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.
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.