(October 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Chuck Wrote:(October 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Blackout Wrote: That's irrelevant, if you wish to stay you have to pay your cost, the state isn't there to babysit you with taxes. It doesn't matter if you are cheap or expensive, would it make things different? It's still unethical and economically inefficient - I wouldn't be able to live being supported by other people unless I had no absolute choice.
It is fucking relevent. Evidently the state set rules in place to permit immigration and the community set rules in place to pay for needy immigrants. So the state and the community judged the cost of supporting immigration provides a return beyond immediate cashflow considerations. So it then becomes completely relevent to evaluate the magnitude of the perceived benefit against the magnitude of negative cash flow, normalized by the population over which the benefit and the cost are spread.
Except that I doubt accounts and calculations are always made well - But I don't think an entire family could spend so much public funds, it has got to be a mistake.
My State, for instance, judged wrongly the cost of immigration and social aid. The cash flow is negative. Our social security has been near bankrupt.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
