Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

[Skybird]

Addendum: Just in. Social court in German y rules that Spanish family must be payed German wellfare although Germn laws rule that out. Judge says German law "probably" is not in line with EU law, that's why.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/s...v/9441424.html

What he implies and what the EU demands is that any stranger can come to Germany and can start to sack German tax money for nothing from all beginning on.

Thank God there is no such thing like this maliciously so-called poverty migration. And no incentives to increases it.

And even if it were like that - we have all that money, don't we? What meaning has an implicit debt rate of 500-800% of the yearly BSP (=GDP), after all? Answer: none! If we need money to pay all these follies, we just print some more!

Ludwig Erhard would turn in his grave. Well, socialists would have loved to have burnt him alive anyway.

Nicely deceiving. List some single cases, and declare a rule on their basis. Ignore the huge numbers.

Yet it skewers you completely, one single case would be enough to rubbish your argument.
Its safe to say there will be dozens of individuals on just this forum who are living proof that your claim is false.
That's the problem with trying to make your claim seem stronger than it is.
Avoid absolutes.
If you start with a claim that is very obviously and undeniably false then any argument you want to build on that foundation is suspect.

[MH]

Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

It mostly does yet very often the poor people can be skilled or educated and looking for better life.
This kind usually don't end up begging or committing crimes.
Every country should have right to be choosy on this issue.

[the_tyrant]

You know what, I would say that in the context of EU migration, where there are no limits, Skybird's argument makes a bit more sense, the vast majority of migrants are not rich, educated, etc.

Maybe Skybird would be happier with the Canadian system, where immigrants are evaluated by a points system. Potential immigrants are evaluated with a points system, and would only be admitted if they "pass"

My parents moved to Canada after my dad had a successful business in China (+ points for net worth and wealth), both knew how to speak English (+ points for language), both have post graduate degrees (+ points for education).

In effect, the system is designed to admit the top few percentile of people who would like to move to Canada.

Nowadays, if you want to immigrate to Canada, these are the requirements:

The Federal Investor program is passive in nature and requires an investment of $800,000 CAD which is deposited with the Receiver General of Canada and a personal net worth of $1.6 Million CAD with two years of suitable management or business experience. The investment bears no interest and must be maintained for five years. Applicants may state a desire to live anywhere in Canada except Quebec. The investment is government guaranteed and the proceeds are allocated to the Provinces excluding Quebec.

Or you need to get 67 points in the skilled worker evaluation system:

http://www.immigration.ca/index.php/...lledworkergrid

Hey Skybird, why don't you come over here!

[MH]

You know what, I would say that in the context of EU migration, where there are no limits, Skybird's argument makes a bit more sense, the vast majority of migrants are not rich, educated, etc.

Yep
This seems to be issue there , the reason why EU got flooded and is in trouble.

[Skybird]

Point is, while people have the right to ask in other places - where there already are established communities - whether these communities would accept them to move in and live there, NOBODY has the right to move somewhere and simply demand to be accepted there (if that place already is occupied by another community). You cannot slam in the door somewhere, storm the house and demand the housekeeper: "Here I am, you have to live with it, now get me fed." So, said community has any right to weigh the question of the foreigner, to set conditions, and to ask what the newcomer can and will attribute to said community something that the community values sufficiently to accept a foreigner in. And said community also has any right there is to accept foreigners - OR NOT.

A community therefore has any right to be choosy and let people in that it needs or wants, and reject those it cannot need by their professions and different or lacking skills and talents. There is no claim to make that you go somewhere and then demand the locals to pay for your presence and care for your needs. You are allowed to ask - and them are allowed to say Yes or No. The place already is theirs, not yours, they make the rules, not you.

That any foreigner from any part of Europe has any claim to make for social welfare payments in any other EU country, is idiocy. It rejects reason and sanity, and illustrates the EU megalomaniac craving for recognition as the ultimate centralised reign over 500 million people who as subjects to the state's ultimate authority and power should have as much control over this tyranny as Soviet citizens had over decision making and power in the central committee - none.

Funny that right now I just read it again in a science fiction novel, Frank Herbert's third Dune novel, Children of Dune (edited: this is the original English version):

Chapter 28
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms.
No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the
aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the
interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty,
oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

Written 1975. Sounds like 100% Hoppe in 2001. In a debate, a long lasting debate with UnderseaLanceCorporal several years ago, I said the same.

It all sounds a bit Tubbs and Edward.