You must log in or register to comment.
The leeches are not the immigrants, unless they happen to be an oligarch immigrant like Elon.
I vote for no borders.
Trump agrees. That’s why he “arrested” Maduro for breaking a US law
Monkey’s Paw.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress. We can move toward inevitable or destructive. I choose logically-forward, personally. Doesn’t matter my personal opinions
The moderate position is stop giving money to the gestapo. The people who want to give them money do not represent progress.
#Incrementalism #DoNotSplit
The convenient thing is that “Abolish ICE” is valid whether you want closed borders, open borders, or no borders.
The main predecessor to ICE was Immigration and Naturalization Service. Notice the difference in tone between Service and Enforcement? But even if you don’t don’t support immigration, ICE has morphed into a paramilitary secret police to do Trump’s bidding and has been attacking and deporting natural born citizens. If you only oppose “illegal” immigration, ICE has been targeting and deporting deporting people with all their paperwork in order.
Literally the only two reasons to support keeping ICE is that you support fascism and/or White Supremacy
Morphed? It was established to be a redundant paramilitary organization with less oversight and more jingoist loyalist than its predecessors or law enforcement in general. That it could be turned directly against Americans was an original design specification.
It’s valid to the majority but to those in power it’s a non starter.
I don’t give a rats ass who comes over the border. But we do need customs enforcement if for no other reason then to staunch the flow of illegal firearms into Mexico and Canada. Having said that I trust no one in ICE right now to do that (also they aren’t).
Firearms are a human right. The problem is not firearms heading into Mexico, it’s Gate Keeping firearms out of the hands of the common man.
Trafficked women and children be like… HELP
Drug couriers be like… THANKS
Terrorists be like…EASY
Fearmongerers be like…
Trafficked women and children be like… HELP
Drug couriers be like… THANKS
Terrorists be like…EASY
Person A - I don’t think cars should have breaks or seat belts.
Person B - I think that’s a bad idea for these reasons.
You…
Fearmongerers be like…
Conservatives need an enemy to rally against. That is all they have.
They have many other enemies. But having an enemy is required for the ideology.
Any ideology that is enemy based, eventually leads to genocide.
it’s baffling to me how the idea that “being born here does not make me entitled to services more than someone who wasn’t born here” is controversial among “leftists”
we all need food, we all need housing… why should it matter that my birth coordinates happen to be within an arbitrary drawing on the map ffs
is controversial among “leftists”
I have notice any leftists who consider that idea controversial. Mostly just Liberals/Democrats
I think what you’re seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:
- Change this one thing and everyone will be better off for it.
- An ideal world would have this feature.
Because we have limited resources and a country definitionally priorities its citizens over foreigners. If it doesn’t; then you basically no longer have citizens, you just have inhabitants.
That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
You guys don’t care
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It’s really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
And what is the issue there? Let’s prioritize our inhabitants then. It’s not like there’s not enough to go around.
There’s absolutely limited resources, specifically concernin what the government has the capability of handing out.
Unfortunately we have to think about “what’s in it for us?” If the answer is another mouth to put on welfare and medicaid then… Why?..
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
"what’s in it for us?
Ah, ok, you’re one of those. Might want to change your username
We don’t live in a world of abundance, abundance is a goal of humanity, were not there yet; and we don’t get there by printing money out of thin air and handing it out.
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
Billions of dollars is pennies compares what would be required to put the world on welfare, and those billions remove criminals and those preying on.l the generosity of our country.
we don’t live in a world of abundance
literally all studies about this make you wrong
iterally all studies about this make you wrong
You misunderstand, we live in a world that’s capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react.
Who’s saying to “put the world on welfare”? This conversation isn’t about getting things for free from the government, it’s about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.
Edit: “preying on the generosity of our country” is hilarious
The initial premis of the argument that I replied to was questioning why people who were born in the U.S. are entitled to something that those who are not born in the U.S. are not.
I’m all for net tax payers entering the U.S. through legal routes. Methods that protect the immigrant from exploitation from employers.
WORLDWIDE SCHENGEN 🥺👉👈
Yes. Open borders means more citizens, which means more tax revenue, which means more social services. It’s kinda how that whole “government” thing works
Easiest way to get rid of undocumented immigrants is to grant them all citizenship. Problem solved.
Bada bing bada boom
Rather than the “Easiest way”, how about a good way…
How about we make a nice world to bring folks to. Y’know… end manufactured scarcity, stop using people as pawns on the grand chessboard, stop conjuring precarity to cull and terrorise people by, and so on. Y’know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to? … no more economic migrants under duress… Everybody happy.
“Let’s figure out this food/air deal, OK? 'K. I’m just weird, you know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to?” ~Bill Hicks
Exactly. Being a migrant isn’t exactly a picnic. I think it’s reasonable to assume most people would like to live near their families and homes if that’s a viable option. I still think people should be able to go anywhere in the world if they want to, but they shouldn’t have to. A lot of the “problems” of immigration are just the point at which other people’s problems become inconvenient for me. If we can make the whole world a nice place to live, we’ll be well on our way to making borders not matter so much.
