Ye maybe you should learn the difference between government revenue and fiscal revenue.

Venezuela dodges the stat because of strange definitions (for gvmnt owned companies), normal countries don't so Kuwait gvmnt has a big intake from what they own, but they don't take the property of citizens or residents violently (=taxes)

Where do they live until Italy has granted them asylum? That could take months.

Not my problem.

Supposedly in the first place they reach where their lives aren't directly threatened unlike in their original country.

Asylum is an institution that exists to provide assistance in case of direct imminent threat to life, not a generic worldwide welfare system for people who live in poor countries.

We can make exceptions for people we consider particularly valuable and aligned with western values, but with no moral mandate in that regard (I would personally make exceptions for right-wing people fleeing communist countries, and of course for anyone who helped western militaries in our efforts, and their families).

Btw a main point you might be missing as well is that we refuse asylum to 70-80% of them, and then we can't even send them away lol.

What's your proposal to guarantee anyone refused asylum is sent away? Because no solution seems to exist under current laws, once they are here we are screwed and forced to spend money on them

Unless my map's completely wrong the first place the boat people reach is Lampedusa, an Italian island 50 miles off the Tunisian coast. So we agree they should live in Italy until their status is settled. Good.

I wouldn't refuse anyone the right to settle in any other part of the world, full stop.

he's a bit of a sexpat, kind of wild that he's now a big travel vlogger

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldAndBald...d_a/?rdt=43964

If we were talking Tunisians fleeing the Tunisia because of a war in Tunisia (or political persecution, or persecuted for other reasons in Tunisia), or Algerians from Algeria, or Egyptian from Egypt, or Libyan from Libya, you would have a point.

But we are talking people from other countries (!!!!!).

You know the boat which capsized one year ago near Calabria coasts? Approx 100 dead?

Those were people from Afghanistan, who stayed in turkey for a while then tried to came here and didn't even stop in Greece, how on earth Italy has ANY responsibility toward people like that?

The moment they are in turkey that's fg any claim of asylum elsewhere, their aren't at threat of life, if they take a boat that's them looking for suicide or to criminally enter a country that doesn't want them, didn't ask for them, and has no moral or legal obligation toward them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023..._boat_disaster

So you would accept 200m poor indians in the UK *and pay for their welfare for life* with British taxpayer money? Is that your take?

The "80 million Turks will come to the UK if Turkey joins the EU!11!!!1!!" line again. Total bollocks.

ye bollocks because Turkey gdp per capita and quality of life aren't infinitely worse than the EU, especially at PPP.

While i wrote 200m indians, 15% of the population, and gdp per capita in india even at ppp is really low.

Now think of egypt alone , more than 100m people with the gdp per capita of palestine.

And again consider you are promising them welfare for life.

Btw you aren't answering the point which is that the asylum seekers aren't citizens of neighbouring countries. Do you think the EU has a legal duty to give asylum to people who don't risk their lives where they currently are? under which treaty?

The people who come to the UK from India are mostly educated and work here. I don't know why you're talking about welfare because they make a large net plus for GDP (thanks partly to India for bearing the costs of raising and educating them).

And 200M people aren't going to come from India to an already highly populated small island. Your ideas are absurdist scare fantasies which is why they should be compared to the 80M Turks thing.

Legality, I don't know or much care about as long as it's observed in this case. The legal standard is usually the baseline minimum standard for anyone to still regard themselves as a human being for following.

Oh jesus yes, because you don't guarantee unlimited open borders and free welfare to poor indians if they come, currently.

I am talking about welfare because *the poor immigrants without skills that come from boat to italy* (those you keep claiming are beneficial for italian economy) end up on welfare, are in absolute poverty, as per data provided.

If you guarantee welfare to poor people they will come, try saying you open borders and cover medical expenses to anyone worldwide, let's see if many of the chronically ill in places where they don't get free healthcare come or not.

I am referring to your claim that anyone should be allowed to move. So do you want to correct that with "but they shouldn't be beneficiaries of welfare"?

You are measuring today when that's not the case and some filters are in place at least in the UK to avoid taking in people who suck resources, and want to claim that if you opened to everyone, the old the frail the completly uneducated without any useful skillset, the IQ 70 and so on, all of them would be beneficial for the UK.

