You're not going to create a system with zero problems, zero abuse, no cases of fraud, and so on. That's simply not possible. As I said earlier, the question is about weighing the costs and benefits.
-Jester
Quote:Try to find a State certified teacher who speaks Swahili, Thai, Chinese, Spanish, Hmong, and Russian just to name a few...Is this really that hard? There are tens of millions of Spanish speakers in the US, and I'm sure at least a few million speakers of Cantonese or Mandarin. Russian and Thai are also fairly common. Hmong and Swahili are probably a little tougher, but I can't imagine the collective costs to states of tracking down these teachers is more than a drop in the ocean relative to total educational costs - peanuts measured against the benefits of open migration.
Quote:It's not a straw-man if I understand you correctly.That would be a tautology. But no, you didn't understand me correctly. I am not talking about a complete abolition of all immigration regulation, and I haven't said that. What I said in post one was: "Enact generous, low-restriction guest-worker programs, and clear routes to citizenship." This is obviously not the same thing as anarchy. Consider my position here analogous to my position on the drug war. I advocate thinking of the issue not as a problem to solve but an aspect of society to be regulated in a way that supports maximum liberty with sensible, minimally interfering regulation.
Quote:So, then you and I are in essence in favor of the same thing... regulated immigration, no social welfare for non-citizens, and less restricted by national quotas.If by "less restricted" you mean "not restricted", and "no social welfare for non-citizens" you mean having blocks of several years for various welfare services become accessible, rather than a total ban on all social welfare services for non-citizens, then yes, we are in favour of the same thing.
-Jester