Genuine confusion here - are you taking the position that nations should not discriminate when choosing who they allow to immigrate, perhaps by preferring highly-educated immigrants?
My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right. But separately, I think it's unjust that laws give preferential treatment for the wealthy (or education status as a PC indicator thereof). (Actually it's not just education; a lot of countries have explicit wealth discrimination in the form "investor" categories, for example the US' EB-5 program).
I have a small-government ideology; I believe laws should have highly compelling justifications, and I consider the two reasons for restricted immigration (one, central economic planning, and two, control of culture) not sufficiently so.
Any government is a sovereign nation. The laws are decided by a democratically elected legislature.
Are you proposing that state sovereignty should be abolished and power should be removed from a democratic legislature?
> I have a small-government ideology;
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
What is left is a big government with a small tax base (of former citizens).
--- On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
This then forces poor countries with socialist tendencies to either re-evaluate their taxation policies or face a huge brain drain.
I don't propose that states automatically grant welfare to any visitors; it's free movement that I claim is a fundamental right, not free money. Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes, not in any immediate time period. Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote -- they could be a constitutional issue instead.
I don't see how, with these qualifications, this leads to a collapsed welfare state. Without welfare guarantees (at least not for new immigrants), there's no selection tendency for rent-seeking. Instead there's selection pressure for hard-working people, living in states where their efforts are undervalued (because of broken government or broken economy).
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
I think you've misunderstood your argument. You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
