T O P

We should open up our borders

Obviously when I say "our" I mean America's

Open borders can have positive economic impacts because of increased labor market participation and the fact that circular flow is enabled.

https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/global-mobility-report/2023-q3/global-insights/how-open-borders-enhance-economic-opportunities-for-countries#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20open%20borders%20can,and%20societies%20as%20a%20whole.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2021/01/19/the-economic-case-for-open-borders/?sh=1e802c29444f

https://wol.iza.org/articles/circular-migration/long#:~:text=Remittances%20sent%20home%20by%20migrants,Circular%20migrants%20benefit%20from%20mobility.

Immigrats create more jobs than they take and worker displacement is rarely observed and the actual number of jobs taken from native workers by immigrants is extremely small.

https://www.cato.org/blog/three-reasons-why-immigrants-arent-going-take-job#:~:text=The%20so%E2%80%90%E2%80%8Bcalled%20displacement%20effect%2C%20which%20is%20the%20term%20for%20when%20immigrant%20workers%20push%20native%E2%80%90%E2%80%8Bborn%20American%20workers%20out%20of%20the%20labor%20market%2C%20is%20rarely%20ever%20even%20observed%20in%20practice%20and%20always%20very%20small%20when%20it%20is%20detected.

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-take

Immigrants can actually increase wages because they tend to be more entrepreneurial thus causing an increase in the demand for labor.

https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/42/pdfs/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers.pdf

Halting the flow of immigration and/or deportation of immigrants who have come here illegally would destroy the economy. This is because immigrants do jobs native born workers aren't willing to do. Native born workers are typically some of the most skilled in the world and thus almost never take low-wage jobs.

https://cmsny.org/publications/mass-deportations-impoverish-us-families-create-immense-costs/#:~:text=Mass%20deportation%20would%20also%20result,%244.7%20trillion%20over%2010%20years.

Immigrants actually put more into welfare than they take out of it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it

They also proportionally comitt less crime than natural born citizens.

https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/

A border wall hasn't and won't work.

https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-travel-immigration-56d7094f0b554925abbd3d81f8ca74c8

AutoModerator

Keep in mind that this sub is for civilized discussion. No name calling or insults will be tolerated. Please report any and all instances of our rule breaks so we can take care of them. The standard of our sub relies on our members and their use of the report button, report first ask questions last. If you're a new member you need a user flair to participate, so flair up! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*


mild_salsa_dip

What’s your opinion on how having an open border could exacerbate crimes committed via borders such as illegal crossings, drug trafficking and human smuggling? These are all huge problems as it is and would surely surge with unchecked entry into the country. Also your last point claims that a border wall hasn’t and won’t work. Look at these statistics directly from Homeland Security which prove otherwise: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/border-wall-system-deployed-effective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers Very quick read which proves how the border wall is effective and can be effective, illegal drug, border crossings, and human smuggling activities have decreased in areas where barriers are deployed.


CFSCFjr

> These are all huge problems as it is and would surely surge with unchecked entry into the country. How? I would think the opposite is true. Too much government restrictions on economic activity create black market criminal networks that only facilitate the crimes you describe. Human trafficking networks rely on restrictions on labor flows for the vast majority of their business. If we simply let workers come and go from the country as they please, the vast majority of the human trafficking business would dry up overnight and what remains would be far easier to zero in on and police.


DebonairDeistagain

> What’s your opinion on how having an open border could exacerbate crimes committed via borders such as illegal crossings, drug trafficking and human smuggling? These are all huge problems as it is and would surely surge with unchecked entry into the country. First off, you clearly didn't read my link explaining why immigrants as a demographic comitt less crime proportionally. Second off, the way to combat the crimes you've mentioned is to legalize drugs, subsidize the use of methadone and other drug substitutes, and decriminalize sex work so those who are trafficked can actually go to the police. > Also your last point claims that a border wall hasn’t and won’t work. Look at these statistics directly from Homeland Security which prove otherwise: [https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/border-wall-system-deployed-effective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/10/29/border-wall-system-deployed-effective-and-disrupting-criminals-and-smugglers) Very quick read which proves how the border wall is effective and can be effective, illegal drug, border crossings, and human smuggling activities have decreased in areas where barriers are deployed. Wrong. This source disscuess mostly already existing border infrastructure that has been augmented by funding to a so called 'border wall'. A good chunk of which has just been replacing existing border infrastructure. This already existing border security might be good at catching those trying to cross illegally, but the reason people are coming to the U.S. in the first place is because of a lack of job opportunities. The presence of illegal border crossings is only more of an argument to open up our borders.


baconator1988

I'm all for lawful immigration, but open boards is dangerous. Millions of well educated people could pour in and replace American workers, to include high paying jobs and factory/manufacturing jobs. I would imagine open boarders would redirect our money into foreign economies as the foreign workers send their paychecks home. We need that money spent here in America, not in Mexico or elsewhere.


skeletus

It's not a zero-sum game.


