I'm opposed to welfare, with very sparse and limited exceptions. I think that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people who are in dire straits have no one to blame for their problems but themselves. Propping people up who are destined to never be successful only wastes time and money. Whenever aid IS given, it should always be in a form that encourages the person receiving it to be self-sufficient. The amount of people receiving government subsidies should always be kept to an absolute minimum. Pervasive social programs not only encourage abuse, but also discourage self improvement.

Economically, I'm an advocate for free trade, again with few exceptions. The economy does best when there's nothing impeding it from operating efficiently. Part of the role of government in the economy should be to remove obstacles to efficiency and ensure that the process runs smoothly. The only other instance I can think of where government could get involved is in protecting crucial industries from foreign takeover (but NOT blocking foreign investment), and of course preventing monopolies. The private sector, not government, should be the engine of the economy.

Immigration is a necessary process. However, it's a massively disadvantageous necessity in regards not only to the economic damage it does to the countries affected by widespread emigration (e.g., brain drain), but also for its erosion of the fundamental character of the country affected by widespread immigration. Immigration shouldn't be an overwhelming, demographic-altering affair. It's needed for short-term growth, but can be catastrophic in the long-term if it's not regulated correctly. Immigrants should only be admitted to the extent that they can be advantageously absorbed.