But that brings us back to my original point. We end up discriminating against individuals based on which country they're from.
I'm fine with discriminating against individuals based on how "beneficial" they are as a person, provided the criteria are fair and objective.
I'm not so fine with discriminating against individuals based on how "beneficial" it was to make a deal with their country.
To give an extreme example, an illiterate, unemployed German with criminal convictions can enter and leave the UK freely, while a Nigerian brain surgeon is still going to have to jump through a lot of legal hoops to live here. How is that not unfair discrimination, or even racism?
>How is that not unfair discrimination, or even racism?
It is unfair, and it is discrimination. The benefits of having unrestricted borders with Germany are simply more valuable. Like, I'm okay with unfairly admitting an illiterate unemployed German felon if it means that we get a bunch of highly valuable movement, trade, and collaboration between our countries. The German felon is part of a valuable package of cross-border interactions, and if you're not part of the package deal, you have to convince us on your own merit.
Another tack: being a German citizen is Bayesian evidence that you're probably like the average German. How is it fair to the German to spend large quantities of time and money to prove something we already have good reason to believe is true?
It's just that such deal would not be beneficial for Britain, whereas as in Schengen, there are clear benefits.