At a minimum I demand we all be as free to move around the world as the products, money and material that our labor creates.
I lived in Germany for a couple years, about 30 minutes from the French border. Every once in a while, my wife and I would cross the border to buy some French wines.
The border didn’t even stop us. There were buildings off to one side, but the highway was wide open, no barriers or checkpoints or anything. Didn’t even need to slow down. It was like crossing state lines in the US.
America is so used to being isolated from the rest of the world, with oceans on either side, that we make a big deal about the two countries that actually touch our border. I feel it just exacerbates our fear of foreign threats, because we’re not 100% secure on all sides.
And of course, a lot of Canadians mostly look and sound like white Americans, so we don’t think twice about them, but Mexicans look and sound different, so it’s easy to rile people up about the “invading foreign culture” that will “destroy America.” It’s dumb racist gaslighting, but it’s sadly effective against Americans who have never left the country or lived anywhere near either of our borders. Which is most of the population.
And of course, a lot of Canadians mostly look and sound like white Americans, so we don’t think twice about them, but Mexicans look and sound different, so it’s easy to rile people up about the “invading foreign culture” that will “destroy America.”
The echo of America’s original sin still dwells in the heart of every American. Deep down, there’s some primal fear that what we did to others will be done to us.
Identity is difficult. Clinging to an identity that describes half a continent will be the end of the United States of America.
two countries
If we count all the bases, USA has more countries bordering its land, than any other.
As a former US military member, I’d like to point out that we consider our foreign bases to be American soil, so anyone born on base is considered a legal US citizen. However, the bases themselves are loaned to us by the host country through legal agreements. Depending on the country, we could have unrestricted use of the space, or we could just be visitors on the host country’s local military base with limited space allocated to us.
I remember in Germany, they have such strict laws against tearing down natural forests that most of our bases had to remain mostly forested. We had very little space to construct buildings on base.
How many crimes against humanity did you commit in service of the war machine?
The EU trade/travel model was a good one, even if the ECB is a moral abomination.
Who the fuck engages in conversation with conservatives?
There is no such thing as an American conservative.
We should have open borders. The only thing needed to get in should be a background check. But anyone who hasn’t committed violent crimes should be able to live and work in the country.
No. I’m not worried about being swamped by a flood of people from poorer countries. Why? Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person. We will only ever attract as many immigrants as there are jobs to support them.
Of course, I would want reciprocity. I would support signing mutual open border agreements with poorer countries. They can send workers in need of work here. We can send retirees in need of low cost of living places there. The flow in both directions is kept in check by market forces, the same way we regulate the production of every good and service in our economies.
Of course, I would want reciprocity. I would support signing mutual open border agreements with poorer countries.
There’s literally zero incentive for a poorer country to sign this agreement with a richer country.
Many of the poor countries intelligent, productive population leave, and basically no one from the rich country have any incentive to move to the poor country.
You must be unaware of:
-
Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
-
The whole fucking EU
Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
Do remittances outweigh the benefit of having your own productive, successful upper class? Do remittances give you doctors to support your population and engineers to build your infrastructure?
The whole fucking EU
Is a union due to the similarity of the members, there is no Nigeria level member country of the EU. The poorest nation in the EU is Hungary/Bulagria that is at 60-70% of the average EU income.
If Nigeria was a member it would be around the 20% level with next to nothing to offer to the agreement. Everyone that coupe afford to, would immediately move our of Nigeria and bring next to nothing to wherever they moved.
The United States and Canada could absolutely have such an agreement with a similar level of benefit. The United States and Argentina could not.
-
If you have any requirement for entry then it’s not really an open border and you need some kind of enforcement to enforce those requirements.
Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person
Life as a homeless person can be better than life in a war torn country.
The flow in both directions is kept in check by market forces, the same way we regulate the production of every good and service in our economies.
Libertarian ah take
Life as a homeless person can be better than life in a war torn country.
Immigrants however are extremely unlikely to be homeless. People who take the initiative to flee across a continent tend to be self-starters and highly motivated. There’s a reason immigrants start businesses at far higher rates than native born citizens. By accepting immigrants, you are selecting for a population of the most motivated and driven people in the regions you’re drawing from.
Libertarian ah take
So? This is how we regulated immigration for the vast, vast majority of the history of human civilization. People move to areas with more opportunities. If too many people move to those areas, the opportunities available to immigrants decrease, and the flow of people slows. It’s a self-regulating system. It only ever becomes a thing to worry about if you’re concerned about the skin color of your neighbors.
I understand what you’re saying about immigration, but that holds less true with respect to war forcing people to move.
So?
I was more pointing towards the suggestion that market forces kept everything in check, which, no, they don’t. The market does not magically stay afloat without intervention. Production is not just regulated by market forces.
