Not sure I agree, imagine if tomorrow the UN just took everyone from every refugee camp everywhere, and every country the same with asylum seekers, refugees, mental health patients, and prisoners and dropped them all on planes to Rhode Island one way tickets involuntarily to the person being sent and the US couldn't say no.
The homeless are already a big deal now, multiplying that by tens of millions makes it vastly worse.
I cannot take such scenarios seriously. Why would the UN do that? When did anything like this ever happen? The example you gave before of states cycling out their homeless is more realistic, but not a big deal and no reason to close borders between the states.
Why wouldn't they if the US had open borders? They can't do now because nations have to agree to take you. If I'm the German taxpayer and I have the option of spending hundreds of thousands per Syrian or a two thousand dollar ticket to New York, why would I keep people I don't want anyways? The only thing stopping it now is the US parachuting Mexicans into France might be taken as an act of war. The US internally makes it (mostly)illegal for US states to prevent migration to/from other states hence why they have programs to support exactly that for those they don't want. If Montana could legally deport a schizophrenic to North Dakota and shoot them if they tried to return, you can damn well bet they would all be deported tomorrow.
Historically exile was extremely common included forced exile of entire peoples.
This is silly because why would the Syrian go to Germany first if he could go to the US? Either he prefers Germany and can get there as well, or he goes to the US straight away.
Exile of an entire people was not extremely common historically. Closing the border now, on the off chance that it might happen again soon is nuts. If there is no better solution, you can always close the border when it happens.
Note that a migration tax would help against the outlandish schemes you fear, and would bring revenue where restrictions only have costs.
A free one way ticket is insignificant compared to multiplying income for most people. Those homeless won't be a big deal.
Not sure I agree, imagine if tomorrow the UN just took everyone from every refugee camp everywhere, and every country the same with asylum seekers, refugees, mental health patients, and prisoners and dropped them all on planes to Rhode Island one way tickets involuntarily to the person being sent and the US couldn't say no.
The homeless are already a big deal now, multiplying that by tens of millions makes it vastly worse.
I cannot take such scenarios seriously. Why would the UN do that? When did anything like this ever happen? The example you gave before of states cycling out their homeless is more realistic, but not a big deal and no reason to close borders between the states.
Why wouldn't they if the US had open borders? They can't do now because nations have to agree to take you. If I'm the German taxpayer and I have the option of spending hundreds of thousands per Syrian or a two thousand dollar ticket to New York, why would I keep people I don't want anyways? The only thing stopping it now is the US parachuting Mexicans into France might be taken as an act of war. The US internally makes it (mostly)illegal for US states to prevent migration to/from other states hence why they have programs to support exactly that for those they don't want. If Montana could legally deport a schizophrenic to North Dakota and shoot them if they tried to return, you can damn well bet they would all be deported tomorrow.
Historically exile was extremely common included forced exile of entire peoples.
This is silly because why would the Syrian go to Germany first if he could go to the US? Either he prefers Germany and can get there as well, or he goes to the US straight away.
Exile of an entire people was not extremely common historically. Closing the border now, on the off chance that it might happen again soon is nuts. If there is no better solution, you can always close the border when it happens.
Note that a migration tax would help against the outlandish schemes you fear, and would bring revenue where restrictions only have costs.