“If we allow open immigration we will be overrun. The new immigrants will swamp our schools and our welfare system. We can’t allow it to happen.”

This is the most common argument against the right to migrate. The big fallacy is that it presumes that the State has obligations and that the migrant has none. However in a world where we are reducing the power of the state over people by allowing them to leave one country and join another they also have obligations. The first is that they cannot be an unreasonable economic burden on the current residents. Second they must assimilate as rapidly as possible to the existing culture. It is the new culture that attracted them in the first place so they need to acculturate. This means learn the language and the traditions of the new culture. In Israel new immigrants are required to attend ulpan which is combination of language and culture immersion classes.
One way to meet the cost of new immigrants is to bring them into the system so they pay taxes. People who have to operate in the cash economy are not paying taxes or subject to other regulations. Another way is to require that all new immigrants have a sponsor who will post a bond such that if the immigrant goes on welfare in their first 5 years in the USA they will cover the cost. Immigrants who went on welfare would be subject to deportation.
The right to migrate is a right, like freedom of speech, that transcends national boundries. Nations that hide behind economic arguements to restrict migration are wrong ethically and economically.

For more information on the Right to Migrate visit radicalmigration.com