Quote Originally Posted by oskar
Sometimes you pay into a system, sometimes you take out of it. Unless you can figure out some kind of Minority Report Precog system, you're not going to know who's going to be profitable and who's not, but the bottom line is: immigrants are a net positive to the economy. The bureaucracy required to sort the maximally profitable is likely completely uneconomical even if you ignore the ethical problems.

I'm not claiming that immigration is bad or that it doesn't benefit us. I want the right kind of immigration precisely because it does benefit us. This is why I'd really like to see 3m Hongkongers come here. That would be a fantastic boost to our economy in the long run. In the short term it would be expensive as hell, because we'd have to carefully manage where they go to not overwhelm local services, increasing local budgets where appropriate. But no question, once they had settled, the majority would find work, pay tax, and repay their host. Those who didn't, well that's inevitable, there will be some. But the key here is that we're importing people from a civilised society. It's a numbers game. At the other end of the scale, there's Somalia, a lawless hellhole. I know it's cold and harsh, but we have to be careful bringing Somalians to the UK, they are not educated to a high enough standard to succeed in the UK and are accustomed to a dangerous environment. The chances of a Somalian succeeding in the UK is far, far lower than that of an Indian. That isn't racism, it's environmental and social factors. Indians are better educated and somewhat more socially civilised.

We can only allow so many people to come here. For every Somalian, that's one less Hongkonger or Indian. Why is that fair on the HK or Indian migrant? If I were well educated and spoke Japanese, but Japan said to me "sorry mate, but we've chosen an illiterate guy from Conga instead of you, despite knowing nothing about his criminal history", I'd be a bit miffed. Wouldn't you be? Wouldn't you prefer an immigration policy based on merit? Or is merit a dirty word to the left?

I feel dirty even arguing this because I think people shouldn't be bound to serve capital interests at all.
Your next sentence answers that for me. I mean, I actually respect this position. I've said it before, deep down I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist. I just think humanity is not ready for anarchy, and capitalism is the next best thing.

Everyone should get some form of UBI and be free to do whatever they want
Agreed, regarding UBI, but I can't agree that anyone should have the right to live anywhere in the world that they choose. Imagine if all of China wanted to live on Malta. Obviously, that's an extreme event, but sudden and unexpected population growth is a serious problem for local services. If you want a hospital to be able to treat you in an emergency, then you also want a stable and predictable population, so the hospital can offer optimal service.

Borders are necessary, like it or not.

So I don't give a shit if immigrants are good for the fiscal bottom line, but it happens that they are.

People aged 27 are good for the fiscal bottom line. Should we accept anyone aged 27, regardless of any other factor?