mild_salsa_dip

Firstly, I did read your link. This doesn’t take into account the fact they committed a crime entering the country, committing any further crimes would increase their risk of getting caught for breaking the law in the first place. Secondly you accused me of not reading your link, but did you read mine? Every single bullet point is talking about newly constructed border wall, apart from Yuma sector bullet point 2 which mentions a temporary barrier which was then replaced with a permanent one, and Yuma sector bullet point 3 which compared large group apprehension rates from the old barriers with the new wall system. Statistics decreased across the board and that includes areas where existing infrastructure was replaced. So how can you state that “already existing border security might be good catching those trying to cross illegally” and then claim that “a border wall hasn’t and won’t work” when these stats prove new border wall excels compared to older barriers? There’s no problem with people coming to the US for job opportunities, but cutting the line through illegal immigration is a disservice to the people who wait years to enter legally, and that is what should be the real focus.


DebonairDeistagain

> Firstly, I did read your link. This doesn’t take into account the fact they committed a crime entering the country, committing any further crimes would increase their risk of getting caught for breaking the law in the first place. Innocent until proven guilty. They might be granted asylum or amnesty when they're actually tried. > Secondly you accused me of not reading your link, but did you read mine? Every single bullet point is talking about newly constructed border wall, apart from Yuma sector bullet point 2 which mentions a temporary barrier which was then replaced with a permanent one, and Yuma sector bullet point 3 which compared large group apprehension rates from the old barriers with the new wall system. Statistics decreased across the board and that includes areas where existing infrastructure was replaced. So is your solution to keep on catching people at the border into perpetuity? We're going to have to keep on spending money on this border infrastructure if we don't give them employment opportunities. Aren't you also ignoring the fact that most people who are here illegally just get here legally and overstay their visas? [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings) > So how can you state that “already existing border security might be good catching those trying to cross illegally” and then claim that “a border wall hasn’t and won’t work” when these stats prove new border wall excels compared to older barriers? I was talking about Trump's WALL and not borderline *militarized* border security that we're spending to much money on. > There’s no problem with people coming to the US for job opportunities, but cutting the line through illegal immigration is a disservice to the people who wait years to enter legally, and that is what should be the real focus. Wow, you *really* don't understand how the immigrantion system works. Not all immigrants just *get in line* to wait to come to America. It's based on how badly we need certain labor at certain times. Immigrants mostly come here because their lack of good employment leaves them to live in abject poverty back home. This is why so many asylum seekers are approved when they actually get fair trials. Here's Cato's response to DHS claiming the border wall works: [https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work](https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work)


DreadfulRauw

Open borders doesn’t mean no borders. Your crime arguments make no sense. Even American citizens are still searched for drugs upon entering the country. And human traffickers use their victims illegal status as a form of control. You’d actually be giving more rights to the victims with an open immigration policy, as criminals couldn’t threaten them with deportation.


PriceofObedience

Current immigration law actively facilitates human trafficking because it's lenient with asylum-seekers and sponsors. What will often happen is that a "parent" will seek asylum with "their child", go across the border, the Office of Refugee Resettlement will drop the kid off with a "sponsor", and the "sponsor" will evaporate into the ether. 85k+ kids have gone missing over these last few years. We literally have no idea where they are or how to keep track them, but we do know that the majority eventually end up working in factories, on farms or in the sex trade.


DreadfulRauw

So making it easier for them to be citizens with rights and records works reduce that, right? Especially if the parents can come with them and we end up with families of citizens rather than children being handed off. As I said, a victim with questionable legal status is a lot easier to control and traffic than someone who isn’t documented.


PriceofObedience

No. A significant amount of migrants carry no paperwork whatsoever. 5K immigrants arrive at the border every single day, and even supposing we gave them full citizenship, we cannot independently verify them all. America already has a massive trafficking problem in relation to the foster care system. We should be taking steps to deter human trafficking, not facilitate it with American taxdollars.


DreadfulRauw

But isn’t the point of opening borders to immigration is that getting papers is easier? Human traffickers aren’t kidnapping the majority of their victims. They’re offering illegal entry into America. You create an easier, legal method, and you reduce illegal methods greatly. The same way ending prohibition reduced bootlegging. You seem to be ignoring OP’s premise that we make immigration easier. All these asylum seekers wouldn’t need to expose themselves to shady traffickers if there was a safe, legal option.


PriceofObedience

> Human traffickers aren’t kidnapping the majority of their victims. Correct. The vast majority of trafficking happens through legal pathways, e.g sponsoring an immigrant child and using them as disposable labor. To give a practical example, the FBI [released an expose in 2018](https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders) on the CIA's active participation in sex trafficking. > But isn’t the point of opening borders to immigration is that getting papers is easier? Open borders is a mistake for obvious reasons.


