You would still have to have a job lined up to get a work visa. So there would need to be 500M new jobs.

If our economy grew by 500M new jobs, that would be unequivocally good. Those 500M people would be paying taxes, buying goods and services, paying for housing, etc.

Do you have to leave if you get fired?

Or do you get a gig, show up, quit, and then live on the dole?

The general idea is that once you are here you can stay. But since you're not a citizen, you can't "live on the dole" since you wouldn't qualify for any benefits.

So you'd either have to live off of your savings or get another job or go back to your home country.

> So you'd either have to live off of your savings or get another job or go back to your home country.

Or crime.

Sure, but if you get caught then you get deported and banned. So it's a pretty high risk.

Ok that was missing from your original statement as a condition. Some work visas dont need a prior employment offer as precondition.

I still think that it would drag salaries down significantly. I know employment and salaries are not a zero sum game, but the offer/supply ratio is a parameter.

Isn't that easy to game? You set up a bunch of shell companies that offer jobs. Problem solved.

You can do that today. Set up shell companies and apply for H1B visas. But at the end of the day those people still need an actual job or they won't have any money to live.

Would that be good for the people doing the current jobs in the crosshairs of these new immigrants?

Bad scare call.

In the US, over 3 million Puerto Ricans are now allowed to migrate to the mainland US (say to DC). The borders are completely open to them. In Europe, similarly, around 20M Romanians are allowed to Sweden. But they don’t.

Just because people are allowed to migrate, it doesn’t mean they will. And in the case of an overwhelming majority, they won’t.

> In the US, over 3 million Puerto Ricans are now allowed to migrate to the mainland US (say to DC). The borders are completely open to them. In Europe, similarly, around 20M Romanians are allowed to Sweden. But they don’t

According to Wikipedia, as of 2018 there were 5.8 million Puerto Ricans living stateside. The population of Puerto Rico is around 2.8 million. There are more than twice as many Puerto Ricans living on the mainland as there are in Puerto Rico.

This number includes people with Puerto Ricans ancestry (therefore not born in Puerto Rico). Some of them might have migrated out of Puerto Rico 100 years ago, I don't think looking at number is relevant at all to this discussion.

This only makes my point against the GP stronger. So half the population of Puerto Rico has already migrated to the mainland US, without anything terrible happening to the mainland US as a result.

The myths about the negative consequences of open border policy have no basis in reality.

You are aware that China is a lot bigger than Puerto Rico, right?

That is an entirely different point than the one you made in your previous response.

Indeed, but the two points complement each other.

Most people don’t migrate away from their home country/state. But even if they did, it would be of no negative consequence for the place they migrate to.

> In the US, over 3 million Puerto Ricans are now allowed to migrate to the mainland US

It should be clarified that this is because they are US citizens. Everyone in North Dakota can move to DC too.

I feel like this should be far more upvoted than it is. PR is America. They aren't immigrants, they are migrants, just like most of SF's tech class.

> In Europe, similarly, around 20M Romanians are allowed to Sweden. But they don’t.

Supposedly allowed and not at all welcome. Like most affluent countries, Sweden doesn't actually want poor people immigrating into their country. So they make things very difficult for those people. It's also why they shut down the big immigration flood, their society was highly intolerant to it.

Americans - commonly ignorant to the details of rest of the world - would be shocked to learn how regressive Scandinavia can be. From very strict immigration to virtually bulldozing minority neighborhoods in Denmark [1][2], to attacks on immigrants in Sweden and burning immigrant camps, to large political parties derived from former neo-nazi groups.

From Reuters in 2015 (the Romanians got the message):

"A series of attacks in Sweden on beggars, many Roma, has highlighted a dark side to a country considered a bastion of tolerance but where the far right has been gaining support by claiming society is under threat from waves of immigrants."

"An influx of thousands of mainly Roma migrants has shocked affluent Swedes, with beggars now a common sight outside supermarkets, IKEA stores and subways in the capital."

"There were around 300 reported attacks on Roma in 2014, up 23 percent on the year before, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Police say the figures underestimate the scale of the problem."

