Is there a classical liberal argument against migration?

>>137383500
Sure I guess
The problem with classical liberalism is that it spawned the rampant individualism that dissolved the family unit as the core societal unit, the unit that western civilization has been preidcated on.

>>137384501
Okay, let me put it another way, could one reasonably say that there is a liberal argument against mass migration, based on the fact that liberalism is fundamentally a belief in rights, and people should have the right to an identity, which mass migration attacks, or do you think that is stretching it a bit?

>>137383500
Migration is all about gibs, nothing else.

Restrict welfare to residents whos grandparents were born in the country, and watch global migration instantly end.

Why would it matter if mass migration of any sort is allowed or not under classical liberalism if you don't want mass migration?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdHtrcXGYck

brain drain on the emigration countries.

>>137383500
Mass migration is all good and wonderful until it hits your own country. It is a massive brain drain to the country experiencing thousands of men leaving their home and mostly not returning. Countries like Greece, Spain or Portugal are suffering from this.
There is also the problem that mass immigration is built upon the notion of free movement of labor. It is not inherently an ideology of morals. it is one of economics. You could argue that what is good for the economy is also good in a moral sense, but that isn't very realistic. In ereality you simply create a new slave caste of 3rd world immigrants, working in a sphere of low education labour that is rapidly shrinking in a developed economy.
The economic need for mass immigration comes when the local population can't replenish the required workforce. Something like this only happens when the economy runs so incredibly well that everybody has work and there are simply not enough hands to fill all the jobs. Or it happens when the birth rates plummet and the indegenious pupolation fails to reproduce. The economy doesn't run incredibly well either. Mass immigration as a means to combat the demographic change of the local population is nothing more than a cosmetic measurement and doesn't address the root of the problem at all.

The most libtard argument would be: If you see only the economic reasons for mass immigration you are actually only seeing people in a one-dimensional, economic way. You aren't accepting them as actual people, just numbers on a graphic. There is a lot more to people than simple economic needs.

>>137383500

Classical liberals are people who live in the early 19th century and are utterly amazed because they have just discovered capitalism. They wouldn't have the historical experience to have arguments against migration. If you asked them they would be in favour of it because they live in a mental utopia where everyone is going to be a small businessman and grow very rich.

No, classical liberals and libertarians believe in free movement of labor as a fundamental human right

The ones that don't believe in free movement cease being libertarians/classic-libs and are something else entirely. Like a paleoconservative

>>137385216
Sure, it is the belief in rights For YOUR people

>>137383500
A country is like a body, you need input from the outside to sustain yourself, but you also need to expel waste. If you just take in everything without picking and choosing you get poisoned or infected, you breed tumors of rapidly growing corruptions that squeeze out the healthy parts.

>>137384501
classic liberalism is in contrast to postmodern liberalism about being in a family, groupe or other milieu. Classic liberalism were the bourdeois which danced to waltz, postmodern is twerking and grinding to rap music or pop in general.

>>137383500
Hou could argue for a free market, and with less or no welfare most wouldn't come to your country. The ones that would come would contribute to society instead of leech off of it.

>>137383500
The counties they come from lose potential workers if they dont like the freedom of movement for money why like the freedom of people movement

>>137383500
yes. the end goal of keynesian-ism is full employment.

now, imagine we are sending a million people into space or to colonize a newly discovered planet/country. you will need doctors, mechanics, teachers, farmers, soldiers, et cetera. a population set has very specific needs. thats why medical fag career shit is so hot right now. western populations are an inverted pyramid with elderly people, who need more medical care, on top

if you just add an extra 250 thousand illiterate sunni shitkin plebs to your group of settlers, its going to throw the entire thing out of whack. you can only do the broken window economic shit if everyone in the cycle has a skill to trade with one another. there are only so many people needed to take out the garbage.

One could argue that mass-immigration limits the possibilities of success for the migrants. Since when lots of people come from the same area, they tend to settle together. And they end up outside of the main society they migrated to take part of.

If they arrive in such numbers that integration is not possible, surely it would be better that they arrive in manageable numbers. To ensure that they have the same success as the native population.