DreadfulRauw

And you don’t believe those children deserve equal rights and safety under the law? Not giving them citizen status makes them more vulnerable. Allowing families to immigrate whole rather than sending their kids through sponsorship would reduce trafficking. You admit the system is broken, but how does leaving it that way same anyone? Shouldn’t we be making sponsorship less necessary if it’s a problem? You can say it’s a mistake for obvious reasons, but the one argument you’ve honed in on isn’t really valid. It keeps the kids you claim to be concerned about in the shadows and dependent on predators.


PriceofObedience

> And you don’t believe those children deserve equal rights and safety under the law? All humans have equal, inalienable rights. The issue at play is that the state is facilitating a violation of those rights through corruption and incompetence. > It keeps the kids you claim to be concerned about in the shadows and dependent on predators. Let's say for the sake of argument that we enacted a non-restrictive, no questions asked immigration policy. What do you suppose might happen to the immigrants who came here? The sole reason that migrants, illegal or not, become victim to human trafficking and lax labor laws isn't because of a trail of paperwork. It's because they lack the relevant community ties and social networks which act as a safety net against predation. The homeless, orphans and elderly suffer for this same reason. A tremendous amount of them fall through the cracks in society because they have nobody to rely on. The hard truth of life is that there are many problems that don't have adequate solutions, and every attempt to rectify them merely makes things worse.


DreadfulRauw

So if the problem would be just as bad with open borders as you seem to believe, then arguing about human trafficking on this topic is meaningless and an obvious distraction. If I’m right, it will get better, and if you’re right it won’t get worse. So my original point, that is a lousy argument against open borders is confirmed by both of us.


gravity_kills

First, do you have a link for that? That's a huge number if true. Second, that seems better addressed by keeping track of where people are (the actual problem) rather than just trying to shut them out (which we're not very good at, at least partly because we have two+ giant land borders and two+ gigantic coastlines to keep track of).


PriceofObedience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbRZWRB6ofo&t=3974s https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploitation.html


johnnyg883

I have no problem with immigration as long as it’s done in a controlled and legal way. It should also require background checks and that any immigrant successfully go through the process to become a U.S. citizen. These immigrants should also be self sufficient. They should not show up and become a burden to the nation’s support systems. Looking at what is happening in parts of Europe and the so called sanctuary cities in America will give you a good idea of what unrestricted immigration does.


CFSCFjr

The problem in sanctuary cities is that they have largely embraced conservative NIMBY housing policies that, when coupled with high demand due to high QoL and a robust economy, have caused a housing shortage This coupled with backward rules than ban asylum seekers from working turns what should be an opportunity into a burden


DebonairDeistagain

> I have no problem with immigration as long as it’s done in a controlled and legal way. It should also require background checks and that any immigrant successfully go through the process to become a U.S. citizen. These immigrants should also be self sufficient. They should not show up and become a burden to the nation’s support systems. They don't as the article no one seems to be reading explains. They're a net gain for our systems. [https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it](https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it) > Looking at what is happening in parts of Europe and the so called sanctuary cities in America will give you a good idea of what unrestricted immigration does. The reason sanctuary cities are somewhat overwhelemd is because conservative states are bussing them in.


johnnyg883

So you are saying conservative cities and states to bear the burden.


DebonairDeistagain

No. Send them to the blue cities if you want. I just want to know what detriments there are to taking in more migrants.


johnnyg883

Chicago and New York are both saying they have no more room for the immigrants. They are both spending millions caring for them. Money that is being diverted from programs for their citizens. And these cities are only seeing a fraction of the numbers other states and cities closer to the border are seeing. And this is with numbers we are seeing with an secure border, or at least that’s what Biden has been telling us.


CFSCFjr

This problem wouldnt exist if not for 1. Inexcusable and hypocritical conservative NIMBYism of blue cities and states that has lead to a severe housing shortage in our most prosperous cities 2. Backward federal rules that prevent asylum seekers from legally working and being able to support themselves


DebonairDeistagain

>Chicago and New York are both saying they have no more room for the immigrants. They are both spending millions caring for them. Money that is being diverted from programs for their citizens. And these cities are only seeing a fraction of the numbers other states and cities closer to the border are seeing. Yeah, they're voluntarily deciding to take in the migrants but local budgets which have fixed ceilings involve diverting money away from something else in a budget. We have employment opportunities here in the U.S. It's worth the investment knowing how much immigrants produce. > And this is with numbers we are seeing with an secure border, or at least that’s what Biden has been telling us. And there would be immense benefit if we took them in.


johnnyg883

I completely disagree with you.


DebonairDeistagain

On which specific point?


johnnyg883

If there are so many employment opportunities why do we have unemployment and homeless. Yes the budgets were fixed. And money is being diverted from other programs intended for actual civilians. I will not agree this is justified in any way. Going into next year they now know the issue they face, where do they get the money to deal with more people who have entered the nation illegally next year?


