>promote the welfare of your own citizens over that of foreigners

Isolationist countries end up with poorer people, in the same way if you made an isolationist state, county, city, or household, would simply end up making you poorer.

It's a shame more people don't read economics widely enough to understand this.

An "isolationist country" and a "country that ensures that its natural-born citizens are well-provided for before admitting new labor that will compete harder for lower rewards" are not necessarily the same thing.

Do they? The Scandinavian countries have almost no skilled immigration, and had very little unskilled immigration until recently. Sweden still seems like a pretty great place to live.

Well apart from the whole 'highest rape rate in Europe thing'.

But that's a small price I'm willing to let women pay.

We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop.

Please don't create accounts to do that with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Average results over all valid candidates. Picking a best case example from many valid candidates is as fallacious as picking a worst case example.

Sweden also has a PPP adjusted median disposable income over 30% lower than in the US [1]. I'd prefer to live here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

It's promoting the welfare of a certain very privileged class of citizens, of which you belong, at the expense of overall American interests.

I'm not sure what you mean.

As a foreigner, I find myself forced to agree with those people.

Everyone is a foreigner under most frames of reference.