is it hypocritical to believe in a strong welfare state but be against immigration?

[WraithDukat]

So I have a 'friend' so is a strong advocate of welfare (probably just because they and most of their family are on it). But is strongly anti-immigration.

I am against high taxation to provide generous welfare, I am however pro-immigration. To me if you're against immigration as you believe it will or does make you worse off but are in favour of making others worse off to make you better off you're a hypocrite. You're basically saying, I don't think the rich should enjoy a privilege they were born into but I should be able to (the privilege being born into a country with clean tap water and no bombs going off constantly) enjoy the privilege I was born into without having to make myself worse off to share it with others.

Thoughts?

 

[Nyotarules]

If they don't have an ancestor that migrated to the place of their birth then they can be as antimigrant as they went. Are they indigneous to where they hold citizenship?

 

[WraithDukat]

They are yes, my point is they insist that those who are better off than they are should share their wealth to help those 'less fortunate'. Yet they're against helping those that see clean water as a luxury as it makes them worse off. It's hypocritical.

 

[Spot261]

My immediate thought is to say no, the two issues are not inextricably interlinked, thus there is no automatic hypocrisy in supporting one but not the other.

I'd like to add the disclaimer that such a dual stance wouldn't reflect my own views, merely that as a political position it would not seem to be inherently self contradictory.

 

[Nyotarules]

They are yes, my point is they insist that those who are better off than they are should share their wealth to help those 'less fortunate'. Yet they're against helping those that see clean water as a luxury as it makes them worse off. It's hypocritical.

Well based on 'folks must share what they have except if they are foreigners coming over here to take our jobs etc' then yes that attitude is hypocritical. But its possible to be pro welfare and antiimmigration.
In the UK there are immigrants who are antiimmigrant, their attitude is they got here so lets now close the door for others. They even voted Brexit! That's hypocrisy!

 

[MacLeod]

When dealing with immigration there is more than one motive behind it.

1.>Fleeing persercution/war etc..
2.>Financial (for lack of a better term)

I suspect most don't have an issue with the first it's the later that some might have an issue with and even with the later many might support controlled immigration that brings talents in that a particular country needs.

As for Jobs argument the simple fact is that immigrants do many of the jobs that some who complain about immigration don't or rather won't do.

But in an ideal world the aim should be to lift those countries where the bulk of immigrants come from to a point that they want to stay in their native land.

 

[DimesDan]

But in an ideal world the aim should be to lift those countries where the bulk of immigrants come from to a point that they want to stay in their native land.

I am classified as a migrant and I just do not want to remain in my home nation.

 

[cultcross]

ut are in favour of making others worse off to make you better off

That's a terrible definition of being pro welfare state. It betrays the false assumption that only those who will personally net benefit from it support it.

 

[Herbert]

I am pro immigration
I am strongly against people who milk welfare programs. Yes, there are people who legitimately need it and do not abuse it.
However, there has to be a better way. Why can't we come up with a system that enables and supports people to improve their lives instead of simply throwing money at them. We are not addressing the root cause. We are just causing entire welfare generations. There has to be a better way.

I am not against helping people in need. I am against abusers. And yes, I know those people will always exist but we don't need to enable them.

 

[cultcross]

We are not addressing the root cause.

What would you say is the root cause?

 

[Nyotarules]

I am not against helping people in need. I am against abusers. And yes, I know those people will always exist but we don't need to enable them.

The people who abuse the tax system so they don't pay as much v the people who abuse the welfare system - which category do you think has a greater impact on society economically? One area has billions to give the other area might have millions to get

 

[Jim Steele]

I think being anti-welfare and anti-immigration are both absurd and ignorant positions which betray a lack of empathy, so it's moot.

And I really hate the characterisation of being pro-welfare as being in favour of taxing people to feather your nest. I am not on welfare, I just recognise that a society without compassion is no society at all.

 

[Nyotarules]

I think being anti-welfare and anti-immigration are both absurd and ignorant positions which betray a lack of empathy, so it's moot.

