Living in a poor country doesn't mean people suffer. People can be happy even in poverty. The solution for them is to build their country so that their children can be proud of them and don't have to emigrate. No rich country will accept poor from somewhere else, just because there people prefered procreation to industrial development.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

What bothers me is that rich people like my friend Bruno who has about 80 million dollars can live anywhere they want because they can invest their money in Canada's banks and so they make themselves desirable. Poor people who can't invest this amount are not allowed to do the same which is inhuman.

A nation and its people benefit from a wealthy person immigrating to their country, as they spend that wealth, invest it in capital, pay large amounts of taxes, and overall help everyone. A poor person immigrating in is a leech on the system, and hurts all the other residents of that nation. Which do you think they'd be more happy to let in?

__________________

True by buying goods and services from others they create a market and so make more jobs. But that's exactly my point. The laws of economics (the word economics actually means "laws of the household") favor the wealthy and systematically discriminate against the poor. The job of the state is to enforce and protect this exploitative economic system. I mean money is like a God. With money you can get almost anything.

the reason they only let rich and talented into their country is most likely because they can bring something to canada. Why should they let one man into canada who is going to do a job hundreds of people in canada already can do.

They aren't being discrimatatory they are doing whats best for the people already in the country.

__________________
Its not just a a name if i die I DIE FREE

Well, exactly, that's the concept that pretty much drives every immigration law, everywhere.

__________________
Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes. - Howard Zinn

Then why not simply abolish states and everything will be more just?

what does that have to anything i said?

__________________
Its not just a a name if i die I DIE FREE

What is just about letting a foreigner into a nation to leach off of the efforts of others?

What is just about letting a foreigner into a nation when they will make the lives of all the citizens in that nation a little worse off?

What gives that foreigner the right to come in and steal their hard earned wealth?

__________________

A foreigner seeking employment in Canada coerces no one and violates no one's rights (there is no "right" to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market).

A policy of open immigration would indeed force unskilled Canadian laborers to compete for their jobs at lower wages. However, far from being an evil, this is a desirable outcome, one which should form the basis for a new immigration policy. By inviting competition into the Canadian labor markets, artificially inflated labor costs could be eliminated and a greater level of labor efficiency could be achieved. As the cost of labor (itself a cost of production) decreased, entrepreneurs and producers could produce more efficiently, enabling them to offer products and services at lower prices as they compete for consumers' dollars. Lower prices in turn increase the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer, and thus enhance living standards for everyone. This is happening even now as some small business owners use “illegal” immigrant labor to lower their operating costs and thus lower consumer prices. This is good for both consumers and the economy at large. As immigration makes the Canadian labor market more competitive, costs of production are reduced and prices decline. In the long run, even the domestic laborer who is forced to lower his wage demands is not any worse off, since what he loses in terms of lower nominal wages he may well regain in terms of lower prices on the goods and services he purchases as a consumer. Meanwhile, everyone else benefits, and no one is privileged at the coerced expense of anyone else.

So yes i am for open immigration and free trade. Free trade is, in my opinion, the best way to create a fairer and balanced economic system, thereby increasing the overall economic benefits to all concerned parties.