Ryan Bourne writes a largely sensible article about immigration in City AM, marred by this diagonal comparison:
Indeed, the cost of immigration quotas can be seen with a simple example. Suppose an entrepreneur wanted to come to the UK and had the potential to build a business worth billions. Ludicrously, if he was number 100,001 that year, he’d be kept out.
That is the crassest diagonal comparison I have heard for ages and has no place in a sensible discussion. You could counter it with some nonsense like this:
Indeed, the benefit of immigration quotas can be seen with a simple example. Suppose an violent extremist wanted to come to the UK and had the potential to blow up a building worth billions. Conveniently, if he was number 100,001 that year, he’d be kept out.
There is a killer argument against Citizen's Income that says welfare payments should be contributory, i.e. you can only claim unemployment benefit if you have been working and paying tax for a minimum period and then are made redundant. This is economic nonsense but has a lot of political appeal. Worse still, it is cancelled out by the equal and opposite notion that welfare payments should be means tested, which is also economic nonsense with a lot of political appeal. (I suppose means-testing in turn is largely cancelled out by tax breaks for 'savings' which are also economic nonsense with a lot of political appeal...).
Anyway, returning to the article...
Ideally, this would mean lowering barriers to migration as broadly as possible but making the UK’s welfare system more contributory to avoid any welfare draw factors.
Complete bollocks. Outside the EU, we can merrily restrict welfare payments to UK-resident British Citizens only, or those who have lived (or indeed worked) here legally for a set number of years, or anything else sensible. This applies to non-contributory/universal benefits like a Citizen's Income (or the right to vote; to use the NHS 'for free' or anything else) just as much as contributory benefits.