But most importantly, countries have capacities. America, for example, can hold many more people than it is, comfortably. But if you have a place that’s smaller, like Britain or sweden, free border immigration will result in strains in both the cultural and infrastructure situation in the countries at hand as they rapidly grow beyond present capacity, which they will if free immigration is allowed.
Excess workers willing to work for lower pay can also drive wages down, and allow companies to exploit workers more easily(often regardless of the actual law).
I’m generally in favor of reasonably lax immigration policies, but free border immigration is not a good idea. People need time to adjust to the culture of where they’re going, and you don’t want to overload that
There is less war today that at any point of human history.
Not sure needing any sort of check would be “open borders”, but let’s assume it’s open to anyone who doesn’t have a violent criminal record. Now all the non-violent people with criminal records are fleeing to your country to avoid prosecution. Do you allow them to be extradited?
Do you still have a military to protect your country from others? How do you prevent a foreign nation from just sending enough people over to instigate a coup? Way cheaper than going to war, and they wouldn’t even need to be sneaky or underhanded; just overwhelm the local population and overthrow their government.
Universal healthcare would completely collapse if people can move to a country, get treatment, then go back home. Are you doing a health screening and making sure they have a job and live in the country for a minimum amount of time?
Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person
You can bring your family too so that’s a non-issue, and many people would be better off homeless in a wealthy country than making do in a poor one. People will travel within a country to be homeless in the more desirable places, if there’s essentially no boundary imagine how many people that would attract. Especially if the wealthy country continues to have outreach and support programs for the homeless and still enforces laws in the inevitable camps that spring up.
Now you’re arresting loads and people and it’s straining your resources to imprison them all. Do you start deporting people who break certain laws?
Seems like we’re starting to invent all the immigration rules that never used to exist but sprang up out of necessity.
sprang up out of necessity.
You mean out of racism?
I’m not American, but won’t say every immigration law is right; just that going full-open is an over-correction.
This “overcorrection” was the case for the vast majority of human history. It only stopped being the case due to racism and nationalism. I’m not sure what you think you’re appealing to here but this is just not reflected in reality.
You’re taking things way too literally. The US had open borders for most of its history, and it didn’t get invaded or fall to pieces. When people say “open boarder” they mean no restrictions on immigration other than criminal records.
Your speculation on vast camps is hogwash. Immigrants maintain much lower unemployment levels than native-born citizens. And you can have all your social welfare benefits tied to citizenship. These are problems the EU solved a long time ago. Look more into history and real world examples, less vague speculation.
The US had open borders for most of its history
Just because a social program worked in past doesn’t mean it will work in the future. Hell, just because a social program worked in another country doesn’t mean it will work in this country.
We can’t have people just coming in and immediately qualifying for government assistance. As selfish as it sounds people shouldn’t come into any country with the expectation of economic assistance. The U.S. is not the world’s welfare program; it cannot afford it.
I believe that everyone in the country should have free medical care, free or deeply subsidized minimal housing, and free or deeply subsidized food. (I believe this for everyone, but it has to happen somewhere before it can happen everywhere.)
This is not possible if we allow unlimited access to absolutely anyone (and their families) regardless of whether there is employment to sustain them.
We should have work visas sufficiently available for all the jobs that we need filled, and we should have harsh enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers. (Treat them like slavers because that’s what they are). Deportations should be done compassionately and should not treat immigrants as criminals or national security threats.
Open borders are a naive notion, but we should be a lot closer to open borders than to what we have now.
I wasn’t saying open borders before, but I am now. Picking primary candidates who support it too. We need the EU model. Fuck whatever broken system we have now.
The EU is notorious for its brutal and heavy-handed immigration enforcement. This is one rare case where the answer is in the past; America didn’t even have laws restricting immigration for about a hundred years.
European here. You do realize that the EU is still quite picky about who gets in, right?
Within the EU itself it’s very easy to move around, I can drive through several countries without seeing a single border checkpoint. Actually getting into the EU if you’re from a “less desirable” nation? I hear it’s not all that easy.
It’s much harder to get citizenship in most EU countries than it is to get citizenship in the USA. Until Trump, it was also easier to get into the US on a visa than to get into Europe on a visa.
I think I’ve seen border checkpoints while driving between EU countries, but it was hard to tell because they hadn’t been in operation for decades. But, there’s still a vague sense of a border. It seems like the countries maintain that area enough so that if ever they had to put the border control points back into operation it could be done. So, you can sort of tell that you crossed a border, even if you don’t have to slow down at all.
I seem to remember that the USA was part of the model when the EU was being designed. That doing business between EU member states was supposed to be as easy as doing business state-to-state in the USA. It isn’t quite there yet. But, the USA has been working at reducing state-to-state friction for nearly 2 centuries, whereas the EU has only had decades.
We do have the EU model. Travel all you want across US state borders. Europe and America both enforce outer borders.
The system in the US is indeed broken, as is Europe in slightly different ways.
Sounds like a bit of an opposame risk, walking problem-reaction-solutioned straight into NAU. Great grandest father mason would be proud.
Open boo-orders
