[southerntofu]

> generous capacity of the host population is extinguished

I don't doubt there is a lot of individual generosity in people. However, the assumption that social benefits are profitable and very open to immigrants to people is very wrong. Life on social benefits is hard, and immigrants don't live in luxury. Hell, a lot of immigrants have to live illegally due to racist "asylum" policies (you cannot apply for asylum as citizen of a country which is not recognized to be unsafe by your host country, or rather you can but you can be almost certain it will be refused).

I don't disagree that helping remote communities overcome their problems in an autonomous manner would help, in place of the current neocolonial theft and NGO industrial complex which creates dependency schemes instead of developing local autonomy.

But in the end, who are you to judge where someone should be allowed to live? Was someone in charge of judging whether you are allowed to reside where you live currently? Do you think it's a fair mechanism? If so, why is it only applied to people from the global south moving to the global north, and never the other way around?