Is It Reasonable To Suggest That Imagining A Dispensation In Which Immigrants Cannot Obtain Net Public Subsidy Neutralizes The Increase Of Aggression

...which befalls the net taxpayers of the incumbent citizenry, making such immigrants blameless and somehow not really foreigners increasing the level of aggression here? If such imagination is sufficient to eliminate the responsibility to be loyal to fellow nationals in this one de minimus requirement of national loyalty, obtaining when incoming foreigners increase the level of aggression on the citizenry; how could there subsist a responsibility to liberate foreigners through the medium of our government? Why wouldn't one just imagine that those foreigners are soon to be liberated by others, if it is reasonable to just imagine that the net public subsidy of immigrants will soon dry up and blow away, and make policy accordingly? Imagining an imminent change of great magnitude in public policy here or elsewhere is not known to be sufficient reason to abandon the necessary loyalties, than which the nation cannot mean less. No doubt it would be said that what is meant is not to trust imagination of the future as a basis for public policies of today, but to suggest an ideal set of conditions and act by reference to these. The same objection applies as above though; in the world of ideal conditions no foreigners need to be liberated, and one might just as reasonably make public policy today on the basis of assuming the imminence of that idealization, as the no-net-public-subsidy vision: both are exceedingly far from realization, yet arguably within the realm of future possibilities. Assume ideal conditions have been, or soon will be, achieved and generate today's policies accordingly. Assume that it is, or soon will be, impossible for immigration to increase aggression on the citizenry, and derive the appropriate policy favoring mass immigration. Assume that today, or soon, no foreigners will need liberation any more than citizens do, and derive the appropriate policy of reduction of immigration. These two assumptions lead to opposite policy conclusions, and they are both impossibly optimistic, unless the second one is much more realistic, in allowing that there could be a drastic evening-out of the relative 'need-to-be-liberated' between countries. In any case, the foreigners' relative 'need-to-be-liberated' creates no obligation on the part of those with less such need.
Added later: Soon, So As To Allow Immigration To Be Evaluated Differently ?
Here are some commenters from Prof. Borjas' Blog, some of whom appear to believe so:"I have never liked the cost-benefit approach to immigration, I just don't get it, I mean it's bad enough that economists embrace it, but it seems most people look at immigration from the cost-benefit vantage point, with the most frequently voiced criterion, "high-skilled". I can understand electing to ban "communists", "religious zealots", "terrorists", "convicted felons", etc. I understand "moral" criteria but I don't get "economic" criteria, unless we introduce the possibility of kicking people out, then yeah, why not, expel all your elderlies who cost so much, expel prisoners who cost so much, send them to the moon or somewhere! now that would be consistent.Posted by: pat toche November 18, 2007 at 09:36 AMI think Pat Toche misses the point, which is that a country shouldn't -- via immigration -- take on forseeable and needless burdens.It's also a basic idea -- but apparently needs saying here -- that a country has obligations to its own citizens that it doesn't have to the rest of the world.Posted by: Paul November 18, 2007 at 01:37 PMIf other country´s follow New Zealand´s example, they will have a Immigration Qualification Checklist which would be titled, "die Herrenrasse".{trans.:'the master race' Here we have an insinuation which does the robo-New Left smear job with all the archetypal elements implied:1- smearing, as in 'you prove that you're not a nazi', 2- slippery-slope, as where a restriction of immigration now or in the past, is imagined to lead unstoppably to mass murder on a population-genetic basis, 3- equivocation, as where loyalty to citizens is equivocated into interchangeability with totalitarian policies, 4- False Dilemma, as where our choices are unreasonably implied to be free immigration or mass murder, and 5- misconception of ideals, as when more openness to migrating people is implied to be always better than less. Why should the ideal in this instance not be an intermediate value, neither too much nor too little? ] Posted by: Dee November 18, 2007 at 02:17 PMOf course, the rational thing to do would be to cancel the public healthcare system or let the couple waive all rights under it. Posted by: jimbino "...JB Comments: Can we reasonably admit immigrants on the basis of imagining that the public healthcare systems will evaporate or allow immigrants to be rejected for benefits not on the basis of need, but of how they arrived? Imagining that politics will soon change so as to prevent immigrants from going on to net public subsidy, is not known to be a rational basis for bringing in large numbers of foreigners. What is known is that the aggression on those to whom loyalty is owed, such as the net taxpayers of our citizenry, will be increased by those foreigners who come in on net public subsidy.