I still don&#x27;t see how that&#x27;s an argument. How is it unfair to offer US citizens the resources collected by the US government? That is the express reason the concept of a &quot;US citizen&quot; exists.<p>US citizens pay taxes. They choose to distribute that money among themselves. That is the purpose of the US government: to protect and serve the interests of US citizens.<p>If you feel that this is morally wrong, then I don&#x27;t see how you can&#x27;t argue that <i>every single aspect</i> of <i>any</i> government is morally wrong. The fact that I live in the US and not Syria is <i>unfair</i>, but it&#x27;s not morally wrong.<p><i>&quot;If however, you offer a check that the person can use at their discretion (and thus choose to for example use it for vacation or gambling or any purpose they choose), then it is unfair and morally questionable. I think this is obvious.&quot;</i><p>Do you have a job? Are there stipulations on how you can spend your money? Because you are arguing that paying people without such stipulation is morally questionable.<p>And furthermore, Immigration is already controlled. You don&#x27;t get US Citizenship without the approval of the federal government. How does this change that? They let fewer people get citizenship? If these immigrants are benefiting the economy, then surely they are worth the basic income we&#x27;d be paying them for that benefit.<p>Which gets me to my point: You&#x27;re not handing out free money for nothing. You&#x27;re paying people to be economic participants. There&#x27;s no reason to require stipulations on that, and no reason for you to think it&#x27;s considerably more unfair to anybody than the regular variation in life&#x27;s circumstances.