As a Libertarian/Humanitarian who believes in open borders, I fundamentally disagree. The 'brain drain' argument ignores how skilled migrants create international networks that benefit their home countries through investment, knowledge transfer, and trade links. The data is clear: immigration increases innovation and economic growth in both origin and destination countries.

The real issue isn't immigration vs. domestic welfare - it's ensuring fair policy for everyone. Free movement of people, like free trade, creates more opportunities than it removes. Restricting human mobility causes measurable economic damage through reduced innovation and productivity, while harming international cooperation and solving none of the problems it claims to address.

nostr:nevent1qqsv5wdx8v2h35c9nje0utg3w50gy3s7pzcq2vmrk0zn6nh4st62scqpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3qcmmswlckn82se7f2jeftl6ll4szlc6zzh8hrjyyfm9vm3t2afr7sxpqqqqqqz8f9536

If the country of origin is open and liberal enough to welcome its own people back after they've spent time abroad, then migration is always beneficial for all participants. Some will send capital back home, some will return with know-how, and some will bring back both.

However, if the country of origin is a totalitarian hellhole with barbed wire around its borders, then brain drain becomes eventually a problem... for the rulers.

Also, you're thinking about this in the macro perspective. Wouldn't it be better to look at it from the individual micro perspective? Under what conditions should someone be prevented from seeking a better life, success, and happiness?

Free trade benefits big companies and cartels.

Free borders just keep wages low.

That is all

The question of migration of people is tied to other cross border interactions:

1) Powerful countries routinely exploit less powerful ones and actively suppress their development. This type of extraction is done by corruption, targeted propaganda, predatory loans, war etc. and impoverishes people, increasing migratory pressure.

2) Richer countries can raise prices in developing countries through purchase of land and property or tourism etc, making it much less affordable for locals to live in their own country.

3) The market for remote work helps but is not capable of even remotely balancing off 1) and 2). It applies to a small fraction of the population and the earning potential is much lower than for local workers.

Then again, immigration is being weaponised by the likes of Soros to disrupt many Western societies and that causes justified opposition. It is absurd that an elderly British couple should have to cross the channel in a dinghy to qualify for state support...

The tragedy in it all is that it results in plebs hating on each other, while the few who are doing BOTH the wealth extraction at state level AND benefit from the weaponised immigration are laughing all the way to the bank.

If you live in the US and swallow all the war mongering propaganda and have no objections to the US army sitting in Syria for years only to steal oil, etc., you deserve all the immigration you will get. And if you just start killing, imprisoning and exploiting people when they try to follow the wealth extracted from their country, you will increase the resentment and criminality among them.

I don't know how to solve this, but do know 'solving' it with nothing but border control is difficult to achieve and dystopian.