This short-sighted, reckless, and witless advocacy of open borders is the reason I stopped subscribing to @TheEconomist. Any rich country that adopted it would probably double its population within a couple of years and fall into chaos. (Or show me quantitative models otherwise.)https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1010187848098762753 …
-
-
No, you made a very strong empirical claim. No one has a reason to even take it seriously, much less rebut it, unless there is evidence that entitles you to make it.
-
Also, to suspect that a particular argument against X is bad does not logically imply an ounce of support for X. So one takes on no burden to defend X when one asserts that the particular argument against X is arbitrary and without empirical or theoretical basis.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
#FFS Geoffrey, you're trying to talk facts and logic to a Voxsplainer?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The burden of proof is on anyone that makes an argument. For instance, a person who said, "Any rich country that adopted it would probably double its population within a couple of years and fall into chaos" should provide evidence for that claim. Otherwise it's idle speculation.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And having people coming from poor countries are bad because....?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Burden of proof is on people who want to restrict others’ actions. In this case, people who want closed borders
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Eh? They turned up in their thousands in plastic toy boats. What do you do next?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.