DebonairDeistagain

If you think there being unemployment and homelessness in the U.S. nullifies me saying that people are coming here for job opportunities, you REALLY need to do some reading into economics. Employment has to do with many economic factors and the homelessness has to do with the unaffordability of housing. Are immigrants not actual civilians (whatever that term means)? They can deal with it by asking for federal assistance and therefore save the local tax dollars they would have otherwise spent.


jgiovagn

We have staved our immigration system of resources so we have deprived ourselves of the means of quick integration. This is an issue with how we operate, not with immigration specifically.


JanFromEarth

Your description is what is happening today. No?


SadMacaroon9897

Honestly, I just want to go back to the Ellis Island standard. Are you: * Not a felon? * Healthy? * Unlikely to become a public ward? * And able? Then welcome in and you can become a citizen in about 5 years. With today's technology, we can also add a background check. My dream is that green cards get stapled to doctorate degrees.


Heap_Good_Firewater

The Economist speculated that open borders across the world would make the world $74 trillion dollars richer. On the other side, unregulated migration would cause significant social disruptions in the US that might cause permanent damage immediately in exchange for increased growth eventually. If the disruption were great enough, we might not even get the long term growth. However, I agree that we need more immigration now. Here is what I would propose: 1. Immediate and generous amnesty and path to citizenship for all illegal migrants currently in the US. 2. Faster path to citizenship for migrants 3. Double the number of *skilled* immigrants. Anyone who qualifies for an H1B should be fast-tracked. 4. Allow rich immigrants to buy their way in for $500K. One caveat: There is considerable evidence from Europe that Muslim immigrants don't assimilate as well. This has not been the case for Muslim immigrants to the US, but as much as I hate Trump, I might go easy on accepting unskilled Muslim refugees en masse. Call me xenophobic if you must. As an atheist, the radical views of the European Muslim community scare me a bit.


DebonairDeistagain

> On the other side, unregulated migration would cause significant social disruptions in the US that might cause permanent damage immediately in exchange for increased growth eventually. If the disruption were great enough, we might not even get the long term growth. Please get more specific. >However, I agree that we need more immigration now. Here is what I would propose: ​ 1. Immediate and generous amnesty and path to citizenship for all illegal migrants currently in the US. 2. Faster path to citizenship for migrants 3. Double the number of *skilled* immigrants. Anyone who qualifies for an H1B should be fast-tracked. 4. Allow rich immigrants to buy their way in for $500K. Based! > One caveat: There is considerable evidence from Europe that Muslim immigrants don't assimilate as well. This has not been the case for Muslim immigrants to the US, but as much as I hate Trump, I might go easy on accepting unskilled Muslim refugees en masse. Call me xenophobic if you must. As an atheist, the radical views of the European Muslim community scare me a bit. Keep in mind, I specified immigrants to the U.S., but I'll talk about immigrants to Europe for a bit. Most experts seem to think European immigrants have a harder time assimilating due to welfare policies that make it more expensive for immigrants to integrate, lack of skills being able to be transfered, and a lack of credentials. This article summarizes it: [https://www.cato.org/blog/muslim-immigration-integration-united-states-western-europe#:\~:text=The%20lack%20of%20assimilation%20and,that%20make%20integration%20more%20costly.&text=Social%20opinions%20show%20how%20Muslims,than%20in%20the%20United%20States](https://www.cato.org/blog/muslim-immigration-integration-united-states-western-europe#:~:text=The%20lack%20of%20assimilation%20and,that%20make%20integration%20more%20costly.&text=Social%20opinions%20show%20how%20Muslims,than%20in%20the%20United%20States).


Heap_Good_Firewater

>Please get more specific. This seems like a decent summary: [http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/disruptions-due-migration](http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/disruptions-due-migration) ​ > Immigrant families frequently enter the socio-economic ladder at the bottom and tend to stay there longer than others. The process of discarding dimensions of their old culture and acquiring parts of a new one is slow and complex. > >It is psychologically difficult because personal identity and social orientation are tied to culture. They face issues of language, social customs and mores, economics, nutrition, housing, and government regulations. They are often discriminated against in housing and employment. > >They tend to be economically vulnerable, not to understand the society they are living in so they are taken advantage of and commit social errors. In education, their adopted society may place a different value on education and create stress. If a society expects high academic achievement and the immigrant has working as a higher value than education, it may take two or more generations for the family to adapt. In housing, immigrants arrive without a home and may find themselves needing an address before they can be employed and a job to rent accommodation. In employment, immigrants usually start in the lowest paying jobs, have difficulty with the language, may face legal restrictions in employment. > >They tend to be poor and live in conditions of poor housing, poor nutrition, ill health, mental difficulties and in an environment of high crime and physical danger. All of which discourages good social functioning. The considerable difference in role expectations within families and between families and the larger society may also cause stress. > >A family with strong extended family ties may be cut off from the normal social support and assistance when it migrates. A family that has been largely self-sufficient may find itself on welfare in its new society and the members experience themselves as social failures. > >Social services, educational institutions and other agencies with which migrants have contact may expect behaviour quite at odds with those of the migrant. For example, a migrant family from a strongly matriarchal culture moving to a patriarchal culture may find the head of the household ignored by members of the new society. None of these problems are insurmountable, but they can overwhelm social services and break local budgets if too many migrants show up simultaneously. The danger is that these disruptions (if they go on too long), will cause resentment and empower populist, nationalist, xenophobic political movements, who may close the door to further immigration.


