Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberty advocate Milton Friedman is often cited in support of the claim that open borders are incompatible with the modern welfare state. If a country brings in many low-level immigrants and then gives them more in benefits than they pay in taxes, how can this be sustainable longer term?
Somebody explain how this can be a benefit to the citizens of the USA.
If letting in tens of thousands of low-income individuals and then later giving them free health care insurance, education, roads and other benefits, how is this not "taking" from other citizens of the USA who already live here? I'm all for high-skilled immigrants, but isn't this getting insane when politicians are willing to sell out the country for votes?
You're making the (slightly xenophobic) assumption that the "low-skilled" immigrants won't work and will simply sit around getting welfare checks. 1) Immigrants do work, 2) they are willing to work for lower wages than the people who live here, and 3) they are willing to do jobs that most Americans aren't willing to do.
Sadly, Clinton isn't a supporter of free health care (it's the Affordable Care Act, not the Free Care Act) or college education. She is close, but it isn't enough. Also, lol @ "free roads." I guess somebody told you that free roads were socialist. And thanks for making the distinction between "high-skilled" and "low-skilled" immigrants. As I mentioned before, "low-skilled" immigrants are a cheap source of labor for business and will contribute to society.
But you appear to be tainted by the notion that Clinton supports open borders (like me). Sadly, that's not the case. I recommend you read
this,
this, and
this and report back when you're done.
