Is it possible to have a sustainable welfare state and open door immigration policy .?
Answer:
No. I feel we are already feeling the effects of this. The welfare state relies heavily on the monies the people of the country put into it by working. So if all and sundry are to be allowed to take advantage of our welfare state without paying a penny towards it how can it be sustainable?
Only by making the workers pay more.
NO !
No. Everyone knows that.
Who pays?
The services become skeletal.
The middle class has already almost entirely abandoned the public schools in California, and the middle class is mortgaging its retirement to do so.
It's called communism and anarchy and tyranny and lawlessness. From each according to his means to each according to his needs.
I suppose so if you tax the working population at about 90%
Yes as long as the welfare state is not designed to be generational and as long as the immigration policy is not a revolving door. (IE In the mid-19th and early 20th century when immigrants came to the US they became citizens and rarely if ever went "home" the same needs to be done now. An open door policy any one who wants to come can but they are given a green card and cannot leave for five years. after which they must either become citizens or return to their native land forever)
No.
No, you can't have both because we are importing poor, uneducated people.
No.
To believe so would be to conform exactly to the definition of the New Labour-o-phile: an atypical white (guilt-wracked of course) bourgeoisie cosmopolitan, hand-wringing, bleeding-heart pink armchair Socialist and Orwellian-Animal-Farm-esque bleating sheep. To quote the Left: "baaaaaaa".
According to New Labour, scum party...Yes it is. Well done Tony Thatcher - alias El C^nt.
no
No, because eventually there will be more money going out in welfare and other services than you have coming in taxes.
Yes - the number of Poles and Czechs claiming any form of benefits in this country was reported at the beginning of this year to be less than 800.
Not bad, considering there are over 500 thousand living in the UK.
No, and socialist countries often have the strictest immigration policies (e.g. Scandinavia).
After this amnesty is passed, we are well on our way of finding out
Nope ask France, Germany, and England how that is working out.
If you define "welfare state" and "open door immigration policy" as the way our country has been run for a few hundred years then I would have to say it is sustainable. If we hugely decrease the number of hard working, low paid foreigners from the pool, we are eliminating those types of workers who build our cities and pick our crops and made us leaders of the capital world.
Of course the actually policy changes from Washington are to close our borders to potential terrorists hiding amongst those who want to come for a better life. Unfortunately those low paid hardworking foreigners will suffer because we don't have the resources to differentiate between them and terrorists.
If many current illegal aliens become citizens and thus have access to social services in this somewhat civilized nation, they will have been rewarded for hard underpaid work.
What is not sustainable (or fair) in the real world is providing a high standard of living to unproductive people, many who were born in the US.
Yes, because most immigrants are not eligible for benefits, and don't want them anyway. Statistics have shown that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits or other government expenses - which is not surprising when you see how hard most work. They come to make a better life for themselves, not to sit around waiting for handouts (unlike some people).
no the population is to big now
you know the answer already NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO...
the UK seem to be trying to but i cannot see it being sustainable
No.
Of course, it is just as well that we do not have an open door immigration policy.
(If we did, there would be loads more people coming to the UK.)
The medicine information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.