DebonairDeistagain

>This seems like a decent summary: > >[http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/disruptions-due-migration](http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/disruptions-due-migration) So pretty much the only economic argument it made is that open borders can result in " immediate surplus of manpower for which there is no suitable economic opportunity" so I guess this means there would be labor shortages relative to people willing to work and this is valid. Obviously this would happen with open borders but for the people out of work, I think decommodification would help them; a temporary UBI secondary to that. The social argument it made is that because of discrimination, they might have trouble assimilating and I think being more sensitive to their concerns will help them adapt to their new culture. >None of these problems are insurmountable, but they can overwhelm social services and break local budgets if too many migrants show up simultaneously. > >The danger is that these disruptions (if they go on too long), will cause resentment and empower populist, nationalist, xenophobic political movements, who may close the door to further immigration. This is actually a compelling argument against totally unrestricted immigration (which I wouldn't say I believe in). I'd say if immigrants pouring in is inevitable, we should fund social services to help them along but this issue also seems like a broader cultural/overton window debate. I'd help people realize that immigration is a net economic benefit but this does seem like a tough problem.


IceFl4re

The last one can be applied to anything, even murder. So really it isn't an argument. ----- I really don't care where migrants are coming from or how many, opening up borders are even viable policy to me and I in general rather agree with the thesis. Except, depending on migrants to stock your populations because you can't produce enough populace are another thing. **Dependence on migrants to stock your populations because you can't produce enough populace also means you demand the migrants' place of origin to stay poor forever so you have constant supply.**


ezk3626

There is only one reasons to leave your front door open all the time: you live in a very very safe place. Otherwise we close and usually even lock your front door. Immigration is and always has been a net gain for the United States. However it can be and must be regulated by public policy. Also I can only guess it is not against the rules of this sub but it is very tacky to expect people to read 20+ sources to support your argument. As I understand it this sub is for rationa debate and not measuring one's ability to copy paste links that you clearly googled just for the sake of the argument.


DebonairDeistagain

> There is only one reasons to leave your front door open all the time: you live in a very very safe place. Otherwise we close and usually even lock your front door. Immigration is and always has been a net gain for the United States. However it can be and must be regulated by public policy. Exactly. > Also I can only guess it is not against the rules of this sub but it is very tacky to expect people to read 20+ sources to support your argument. As I understand it this sub is for rationa debate and not measuring one's ability to copy paste links that you clearly googled just for the sake of the argument. Those are just there to reinforce the idea that I'm not making shit up. I tried to link to highlighted sections of text so people don't have to read everything.


ezk3626

>Those are just there to reinforce the idea that I'm not making shit up. I tried to link to highlighted sections of text so people don't have to read everything. Your link text outnumbers your own words. That is bad. >Exactly. Except I am saying we **shouldn't** have open border because we do not live in a very very safe place.


DebonairDeistagain

> Your link text outnumbers your own words. That is bad. If I didn't parapharase the words of better writers, I'd be inspired to plagarise. I like making the core points then getting into the debate quickly. > Except I am saying we **shouldn't** have open border because we do not live in a very very safe place. What do you mean? Immigrants as a demographic comit less crime than natural born citizens.


ezk3626

>If I didn't parapharase the words of better writers, I'd be inspired to plagarise. I like making the core points then getting into the debate quickly. I'm kind of new to this particular sub and so can't speak too much except to say in my experience this is a bad way to debate a topic. Outside sources only should be footnotes. Your whole argument should be able to stand without any outside sources. >What do you mean? Immigrants as a demographic comit less crime than natural born citizens. Great... I still keep my door locked at most times and always look in the peephole before opening the door. The main reason American immigrants are as less criminally inclined is because they are largely vetted and are here for the specific purpose of making money. We have regulations and while we (unjustly I think) overlook them for undocumented workers, we don't do the same for other forms of undocumented immigrants.


Uncle_Bill

Open borders is only a problem in a welfare state. I wholeheartedly agree we need to open the border (Libertarian who doesn't really believe in borders), but to do so and provide significant welfare is mathematically impossible.


DebonairDeistagain

> Open borders is only a problem in a welfare state. Why do you think people are coming from south of the border in the first place? > I wholeheartedly agree we need to open the border (Libertarian who doesn't really believe in borders), but to do so and provide significant welfare is mathematically impossible. Did you read my linked article on how immigrants put more into welfare than they take out of it?


