[Zahlmeister]

You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries. Your original argument however is that everyone should be able to move freely. There were migrants coming in from Africa well before the Syria/Iraq crisis, though most of those never ended up in Germany, but rather in Greece or Italy.

> The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.

If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.

> With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)

People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.

[conanbatt]

> You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries

I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy.

> If you want to make an utilitarian argument

Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something.

> We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in.

I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions.

> Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries?

Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots.

> You know, just like the US does it.

U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene.

> Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.

"We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity.

> If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.

You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.

[Zahlmeister]

> I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology.

Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.

> Then don't..who is asking for that?

If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.

> U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018...

Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).

> "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you?

We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?

> That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.

The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.

Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful.

[conanbatt]

> Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.

The absolute gain is more important that the rate of return. If you only allow 1 single person to immigrate into a country, of course, that person will have the greatest return in taxes. He will not need any help of any kind and will bring lots of business. The second person you would allow would not be as great, but still will be positive. Any restriction or cutoff point would make it so the amount of absolute gains is reduced. Excepting a few cases like security or extreme refugees, all immigrants are net positive in their aggregate, because they need to work to survive and at least pay for themselves.

>If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.

This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in. If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country. Sure some people will make the mistake of trying to escape into qatar or north korea to find themselves making a terrible mistake, but the vast majority of people that emigrate are making a conscious choice of worse to better. Education or not is part of the package a country can choose to give or not. Argentina gives free college education to foreigners, the U.S. doesn't for example. The U.S. still has a way more positive immigration flow.

> Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).

Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas. The quotas are there because it's politically favorable to say that you will protect the jobs of americans from being taken away by some foreigner. Doctor or farmer, its the same effect. Some people are restricted to the economical gain of a few. In economic terms, the aggregate is a loss. Again, thats the point of the article that tries to draw bounds on how much could be gained.

> We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?

I think its important to remember that economics is not about money. Money is not value, goods and services are. If someone makes 10 forks, and then with an extra immigrant you make 19 forks, society is richer. Every person has an interest that noone else does his own job, to charge maximum value for it. But by going against that interest, everything you consume will be cheaper and better because more of that will be produced and hence consumed.

Private interests are always against many kinds of freedom. The fact that you are benefiting private interests with the addition of the power of the state is a tragedy. So lets not cheer in support for laws and policies that do just that!

Its interesting however that companies in general would love open immigration, it is trades and professions that would be against that (i.e. lawyers,doctors, accountants, etc).

It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.

> The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.

I dont know if you know San Francisco, but it has plenty of people in the street and they are not mobbing. But not only that, but you are looking at the problem as if it should be out of sight.

San Francisco could deport to another city/state all its homeless people, but it would only accomplish moving the problem and making it worse. If homeless people were forced by different immigration policies to live in NY, they would freeze to death for example. You are not making them a favor by restricting their movement.

So not only you have people that have little to no means to survive, but you are punishing them for it.

And regardless, the economic gains of free passage are so vast, it would produce a lot of riches and wealth that could work to improve the lives of the bottom as well.

[Zahlmeister]

> This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in.

I'm not in an economics class, I'm following local developments.

> If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country.

That's a total fallacy. The majority people arriving here initially knew next to nothing about Germany. They were promised by their traffickers all kinds of nonsense, like that they would get a free house and a car. It took a while for the message to spread that it ain't all cotton candy over here. Some still had false beliefs, because people like to believe comfortable lies. Either way, if they come here they get refugee benefits, which is better here than in most other EU countries. It's not an opportunity in my sense, it's a handout.

> Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas.

I'm not talking about quotas. I'm talking about choosing who you let in. I'm not arguing for the exact same system that the US has, so stop pointing out its flaws. If we set the requirement that everyone would need to have at least basic literacy and English skills, a huge amount of the people coming in right now wouldn't be allowed. That would still be way more people than we actually need.

> It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.

Again, who cares? You're not convincing anybody that needs convincing.

You keep arguing in terms of idealizations (or outliers, like San Francisco). Your argument may make sense there, it won't win you anything in the real world. In the real world, you have to deal with real people. Even if the economic argument makes sense, it's a long-term development. Do you believe people want cheaper products later or keep their job now? If they lose their jobs now, they can't just retrain in a heartbeat to become something else, especially not here in Germany. They'll be unemployed, which is culturally a source of shame.

As for the backlash: We've had hundreds of arson attacks against refugee housing and we've had a right-wing populist party come out of nowhere and gain 10% in the elections. Again, well over 95% of refugees have no jobs and little job prospects, even after being here for over a year. How many years will it take, according to your calculations?

The German population is also assuming that these refugees will leave eventually, not stay. Of course, the same was assumed about the Turkish workers coming in in the sixties (they were referred to as "guest workers"). Most of them stayed, now Germany is 5% Turkish-Germans, which are perceived as neither "truly German" not "truly Turkish" by their respective peoples. Their level of success in this society is well below average, which tells you that the level of acceptance isn't as high as people would openly admit to.

If it wasn't for all the WW2 guilt, people would be very open about not wanting Germany to become a ethnic melting pot, like the US. Compare this with countries like Poland or Hungary, where the idea of defending ethnic homogeneity is part and parcel of mainstream politics. As WW2 becomes more of a distant past, the same ideas may take hold here as well.

As for the homeless, I'll just mention that 16 homeless people were murdered in Germany in 2016 alone, which is (per capita) more than in the US (tendency: rising). One of them has been set on fire, just for "fun". He burned to death.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/gewalt...