You’re free to go to those places if you can support yourself or be supported by someone else who would be paying into the system.

Too many people abuse the system, and they would need to increase everyone else’s taxes if they just let everyone in. Reality is, no one wants double the taxes and people leaching off the system, even if they would lie and say it publicly.

It’s not framing anything, that’s just reality, you’re free to bury your head in the sand and think elsewise, but all it does it prove how foolish and naive you are.

Yes illegal migrants have access, as well as do everyone else in those places like people taking in during war.

The topic is specifically about people immigrating to those places from a country without soical nets, to a place with social nets, where they can only take from the system and never put back.

Illegal migrants and people accepted during wars, WILL eventually contribute to society. Immigrants that are already disabled is something else entirely.

In this case we are numbers on a spreadsheet, we may not like it, but all nations have limited resorces, and need to practice resource management.

This goes for both capitalism and communism.

Anything else would be to deny reality.

However different governments use different metrics to approve or deny new citizens, but all boil down to if it is worth it to the country.

The taxes people (in Australia) pay to finance public healthcare are numbers on a spreadsheet and we don’t have unlimited money.

You are absolutely correct, most people want to work when they can, but look at it from the government’s perspective, if they see a severely disabled person in his 50s with zero education, zero knowledge of the language wanting to migrate to the country, what they see is just an expense with few prospects of being able to contribute enough to offset the cost of treating/managing his disabillities.

He may be an absolute genious, but that is not known at the time, the government also must consider that any resources spent on this person can’t be spent on someone else.

So in this case the financial argument is clearly against accepting the person, based on the information the government has, the person should be rejected.

In a purely financial world, that would be it, but luckily we live in a world with more incentives than purely greed.

Taking in the person will generate goodwill in some parts of the world, that might be reason enough to do it, or perhaps the person has valuable information that could also be reason to let them in, perhaps this person is part of a political party in his original country that you want to remain good friends with, then this is an excellent opportunity to show support.

All of this is extermely cold and calculating, I absolutely conceede that, but a government can selldom afford to let feelings dictate policy.

Even governments showing compassion do it for their own gain, it’s good PR!

This is reality, and it is better to face it and deal with it than to fight with an immaginary entity.

There’s lots that do, and not everyone will be capable of contributing. What about a mother of two kids with autism? She can’t work, will spend all her time caring for her kids who will into ever be a burden on the system.

Every system is abused, that’s why they have limitations.