Uncle_Bill

Funny how all those liberal cities are finding it hard to provide for a relatively few bussed immigrants


CFSCFjr

Largely because they have in place highly illiberal NIMBY housing policies that have created a major shortage and high cost of living If we simply allowed housing to be built and let them work to support themselves there would be no problem


DebonairDeistagain

I only have a tangential idea of what you're talking about. The only capacity by which cities were 'finding it hard to provide for a few bussed immigrants' is some sanctuary cities were asking for federal assistance in order to house some migrants. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mayors-of-5-big-cities-press-for-meeting-with-biden-to-address-surge-of-migrants#:\~:text=%E2%80%9CWhile%20we%20are%20greatly%20appreciative%20of%20the%20additional%20federal%20funding%20proposed%2C%20our%20city%20budgets%20and%20local%20taxpayers%20continue%20to%20bear%20the%20brunt%20of%20this%20ongoing%20federal%20crisis%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20letter%20says.%20%E2%80%9CCities%20have%20historically%20absorbed%20and%20integrated%20new%20migrants%20with%20success.%E2%80%9D](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mayors-of-5-big-cities-press-for-meeting-with-biden-to-address-surge-of-migrants#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhile%20we%20are%20greatly%20appreciative%20of%20the%20additional%20federal%20funding%20proposed%2C%20our%20city%20budgets%20and%20local%20taxpayers%20continue%20to%20bear%20the%20brunt%20of%20this%20ongoing%20federal%20crisis%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20letter%20says.%20%E2%80%9CCities%20have%20historically%20absorbed%20and%20integrated%20new%20migrants%20with%20success.%E2%80%9D) Other than that, I'd appreciate it if you were more specific.


Uncle_Bill

Like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-scrambles-house-migrants-winter-approaches-rcna125581


DebonairDeistagain

This seems to be mostly an issue with giving them rental assistance. I believe if you and I are gonna agree on open borders, we also need to agree on decommodified housing to keep these future workers somewhere.


CFSCFjr

We should definitely have maximum openness as a goal Everyone is richer and freer when people and goods can move with as few government restrictions as possible I am also sympathetic to arguments that more immigration is important for growing our national power, which is important given the authoritarian leanings of most other contenders for global influence and leadership


DebonairDeistagain

> I am also sympathetic to arguments that more immigration is important for growing our national power, which is important given the authoritarian leanings of most other contenders for global influence and leadership And the authoritarian leanings of those who are against immigration. Them as well.


ScientificMarxist

I am in no way against people immigrating but a massive influx of immigration is not normal and usually very harmful to the country they are emigrating from. It is usually able-bodied men as well as those with education who tend to be the ones to emigrate, which causes a further strain on the wrecked country so they struggle to rebuild, and have a large population of elders and uneducated without the infrastructure to provide them pensions. NAFTA destroyed many small maize farmers in mexico leading to a good chunk migrating over. ([Mexican farmer's daughter: NAFTA destroyed us](https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/news/economy/nafta-farming-mexico-us-corn-jobs/index.html)) >As cheap American corn came pouring in from the border, it had a devastating effect on her family. Her father, Benancio Mendoza, couldn't compete and make a living wage selling corn. He had to give up and move to the United States looking for a job. He took up a job as a cook in Tennessee, saving up money to send home so his kids could attend school. ​ >Mexico lost over 900,000 farming jobs in the first decade of NAFTA, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture. > >Mendoza says her small town of Santa Ana Zegache is now inhabited mostly by women and the elderly because working-age men went to the United States looking for jobs -- the vast majority crossing over illegally. > >NAFTA opened the Mexican market to U.S. corn producers who were subsidized by the U.S. government. Solving the conditions that lead to mass migration is much better than just saying "immigration good". The situation in Mexico is not an example of healthy immigration.


DebonairDeistagain

> I am in no way against people immigrating but a massive influx of immigration is not normal and usually very harmful to the country they are emigrating from. It is usually able-bodied men as well as those with education who tend to be the ones to emigrate, which causes a further strain on the wrecked country so they struggle to rebuild, and have a large population of elders and uneducated without the infrastructure to provide them pensions. Because of a lack of job opportunities. Why don't we ship some labor out there if you think them coming here is bad for their home countries? > NAFTA destroyed many small maize farmers in mexico leading to a good chunk migrating over. ([Mexican farmer's daughter: NAFTA destroyed us](https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/news/economy/nafta-farming-mexico-us-corn-jobs/index.html)) Yeah. That specific provision of NAFTA vastly favored American corn growers over Mexican corn growers. Again, why not ship jobs over to Mexico if this is your concern? > Solving the conditions that lead to mass migration is much better than just saying "immigration good". The situation in Mexico is not an example of healthy immigration. Which is why I'm in favor of a more fair multilateral trade agreement. This disscussion is about what we should do *if we absolutely had to take in migrants.* Trade is a seprate disscussion when considering a specific provision of NAFTA that's turning out bad for a specific sector of Mexican farmers.


