[ForHackernews]

FTA:

> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges

[mnm2]

Yeah, make the poor pay more

That's the solution!

They depend on government handouts or other donations and making them pay more will solve the problem now

[fche]

FTA:

> open borders

also FTA:

> why not charge them more for visas

Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

[ForHackernews]

Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this:

> To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than the authors of the article.

[fche]

If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.

[ForHackernews]

Maybe you should try reading the article to see what the article is about.

[fche]

Rereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the term "open borders" any more acceptable.