News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:If borders were open by ForHackernews on Saturday July 22, 2017 @08:41PM (#14830269)
FTA:

> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges

Re:If borders were open by mnm2 on Sunday July 23, 2017 @03:42AM (#14831299)
Yeah, make the poor pay more

That's the solution!

They depend on government handouts or other donations and making them pay more will solve the problem now

Re:If borders were open by fche on Sunday July 23, 2017 @09:00AM (#14832065)
FTA:

> open borders

also FTA:

> why not charge them more for visas

Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

Re:If borders were open by ForHackernews on Sunday July 23, 2017 @09:35AM (#14832191)
Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this:

> To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than the authors of the article.

Re:If borders were open by fche on Sunday July 23, 2017 @10:28AM (#14832394)
If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.
Re:If borders were open by ForHackernews on Sunday July 23, 2017 @12:33PM (#14833061)
Maybe you should try reading the article to see what the article is about.
Re:If borders were open by fche on Sunday July 23, 2017 @12:57PM (#14833179)
Rereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the term "open borders" any more acceptable.