> Other countries can align their laws without being given money, and should if those laws are better than their own.

"Better" presumes something which does not always exist. Sometimes "aligned" is itself the improvement — but aligned to whom? Why should, e.g. Bulgaria pick alignment with Parisian interests over alignment with Moscow's?

But also, mere alignment is not sufficient: note that customs checks were introduced immediately after Brexit, because the requirement isn't simply to be aligned, but to have the force of international agreement over maintaining that alignment.

> It's not a "benefit" to be paying them to fix their own legal systems.

Compare and contrast with where this hasn't happened — there's a huge growth opportunity in many African nations since well before the end of the colonial era, so much of that potential is held back precisely because the legal systems there aren't able to prevent corruption. Making the investment in the legal system would make it possible to invest in the nations there, which would benefit both those nations (by having lots of money pouring in that doesn't immediately turn into a corrupt official's holiday home) and also the investors (who get a return on that investment).

> Cheap immigrant labour isn't a benefit to the workers in the country,

Oh yes it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

> minimum wage laws still apply anyway so the benefits even to rich people are limited,

That benefits both sides of the equation: the workers from the poorer country get a boost, you get more people willing to work at (or near) that level.

> and you don't have to pay foreign countries to attract immigrants from them. They come regardless of what money their government is receiving.

Only when their qualifications are going to be recognised, when their health insurance options are valid, etc. — it isn't enough to just know how to be an electrician, you also need the local insurance company to sell you public liability insurance.

> In fact big transfer payments make it less likely that they will want to migrate, not more.

Only once the investments have actually converted into a real boost to the economy, thus paying for themselves.

> Finally, countries generally try to be stable locations for investment regardless of EU membership or receiving transfer payments.

The EU is a mechanism for doing that; that it isn't the only mechanism is irrelevant.

> not a single argument in it for why fees are a "benefit" make any sense

You're misreading this, I think. Fees pay for the benefits, they're not the benefits themselves.

They one of the things that makes EU a place of growth. It's like all the discussions about USAID, except on your doorstep. Or, for that matter, any investment scheme your own government pays for out of taxes which are spent entirely within your own country, like highways — I benefit from the existence of a highway network, despite having only owned a car for a week total and that nearly a decade ago, this is like that.

> Please re-read what I wrote, as this answer doesn't seem to make sense in context.

Could say the same to you, on this, given you've ignored that:

(1) The Blue Card scheme is not used by all EU nations

(2) Each nation can set its own quotas for how many are issued — "As of August 2020, European countries vary wildly in the number of issued Blue Cards. Cyprus, Greece and Netherlands have not yet issued any cards," from my link

(3) Each nation has its own additional visa scheme entirely separate from this

(4) The Blue Card scheme was not "imposed", it was a voluntary streamlining (see #1)

Your previous comment claimed, falsely:

> a country can set its visa policy to attract however many migrants it wants if it's outside the EU, but not if it's inside.

The countries absolutely can. And do.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-immigration-policy-whats-changi...

I was showing you that the closest thing you had, the blue card, still wasn't what you claimed.