And I really hate the characterisation of being pro-welfare as being in favour of taxing people to feather your nest. I am not on welfare, I just recognise that a society without compassion is no society at all.

Inherited wealth is welfare from a past ancestor..no one is made to feel ashamed of that! lol

 

[Nyotarules]

I think being anti-welfare and anti-immigration are both absurd and ignorant positions which betray a lack of empathy, so it's moot.

And I really hate the characterisation of being pro-welfare as being in favour of taxing people to feather your nest. I am not on welfare, I just recognise that a society without compassion is no society at all.

The late Great Mrs Margaret Thatcher once said 'there is no such thing as society' and her rightwing policies reflected it......

 

[BillJ]

I'm pro-Welfare, pro-immigration, pro-free higher education and pro-higher taxes. A society functions better when we all work together.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Hang on, this isn't TNZ. [SELF CENSORS]

I'm think it's fairly silly to not want to help people whoever they may be. Welfare, immigration, healthcare, education, it should all be seen as good.

 

[Qonundrum]

If they don't have an ancestor that migrated to the place of their birth then they can be as antimigrant as they went. Are they indigneous to where they hold citizenship?

The only problem with that argument is that all humans came from the same place, around the "Mesopotamia" and "Africa" regions - or whatever they were called at the time. Taken to logical conclusion, the entire concept of "indigenous" is rather moot as an argument unless one was born on - say - planet Ork, in which case a claim could potentially be made. The inescapable point is that we're all Earthlings. The trouble is, most of the world has set lines differentiating regions. I'm not saying you're wrong or right; but how would you create an open society that everyone would agree with where nobody gets harmed in any way shape or form? How do you educate? What other real-life details might you encounter? Your argument does suggest such an open society is a net goal. Why not own it instead of seemingly belittling people who are long since dead and/or had nothing to do with various incidents in the past (regardless if they were dead at the time or otherwise)?

 

[Qonundrum]

Hang on, this isn't TNZ. [SELF CENSORS]

I'm think it's fairly silly to not want to help people whoever they may be. Welfare, immigration, healthcare, education, it should all be seen as good.

Real life has bad and good elements. But is it going to be seen as good if lots of people are harmed? (And if it is, there's bound to be a really cool reason somewhere that might even get around what the DSM-V might say and having read enough of it, it says some really fun things...) But then, nobody's defined "harmed" yet either... we're all glossing over superficial words with no meaning nor depth.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I guess it depends on the definition of harm, the whether there would be worse consequences without that harm, what mitigating factors can be put in place, etc. Etc. But in the end treating people like people and with empathy goes a long way.

 

[Nyotarules]

The only problem with that argument is that all humans came from the same place, around the "Mesopotamia" and "Africa" regions - or whatever they were called at the time. Taken to logical conclusion, the entire concept of "indigenous" is rather moot as an argument unless one was born on - say - planet Ork, in which case a claim could potentially be made. The inescapable point is that we're all Earthlings. The trouble is, most of the world has set lines differentiating regions. I'm not saying you're wrong or right; but how would you create an open society that everyone would agree with where nobody gets harmed in any way shape or form? How do you educate? What other real-life details might you encounter? Your argument does suggest such an open society is a net goal. Why not own it instead of seemingly belittling people who are long since dead and/or had nothing to do with various incidents in the past (regardless if they were dead at the time or otherwise)?

Depends on your definition of an 'open society'. I doubt there is any nation or region on Earth that has a policy of uncontrolled migration. Taken to its logical conclusion since all humans are Earthlings, then folks should be able to live wherever the hell they want, but that is not practical under the present social and cultural circumstances.

As a Star Trek fan I doubt even the Earth of the Star Trek universe has an open door policy for each region. In universe, if the standard of living is pretty much the same around the globe then migration between nation states would hardly take place.
Most present day migration takes place due to lack of resources, war/civil unrest, economic opportunity, or relationships. Apart from the latter, the rest are no longer in existence on Star Trek Earth.