troubador55

No we have to filter people because if we did not there would be chaos, and everything that makes America a great place to live would disappear.

You seem to not understand how the world works at a fundamental level.

Your argument doesn't fly either.

ICE is removing illegal immigrants from the US. If it was removing legal citizens or legal immigrants for some arbitrary reason then people would be much more sympathetic to your position.

In reality however, because ICE is not rounding up "immigrants" as you say in an intentional effort to obscure the truth by avoiding the necessary word "illegal", most people in the US are in support of ICE's mission.

ICE will continue to carry out that just and necessary mission with or without the assistance of some naive and privileged ideaologues that work at tech companies.

Your position on this issue is rooted firmly on the wrong side of history.

What these workers are saying is they don't care about both the short and long term problems associated with illegal immigration into the US.

These workers are naive because they fail to recognize being "nice" in the short term can be a recipe for disaster in the long term. Sometimes hard choices must be made.

Imagine seeing the child of someone who has broken the law cry as their parent is dragged away to jail. Should we give in to our sympathy and emotion for the child by letting their parent off the hook at the expense of enforcing laws? Of course not.

But it is difficult because demand is so tremendous and there are reasonable quotas. Not because it's difficult for difficulties sake.

Free movement will drive down wages and labor costs. Labor will lose value while capital will increase in value.

Combine this dynamic with our current world in which the gulf between a small elite class and everyone else is widening with the middle class in between deteriorating, and you have a recipe for disaster. The modern welfare state that exists in Europe and to a (much) lesser extent in the US would crumble from the stress of millions of new individuals flooding the economy at the low end and being stuck there because of economic dynamics beyond anyone's control.

Rather than importing the impoverished from poor nations to rich nations, we should be working together as a community of nations to establish law and order where there is lawlessness. Once law, order and in particular property rights are followed and enforced, wealth can and will grow as it has in places like China and Vietnam.

Encouraging freedom of movement will result in poor regions becoming even more destitute. As one of my wealthy friends from Pakistan lamented to me once when considering whether she should move to Canada or stay in Pakistan, "if people like myself flee Pakistan, who will stay to build it into a strong and prosperous nation?"

Overall, free movement would be a terrible idea for most people. This article does a really poor job of considering the issue.

>"but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years."

Not at all. I know a couple that tried to move to Canada after Trump got elected but were shocked to find out they'd have to deposit 250k USD with the Canadian government for 5 years in order to be considered for permanantly residency.

Not only that, the demand for people to move into the US is tremendous so the competition is obviously very steep compared to less desireable places.