Why must citizenship in the United States be a limited resource? We have a much lower population density than many other advanced economies, e.g. Japan and South Korea. And if were genuinely to start to get too many people, the supply vs demand problem should take care of itself. Surely citizenship is not the one domain where free market principles should be ignored?There are many things wrong with this. Japan and South Korea are overcrowded countries, and not self-sufficient.My own feeling is that all states have a moral obligation to offer citizenship on an equal basis to all comers (at least those willing to make some minimal demonstration of loyalty) regardless of background or where they happen to be born, and that these should be treated no differently than any other citizen. Anything less is unacceptably illiberal.
If you want to apply free market principles to citizenship, then sell it for $5 million per person. Americans do not want more immigrants, and are burdened by them. Immigrants profit by coming to the USA. Market principles would say that the immigrants should pay the citizens enough money to be willing to accept them. Those principles certainly do not say to give away a resource for free until it is worthless.
States have moral obligations to their own citizens, and not to foreigners. To say foreigners should have the same rights as citizens is leftist madness. If the USA pursued the suggested policy, it would become a dumping ground for countries with out-of-control population growth. As it becomes more like India and Nigeria, fewer people would want to come. No, that is not a sensible market solution to excess immigration.
No comments:
Post a Comment