My belief is that a welfare state cannot have even moderately open borders. No welfare state has ever succeeded over the long term with open borders and any state that has succeeded to any reasonable degree with open borders either had no social safety net (such as is the case with Svalbard, the only social safety net of which is a ticket back home) or had a minimalist one (such as Singapore or Hong Kong, both of which also leave their borders not quite as open as Svalbard does).
So, can a state have both lavish social programmes and open borders, or must it necessarily chose between the two to succeed?
So, can a state have both lavish social programmes and open borders, or must it necessarily chose between the two to succeed?