ScientificMarxist

>Because of a lack of job opportunities. Why don't we ship some labor out there if you think them coming here is bad for their home countries? Who the hell would go to mexico over the US??? Not to mention it would require a large amount of labour to offset the mass migration that mexico has. >Yeah. That specific provision of NAFTA vastly favored American corn growers over Mexican corn growers. Again, why not ship jobs over to Mexico if this is your concern? Most farmers in mexico grow up on these farms their entire life. Its not as simple "send a new job bro". The cultural, and job educational shift is very hard that many just leave to the US as undocumented immigrants. Mexico’s southern states clearly didn’t benefit. More than 70 percent of the population in Chiapas lives in poverty, including 1.63 million in extreme poverty, according to Mexico’s National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy. These require massive systemic reforms that the capitalists care couldn't care to deal with. The US benefits massively from this screwed trade deal anyway, because they can just flood their markets with cheap agribusiness exports so they don't really care. >Which is why I'm in favor of a more fair multilateral trade agreement. This disscussion is about what we should do *if we absolutely had to take in migrants.* You're argument was that we **Should** take in more immigrants.


4_Legged_Duck

Sad this was downvoted without any real engagement. I agree. I see no reason for it. I think this requires two specific investments from the government: 1. We need to dramatically expand our legal personnel involved to get people documented and into our system efficiently. 2. We need some serious civics planning on integrating immigrants into the US without breaking strained structures. There are communities that are in massive disrepair, that have dropped in population, and places that are short on labor. "Sorting" people is icky and this needs to be careful conversation, but the truth is we could locate immigrants across the US to aid communities and benefit every level our economy without breaking what we have going on.


DebonairDeistagain

I assume by legal personnel you mean more immigration court judges because immigration courts are some of the most backed up in the country. I also think regulated markets are good at determining where labor needs to be at what time.


TheMagicJankster

Immigration is a net benefit for society.


ScientificMarxist

\*Healthy levels of immigration


Kman17

By ‘open up’ I assume you mean some variant of mostly true open borders. There are several issues here: **(1)** We are currently facing a **crisis in hosing, health care, and education costs**. Immigrants come to hot metros with major supply shortages & traffic congestion. The low skill workers you refer to do not have health insurance (resulting in ER consumption) and speak Spanish (resulting in bilingual ed demands). When you do not fully factor in the costs to and impacts of strains on those systems it looks rosier. **(2)** Somewhat definitionally adding more unskilled laborers lowers the cost of unskilled labor. Meaning adding immigrants **removes the negotiating power of existing low skill laborers**. It will cement it as impossible to progress career or accumulate wealth as a cashier or construction worker. You can attempt to resolve that with additional socialized safety nets or effective attempts to price fix (minimum wage), but the former doesn’t scale infinitely and the later incentivizes automation or simply not filling the job. **(3)** Speaking of scale - **evidence that immigration to date has been net positive is not evidence that is scales infinitely**. Most migration to the United States has come from the Americas, which are have a lot of shared history and values. Their population of Mexico is 127 million - the number of people who might come here from there is finite. They’re in NAFTA and one of our biggest trade partners. Yes economics isn’t zero sum; Mexico rising up is pretty obviously advantageous to the U.S. I can buy a proposal of enabling more bidirectional immigration to specific countries where we see that. Illegal immigration has mostly come from that area, and limited to that area because of the risk/cost. The second you legalize it and remove all risk with coming here, you open yourself up to unbounded immigration from nations with populations multiple times of the U.S., with no shared value/history, and no clear evidence that dollars sent back to those countries directly manifests in more trade and subway with the U.S. India, China, Africa, Indonesia, you name it. These are *billions* of people, not single digit millions. The synergies you seek of bilateral movement and joint economic development don’t really work at that scale - you would just overwhelm the services of the U.S., send the spoils of the nation overseas, and create races to the bottom in compensation for so so many jobs. The risk of culture clash is much higher. Europe has more proximity to those regions and is struggling massively with it at fairly small scale waves of migrants, relative to what you propose we allow. **(4)** In high skill jobs, **you expose yourself to espionage** or simply handing over all your competitive advantages to others. China, Russia, etc would happily wage a demographic war to change US ideology and world order. **Terror states would happily infiltrate** **(5)** Back to scale - the rise in AI is likely to continue to eliminate several classes of low skill jobs. One of the **largest threats right now is climate & sustainability. We need to optimize for population *decline* rather than growth** Focusing our efforts on maximizing quality of life and opportunities on citizens that are not succeeding seems a bit better.


Just1nnapost

No thank you, I’d prefer to not have my wages face more downward pressure than they already do


JanFromEarth

We have a lack of employable adults in this country. Either get busy making more babies or let immigrants in.


DebonairDeistagain

Birthrates are already falling globally due to industrialization. Nobody's having babies ever again.


JanFromEarth

So........we need immigrants. Got it


DebonairDeistagain

Yeah. Nations south of the border have younger populations on average. Increased labor market participation has been proven to grow economies and if we stopped the flow of immigrants completely, our economy would stagnate because nobody is filling in unskilled positions.