So again is there any moral if not legal responsibility to take people fleeing from country X (where they risk life), ending up in country Y (where they don't), and just feeling they don't like Y enough so they want to move? and that guaranteeing taxpayer funded healthcare, food, shelter, from day 1 of their arrival? to anyone in the world who dislikes the place he lives in?

Anyone should be allowed to move anywhere? Yes absolutely. Population density will sooner or later prove a natural deterrent to everyone moving to, say, Singapore or Belgium and make America/Canada/Australia more attractive destinations (as they probably initially are anyway).

Do you see any problem with allowing people to move everywhere AND providing any resident with free stuff by law, or no?

Do you realize that Italy and many other countries, by law, must provide free healthcare to anyone in the country no question asked?

By "providing them with free stuff" do you mean "not letting them starve to death in the street so that kids don't have to step over their corpses on their way to school"?

Western countries can't provide decent housing for all their citizens right now in this moment. Many people have to live with parents or relatives because housing is too expensive for a portion of workers (nevermind people out of work).

Your plan to house people whose income will be in the bottom 20% of the distribution (uneducated non-english speaking people won't earn more than that on average) is how exactly, given you already fail at housing your own citizens with that income?

But even with housing solved (which would entail putting these newcomers in places not very sought after, like semi-abandoned rural areas with low services), what's your plan for the cancer patients, the people without a leg, the old and so on? because they would come if you guarantee free healthcare, shelter and food to any newcomer, and you allow anyone to come, do you realize that?

I mean imagine the NHS (or the italian SSN for that matter) having to take charge of treatment for 50k egyptians needing prosthetics, 100k nigerian cancer patients, 40k indonesians with dementia and so on and on and on... are you for real? do you REALLY want to insist that the model you would prefer is to let a person with medical needs in the 50k++ per year and unable to work come to your country and basically freeroll the rest of his life at taxpayers expenses? or do you accept those people would have to be kept out OR not be beneficiaries of public healthcare?

The failure of Western housing markets is a failure of capitalism, and more capitalism isn't going to solve the problem. The solution to this (wealth taxes) is out of scope of this thread imo though of course everything is connected.

If the West fixed the housing shortage, building more accommodation would be possible using the boost in GDP from the extra "free" workers coming in, most of whom I believe would be heading to countries where land is cheap and plentiful anyway (mainly America).

As a proud Italian nationalist (cough) keen to see Africans go to America not Italy, you should be in favour of what I've written. Or if you're so against what's happening in Italy maybe you'd be one of the people emigrating to the US?

Can you show your work on this please?

"zoning laws written by public entities under representative democracy" are a failure of capitalism sure.

Capitalists are eager to build as much as possible where housing demand >> supply , it's only regulation constraining that.

The USA *do not give free healthcare to anyone who puts his feet on american soil* afaik.

So can we go back to countries that are mandated by law (or by mesmerizing readings of their constitutions by leftist judges, like italy) to provide free healthcare (and the rest) to every resident? do you agree those countries can't physically open the borders? you can't have positive rights for all residents (rights to resources provided by others) and an open border.

A roof over your head is one of life's few necessities. If people want to collect expensive cars or watches as investments they might be *******s but no one really cares other than unnecessarily increasing demand for more manufactured goods which is bad for the environment, but depriving people of the hope of owning their own home so the investors can gouge rent from people not on the housing ladder is another matter that capitalism approves of.

You'll probably say that capitalism also approves of developers building more housing, but land isn't an infinite resource and we place a premium value on the countryside and landscape.

There's no such thing as a "leftist judge". The law is the law even if you don't like it, in which case campaign for a change in the law.

Italy should be pressing other countries to open their borders.

When judges who sit in the supreme court are politically appointed there actually is.

Our supreme court has 15 members, 5 decided by the president of the republic (who is politically appointed and has a political personal history so he can be described as leftist or rightwing or whatever, and so can his nominees), 5 by parliament (so purely political), 5 by lower judges (here we can suppose there is some independence from politics sometimes).

I can't campaign to change the law actually because the first parts of the constitutions can't be changed in Italy. Why? because the judges decided so (ye really). So they can automatically consider invalid any change to the first 12 articles of our constitution.

And they decided that the very very clear word CITIZEN used in those first 12 articles actually means "anyone in Italy for any reasons" lol. How do you campaign against a completly invented reading of the text?

I do campagin for open borders when they have no welfare, i also campaign for lower welfare in my country and elsewhere.

Sounds like you really hate where you live and should consider emigrating.