Immigration, Immigration, Immigration

I write as an immigrant. The country I choose to live in cannot keep me out, nor deny me all the welfare resources paid for by indigenous taxpayers. I pay tax here, of course I do, but nothing like on the scale needed to meet the costs I might, though fortunately don't, impose. Off-setting my appearance here is the appearance of nationals from this country in England. So when the costs of immigrants are counted there should be an allowance for citizen exchange. But that would imply some notion of like for like: well-educated; speaking the language; self-supporting; employed;bringing wealth to invest; of working age, is very different from destitute, unskilled, unemployable, dependent, and determinedly unassimilable.

In seeking a high level of welfare benefit, immigrants have been shown, in various academic and research studies, to be extremely selective of their destination. Where benefits for maternity care, general, (but particularly chronic and old-age), healthcare, education sevices, lack -of- economic -activity benefits, subsidized or even free housing, and poor fraudulent -claims controls coupled with transferability of benefits to country of origin - such as child welfare benefits - are high, these destinations attract the highest immigrant numbers. As is apparent in the United Kingdom.

James Meade, Nobel Prize-winning economist, offered the simplest and most elegant of solutions to all of this: make available to any would -be immigrant the same level of welfare benefits as would be offered to the target country's citizens in the immigrant's country of origin.

If that would not be enough to provide a living then refuse entry.

No admittance merely to enjoy the often high and universally available social wage. And here lies the crux of the immigration problem. Highly developed, advanced capitalist countries have a better standard of living, even without targetted benefits, than many ex-socialist sinks.