New Zealand: Obese Need Not Apply
Here's a first for me: the female half of a couple seeking to emigrate from the UK to New Zealand is barred from joining her husband who's already there (Jack Sprat, I suppose) because she's obese. From this article, one infers that they might let her in if she slims down (if you can pass between the sensors . . .), and who's to care what she does after that?
This is just another example of the twin evils of: (a) socialized medical care; and (b) immigration control at national borders. Interestingly, the four comments attached to this article when I saw it were favorable to the NZ move, even from an obese respondent. Not one mentioned either of the concerns that bother me. And this is FOX News, which supposedly caters to conservatives.
Well, we know about conservatives . . .
Comments (7)
Miklos Hollender
Let me point out that these things only work together, this isn't a coincidence of two different phenomena.
If a country has socialized healthcare or any other kind of welfare institution, they would be crazy to not try to control immigration.
Immigration controls can only be removed if the welfare systems is abolished: where just living in a country, or even being a citizen of it, means no automatic benefits.
(Except for the indirect benefits - low crime, efficient juries, good business climate - but these benefits tend to attract the right kind of people.)
Published: November 19, 2007 5:16 AM
Anthony
Miklos is correct. Sweden is a good example of a welfare state melting down due to excess immigration costs; but on top of that, the welfare state seems to needs its immigrants. It is a rather vicious circle.
Published: November 19, 2007 9:04 AM
P.M.Lawrence
The Catch 22 is, if you don't have some sort of benefit system, you get "vagrancy costs", i.e. people with no safety net become a breeding ground for crime etc., which at the very least imposes more policing costs. This applies to everybody present in the country, so reducing welfare indiscriminately creates more problems than it solves by keeping illegal immigrants out. And, since you can't sort out current illegals from new arrivals, you can't achieve the discrimination even if you wanted to. That's actually the rationale for amnesties, of course; but since illegals rationally don't trust governments, you never can separate all the current ones.
There is a sort of way round the problem, Negative Payroll Tax and its variants, which I describe at my publications page, but it probably isn't workable in the USA as things now are (I discuss it in an Australian context).
Published: November 19, 2007 11:30 PM
Daniel M. Ryan
Actually, Anthony, the paradox you brought up lies in the fact that the welfare state is run by elected politicians. It's an old rule in politics that extending a political privilege, which is not a mere payoff, gets a reliable and loyal voting group. Look at what lowering the voting age to 18 did for Nixon, and for Republicans in general: it may very well have turned the tide from the liberal-youth reflex.
As you indicated, the welfare state, as such, has no need of an immigrant influx: in fact, the welfare state would likely be weakened by such an influx. The politicans managing it, though, gain by bringing in new voting blocs of immigrants. Thus, the welfare-state bosses have an incentive to weaken the long-term viability of the welfare state for political gain - through importing immigrants at least.
Having unravelled this paradox, I leave you with this irreverent conclusion: in order to run properly on a long-term basis, the welfare state has to restrict the franchise. On the other hand, a libertarian state can get along fine with universal suffrage if people are quick to turn on "hogs" seeking subsidies.
Published: November 19, 2007 11:44 PM
jb
As a wandering worker thinking vaguely about settling down, could you tell me a real world example of a country that doesn't have health requirements for immigrants? I mean I agree with open borders and freedom of movement and all that, but since it doesn't exist anywhere why would anyone bring it up in a comment on a newspaper story? Most people view the immigration process as a gauntlet you have to run to get to wherever you want to go.
NZ has much more bizarre restrictions than this. I considered moving there myself last year after visiting my sister, it's a beautiful place with a nice lifestyle. However, you cannot move there and be self employed. You have to work for a NZ company or create a company employing NZ citizens. They call it demonstrating a benefit to NZ.
Published: November 20, 2007 4:46 AM
Anthony
Daniel, I was referring to this more or less:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman60527.htm
Published: November 20, 2007 9:28 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Daniel M. Ryan, what you describe is the analogue in representative or indirect democracy of agency costs in corporate affairs, specifically the analogue of diluting equity. There, managers adjust the system in their own interest rather than in that of owners, here politicians adjust the system in their own interest rather than in that of voters. There is precedent for this enlarging the franchise in the 19th UK Reform Acts and later similar developments. While there was undoubtedly the spark of principle, it needed that fuel of diluting the equity for enough representatives to push it through. And it wasn't pure principle either - the Reform Acts actually disfranchised some people even though it enlarged the electorate. The losers were mostly in the West Country and were not in the new larger property qualification that favoured commercial and industrial interests; they had inherited the franchise from wealthier ancestors who had qualified on a property basis, but they themselves didn't.
Published: November 20, 2007 11:42 PM