory but at the same time there is a limited number of immigrants that are allowed into the country every year. It's probably best to take those who can easily get integrated into society. For example in the province where I'm from (Quebec) immigrants from French speaking countries get more points. This is very discriminatory but at the same time, the society here is predominantly French and it's obvious that some one who can already speak French will have an easier time finding work.(Actually now days, if you aren't bilingual in english and french in Quebec finding work can be really hard.)
There is much worse things in immigration policy here like the amount of money you need to bring with you to be allowed in. Were talking about 15k in cash to prove to the immigration officers that you have enough to survive without needing Government assistance in the first year. I believe this is per person.
Comments
A straightforward way to address this issue is to deploy a point system currently used by several countries, including Canada and Singapore.
Plainly, to tolerate laws that explicitly discriminate against low-income and blue collar workers.
The Canadian list of "skilled workers" is a list of job types where they are current shortages. Some IT jobs were recently taken off the list, and it contains plenty of blue-collar type jobs:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-ins...
You spent 1 year in the past 10 as a fry cook or installing flooring? Great! Canada needs your skills!
The Australian list contains plenty of blue-collar jobs too:
http://www.workingin-australia.com/visa/skill-shortages/skil...
I don't claim that they don't admit low-income workers, but that their laws discriminate in preference of high-income workers (that is, highly educated professionals). See their points system [1]. (It also discriminates on the basis of age, which would be a Human Rights violation if it was a private employer doing it. [2])
[1] http://www.workpermit.com/canada/points_calculator.htm
[2] http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/spila/wlb/caowc/10chapter_5.sh...
Some random other country doesn't owe you a thing and so they get to be selective about who they let in. In Canada you have to show you won't place "excessive demand" on their services, and it's defined as:
"Requirements for medical or social services of such a level as to threaten the sustainability of Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system, or deny or delay access to Canadians that would prevent the admission of an applicant to Canada."
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/dmp-hand...
Some random web link says that Excessive Demand was calculated to be $24,030 of health or social services over a five-year period. There's lots of stories of families with a mildly autistic child being denied residence in Canada, for example.
http://www.canadianimmigrant.ca/health/healthinsurancecovera...
It's not in the best interests of a country to let an older person in who wont pay much tax and then try to collect social security and use health services as they get older.
Australia, for example, has a specific visa to enable retirees to live in Australia for a period of time. Note, however, that you need a lot of assets, a substantial income and proof of health insurance for the duration of the stay.
http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/retirement/405/
Plainly, to tolerate laws that explicitly discriminate against low-income and blue collar workers.
Genuine confusion here - are you taking the position that nations should not discriminate when choosing who they allow to immigrate, perhaps by preferring highly-educated immigrants?
Genuine confusion here - are you taking the position that nations should not discriminate when choosing who they allow to immigrate,
My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right. But separately, I think it's unjust that laws give preferential treatment for the wealthy (or education status as a PC indicator thereof). (Actually it's not just education; a lot of countries have explicit wealth discrimination in the form "investor" categories, for example the US' EB-5 program).
I have a small-government ideology; I believe laws should have highly compelling justifications, and I consider the two reasons for restricted immigration (one, central economic planning, and two, control of culture) not sufficiently so.
> My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right.
Any government is a sovereign nation. The laws are decided by a democratically elected legislature.
Are you proposing that state sovereignty should be abolished and power should be removed from a democratic legislature?
> I have a small-government ideology;
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
What is left is a big government with a small tax base (of former citizens).
--- On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
This then forces poor countries with socialist tendencies to either re-evaluate their taxation policies or face a huge brain drain.
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
I don't propose that states automatically grant welfare to any visitors; it's free movement that I claim is a fundamental right, not free money. Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes, not in any immediate time period. Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote -- they could be a constitutional issue instead.
I don't see how, with these qualifications, this leads to a collapsed welfare state. Without welfare guarantees (at least not for new immigrants), there's no selection tendency for rent-seeking. Instead there's selection pressure for hard-working people, living in states where their efforts are undervalued (because of broken government or broken economy).
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
I think you've misunderstood your argument. You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
> Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes,
Whether you propose it or not, they will fight it. And they will get citizenship through other means (such as ancor babies and chain weddings).
> Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote
You know that in many countries illegal immigrants protest for welfare benefits (even though they are not citizens). Whether you like it or not, they will claim it.
If an immigrant has cancer, you cannot just send him away from the hospital.
> You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
The fact that low-skilled labourers are often a net-expense to most governments (i.e. more tax money is spent on them and their social ills).
The lower strata of society is also more likely to be involved in crime (which affects the rest of the population) and have explosive population growth. The latter is important since in 99.99% of countries, children born in that country gets citizenship.
It's very easy to develop and introduce an immigration scheme that will produce an influx of low-income and blue-collar workers. Points-based systems are not a replacement for the traditional immigration schemes, instead they are complementary to them.
It's obvious that it's discriminatory but at the same time there is a limited number of immigrants that are allowed into the country every year. It's probably best to take those who can easily get integrated into society. For example in the province where I'm from (Quebec) immigrants from French speaking countries get more points. This is very discriminatory but at the same time, the society here is predominantly French and it's obvious that some one who can already speak French will have an easier time finding work.(Actually now days, if you aren't bilingual in english and french in Quebec finding work can be really hard.)
There is much worse things in immigration policy here like the amount of money you need to bring with you to be allowed in. Were talking about 15k in cash to prove to the immigration officers that you have enough to survive without needing Government assistance in the first year. I believe this is per person.