From a purely government monetary income and cost perspective there are definitely disabled people who would be a net negative. But yeah sure it does depend on the type of disability and their ability to find work that is compatible.
that misunderstands economics, specifically money flow, and government though. which makes sense why a lot of people would oppose it. give new immigrants to your community some money and where are they most likely to spend it? in your community. give aid to someone who is disadvantaged (not necessarily disabled) and you (1) earn loyalty and (2) get money into your local economy. give aid to someone who doesn’t need it and you build resentment. fortunately, right now pretty much 95% of people need help so you don’t have to be picky.
Isn’t it more that, govts have enough income (immigration) of disadvantaged people with high political value, that they don’t really need those low political value immigrants?
For the ideal case: Let’s say you have 2 people and only want 1 (you are not low in population). Which would you prefer?
Give money to Person. Person increases money circulation in community.
Person gives you work. Created value gets you x money. You pay Person x-y money. Person increases money circulation in community.
For the real case:
govts get loyalty by control, not by benevolence
govts would rather take some resentment from powerless and pay those already powerful. Because govts are made out of people too and would rather not get murdered
it’s easier for people to understand benevolence from a person than from a large organisation like a govt.
My assumption is that immigrants are an additional cost to a country (one with an ideal government). The govts also need to worry about spies and political destabilisers sent from outside, which would increase the overhead, per immigrant. So it makes sense to expect a potential immigrant to be part of the workforce.
Whether they are disabled (from a workforce perspective) or not, would depend upon what type of work they do vs their specific disability. Ideally (because I don’t know which country you are taking as a basis for your arguments) if someone has an ability specific to their occupation, that makes them a higher value human resource than the cost of offsetting their disability and puts them higher than the govt’s expected bar, that would be a good enough reason to accept said immigrant.
Now unless the govt is classifying something that is not a real disability, as a disability, then placing the wrong cost onto it, there is no way I will be calling them wrong. And this very much depends upon the state of technology of the civilisation.
In a time where glass would be a luxury, bad eyesight would be a significant disability
when prosthetics are a luxury (which for some damned reason, they still are), lack of limbs would be a significant disability
if being neurotypical is very important for a govt (honestly why do you want to migrate to such a backward country?), then neurodivergence would be a significant disability. And this part is big BS, because the only reason being neurotypical is important for a govt is if they want to be able to involuntarily control your actions.
the problem with this is the assumption that disabled people are net drains on society that is buried in your argument.
From a purely government monetary income and cost perspective there are definitely disabled people who would be a net negative. But yeah sure it does depend on the type of disability and their ability to find work that is compatible.
that misunderstands economics, specifically money flow, and government though. which makes sense why a lot of people would oppose it. give new immigrants to your community some money and where are they most likely to spend it? in your community. give aid to someone who is disadvantaged (not necessarily disabled) and you (1) earn loyalty and (2) get money into your local economy. give aid to someone who doesn’t need it and you build resentment. fortunately, right now pretty much 95% of people need help so you don’t have to be picky.
Isn’t it more that, govts have enough income (immigration) of disadvantaged people with high political value, that they don’t really need those low political value immigrants?
For the ideal case: Let’s say you have 2 people and only want 1 (you are not low in population). Which would you prefer?
xmoney. You pay Personx-ymoney. Person increases money circulation in community.For the real case:
My assumption is that immigrants are an additional cost to a country (one with an ideal government). The govts also need to worry about spies and political destabilisers sent from outside, which would increase the overhead, per immigrant. So it makes sense to expect a potential immigrant to be part of the workforce.
Whether they are disabled (from a workforce perspective) or not, would depend upon what type of work they do vs their specific disability. Ideally (because I don’t know which country you are taking as a basis for your arguments) if someone has an ability specific to their occupation, that makes them a higher value human resource than the cost of offsetting their disability and puts them higher than the govt’s expected bar, that would be a good enough reason to accept said immigrant.
Now unless the govt is classifying something that is not a real disability, as a disability, then placing the wrong cost onto it, there is no way I will be calling them wrong. And this very much depends upon the state of technology of the civilisation.