I guess they could, but it would be less likely. I mean once you can legally work for 7.50+ an hour anywhere, why wouldn't you?

Most will get legitimate jobs (unless they just can't find them).

Good luck in this economy... and i don't see them taking the jobs of people with work expierence they can put on resumes.

So it should be win win for them.

The only question is... do they deserve a win win situation for doing something illegal.

I don't see how anyone who supports free markets can be against open immigration

Your kidding right?

I mean... most african countries can tell you why it's a bad idea.

People go to the "lands of oppurtunity" and end up finding there isn't enough prosperity to go around and actually end up in worse situations then they had back home.

First off the problems of African countries have nothing to do with voluntary immigration, either into or out of Africa, colonization, slavery forced labor, laying out of borders without regard for ethnic differences are the cause of problems there, in fact its been economically shown that the aftereffects of the slave trade is a huge factor in the current economic and political instability.

Your land of prosperity argument is flawed, first off open immigration hasn't existed since before WW1, and most of those who immigrated in those periods prior to WW1 did find greater opportunity not only for themselves but their children and grandchildren.  Most of the problems that arise from immigration are actually ethnic/racial, and not economic.

No, I mean look at what happens in an african country.

People "immigrate" from the countrysides to the cities... and more often then not end up having worse lives while making lives in the cities worse.

All because the cities are where the "success" is.

Full free you can go wherever you want immigration would lead to modern shanty towns and an overflooding on public services.

See how the average muslim lives in France for example (though granted the french being racist has some hand in that.).

If they didn't have immigration controls they would be flooded even more.

There is something to be said for only letting in as many people as your country can handle.

What you're not understanding is you're trying to take situations where open immigration doesn't exist and trying to use that to say that open immigration would be bad, first off the problems in Africa as I already pointed out are systemic and far deeper than people moving into the city and not finding opportunity, in fact for many in the city, things would be worse in many of the more tribal regions.  You have political and ethnic tensions in many of the countries that are the problems not immigration

As you yourself pointed out, France has a racial/ethnic problem that is a bigger reason than economic, also you are making the flaw of thinking that if there was open immigration there would be a bigger problem, wrong, if there was open immigration, the excess population would move to other European countries where population pressures would not be an issue.

There is open immigration inside the EU...

also you seem to be missing the fact that there is excess population. 

For example.  Immigration increases the US' population by about 2.5 million per year.  The US doesn't have a population problem to where we really need more then that per year... it would actually probably start getting bothersome

One plan during the Civil War the south was considering in it's darker days was to release a large portion of their slaves and deport them all north to wreck the Norths economy since they would have to take care of them.

I'm not really looking for a theological debate, I'm just posting these because I know CommunistHater hates the fact that the Bible he wants to force on everybody else has ideas that he hates.

Regarding the verse, its not invidual charity if you are killed for not giving.  Ananias sold a piece of property and only gave part of it to the Apostle for redistribution.  This upset Peter so much that he had God kill Ananias.  If charity was not required (I guess that wouldnt be charity), then Ananias not giving away all of his money would not have been an issue.

Immigration is a little more complex than just economic. There is the population factor as well. There are population problems everywhere but some cultures have people breeding at much higher rates than others. With open immigration, the peoplefrom those countries can easily swarm in and eventually over-populate the countries who were originally on track to achieving lower populations.

IE, my country, Canada; the native population (by natives I mean people with roots here rather than the actual original peoples here) reproduces at about 1.5 children per couple. Yet our population continues to grow because people from other countries come in and have 8+ kids, or bring over their 8 kids. We value our open spaces, most immigrants do not; they crowd into expanding cities. Cities are nice and all but they pollute, they are like a cancer that poisons the beauty of this country. Places like Quebec are criticized heavily for their policies (and I am not French, my background is mostly Swede with a bit of English, Welsh, German, and Danish) without considering that maybe they're right to have it as tough as it is to get into the province. Quebec also does very well in lowering pollution, which is the clear opposite of Alberta which is a backwards province who has heavily increased emissions; they're so backwards that they even ban pet rats and such.

Anyway, I don't think immigration is a problem if the nations share a similar birthrate. Why should we take the brunt of other nations' Malthusian dilema when we can prevent it here? What we need to do is close that book, educate the other nations, increase their medical awareness. BIRTH CONTROL. This needs to be done, otherwise keep their population explosions contained. Let them see the suffering that they bring and force them to reform back home before joining us. The worlds population sits at nearly 7 billion in a world whose water and energy supplies, and environment, is barely comfortable with 2 billion.