[untog]

I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair.

The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative.

Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.

[Legogris]

This seems more like an argument in favor of employing these people, not having artificial barriers to employment.

[davidw]

> So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative.

You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though.

Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.

[untog]

At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.

[davidw]

Plenty of skilled immigrants have skills that unemployed locals do not have. Even the 'cut rate labor' people love to hate.