"The government reckons around 5,000 migrants, some of whom also come from Hungary, are in Sweden begging. Many live on the street or in squalid camps. In recent months, attackers have thrown acid at beggars and burned tents and caravans."

"Many migrants in Sweden say they want to work, but lack of education and language skills make it impossible for most, leaving begging as the only alternative."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden/sw...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immi...

"When Rokhaia Naassan gives birth in the coming days, she and her baby boy will enter a new category in the eyes of Danish law. Because she lives in a low-income immigrant neighborhood described by the government as a “ghetto,” Rokhaia will be what the Danish newspapers call a “ghetto parent” and he will be a “ghetto child.”

Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six."

[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/15/900874510/facing-eviction-res...

"Facing Eviction, Residents Of Denmark's 'Ghettos' Are Suing The Government"

Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out. As a Scandinavian my self I am aware of this. And I raised a nibling comment pointing out that bad policies (like racially biased policing, lack of labor laws, lack of – or unenforced discrimination laws, etc.) cause issues in immigrant communities, not open borders.

Sweden and Denmark are easy to point out as they have very racist and discriminatory policies on a national and local level. But Iceland and Norway also have terrible refugee policies and rampant xenophobia (especially in more rural setting).

I do empathize with putting a priority of intention on setting up formative values and influences in their society rather than doing nothing about culture and relying reformative government programs - which clearly have their limits. Not in favor of the violence but the need for cultural integration is a real thing unless you want the planet sinking to the LCD.

That's so insane re: 'ghetto children'. How is that tolerated, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations#Emergence_o... is considered unacceptable?

Well could it be dependent on employment and housing availability? Are there 500m jobs that need filling? If not then they would not be able to apply. If there was a flood of people coming the housing market would see a shortage so again these people would need somewhere to stay before being granted a VISA. I don’t think unlimited necessarily mean without restrictions.

The only restriction mentioned in the parent is passing a background check, there is no mention of needing a prior job offer or lodging.

> housing availability

The real bottleneck in most American metros is more people than not loath density and want a garage and a yard. Without changing that, or finding a way to make it work, it's hard for the States to absorb people.

I think that's just a coastal problem - granted that is where a bunch of folks want to live but if you shift to some of the middle-america tech markets then housing becomes a lot more reasonable.

I really do think that Americans need to figure their crap out though - either you live in the middle of a city or you get your yard. I hate cars so I'm pretty happy in the city but that isn't the opinion of everyone.

Many of the places in the US with space and cheaper housing in fact consist mostly of standalone housing.

[idea retracted; proposed a tax-based solution but maybe too distracting]

We actually already tax immigrants more than citizens. They pay the same taxes we do but don't qualify for all the deductions, and pay into social security and medicare even though they can't get those benefits.

IIRC even as a non-permanent resident after paying into social security for 40 quarters you are eligible to collect out of it.

That doesn't make your point any less valid though.

Not sure why the downvotes, this is factually true. When I was on an h1b I was paying for all these things while I could not take advantage of it.

As an American I do not qualify for either of those things but have to pay into it, you need to pay into the system for 40 quarters (10 years), and meet other requirements. It is currently underfunded and most likely wont have much money left by the time I could withdraw. If you have a higher income and/or a spouse that works you generally pay in more than you will get back in benefits as well because it is a progressive safety net system. I've seen many people see the high salaries and the good quality of living in the US, but many of these things take high taxes to pay for.

I am against taxation without representation. If it require "balancing out" (via taxation), then it wasn't a workable system in the first place.

I guess the idea would be that the employers are taxed, not the employee. Also, H1Bs are already taxed all the regular taxes even if they return to their country before they could use Medicare or gather enough SS credits.

A side question: should representation without taxation be allowed?

If it was we’d lose half the voting populace.

People have a choice of where they want to go for work. If you tax them so hard that anywhere else is better then you may as well have simply not bothered pretending like you wanted it to be easier for them to come at all.

So government slaves, basically?

That wasn't my intent but I think I might retract the idea.