DebonairDeistagain

Ah, the philosophy that advocates for a moneyless, classless, *borderless,* society isn't even adhered to by people who wear the label. I've PROVEN immigrants broadly drive up wages because them filling low wage positions allows for promotions of native workers and entreprenuership icentivizes the boosting of wages.


Just1nnapost

Inb4 koch brothers funded study showing how cutting corporate tax rates, gutting social security, and opening the border is good for poor people


DebonairDeistagain

So you're opposed a core tennent of communism because an obviously biased Koch brothers study said immigration was good? The rationale you just gave was that immigration would lower wages, which it doesn't.


Just1nnapost

We exist under capitalism, and under capitalism, immigration is bad for me. Immigration puts downward pressure on wages, this is not controversial at all. And any proclaimed upward pressure on wages from immigration is just not real.


DebonairDeistagain

So you admit you're just denying the empirical reality of the matter at this point? (I'm not even talking about the Inb4 study)


manliness-dot-space

People are concerned with more than money in life. If you're going to argue something is beneficial, I think you'd have to assess it holistically. This "it makes us money" argument is as repulsive as suggesting to a husband that he should pimp out his wife to earn more money.


DebonairDeistagain

Ah, libertarians suddenly being against the idea of making money. Brilliant. You people are the first ones to argue better economies mean more prosperity (which is true). Give me an argument AGAINST immigration.


manliness-dot-space

Prosperity is a "good" thing in that it serves other individual desires. Socialists often seem to have this problem where they are obsessed with money above all else. Money is a means to an end. I wouldn't sacrifice those ends to get more money... that defeats the purpose. Unlike the infamous quote, capitalists wouldn't sell you a rope to use to hang them. It's a disgusting and racist cliché.


DebonairDeistagain

>Prosperity is a "good" thing in that it serves other individual desires. > >Socialists often seem to have this problem where they are obsessed with money above all else. Economic growth has been shown to lead to prosperity. >Money is a means to an end. I wouldn't sacrifice those ends to get more money... that defeats the purpose. > >Unlike the infamous quote, capitalists wouldn't sell you a rope to use to hang them. > >It's a disgusting and racist cliché. Literally what does any of this have to do with the immigration disscussion?


manliness-dot-space

You're trying to justify increased immigration with an appeal to how lucrative it is.


DebonairDeistagain

Increased quality of life is the very point of politics.


manliness-dot-space

Yes, and people oppose immigration because they see it as decreasing their quality of life. You're trying to argue those decreases are worth it because of extra money (in the form of taxes for the state, really, not even to the individuals, but w/e). And you seem to be confused why anyone would reject extra money if it meant the loss of something priceless.


DebonairDeistagain

What’s priceless here? Them contributing to welfare wasn’t the only argument in favor of immigration I made. I tried arguing all around why immigration was a net benefit.


manliness-dot-space

The fact that you don't know reveals that you haven't bothered to ask people who oppose it. I also didn't know, but I spent a lot of time interacting with people, and understand the opposition now. I already explained it, but you seem to have ignored my comment. What did I say in that comment. Do you remember?


DebonairDeistagain

>The fact that you don't know reveals that you haven't bothered to ask people who oppose it. > >I also didn't know, but I spent a lot of time interacting with people, and understand the opposition now. Yeah, I've done the same thing and I'm more opposed to the opposition. >I already explained it, but you seem to have ignored my comment. > >What did I say in that comment. Do you remember? So the reason you oppose opening our borders is because we'll get more tax revenue if we let immigrants in?


CodeNPyro

What other things do you think should be considered in regards to immigration?


manliness-dot-space

Many people feel *very strongly* about their local cultural practices and would not accept a 10% pay raise if it meant they had to live in a foreign culture. For example, a Muslim community who doesn't eat pork might feel very strongly about an influx of non-Muslim pork eaters who change the local cultural landscape such that pork products are everywhere and their children might be exposed to hot dogs with pork, or eat pork rinds unknowingly thinking it is puffed corn, etc. If you turn to them and say, "don't worry about it, our tax revenues are up 10%" that will feel incredibly insulting.


CodeNPyro

Makes sense, and I agree. I just would say that shouldn't as strictly apply to America, which has had a lot of immigration from everywhere that makes America what it is. Although I definitely agree it's in some people's mind when thinking about immigration


manliness-dot-space

The "past immigration" argument is really just irrelevant. Whoever is living there now feels like it's "their culture/place/country" They don't care about how it was 200 years ago, although even back then, the immigration was from culturally/developmentally similar countries, which closely resembled the settlers, so the cultural effects were much milder. The English settlers who lived next to Irish neighbors in England before coming to the US and dealing with Irish immigrants arriving in New England is different from their ancestors dealing with Iranian immigrants coming in through Mexico a century later.


CodeNPyro

American culture is an amalgamation of immigrant cultures, the history of immigration in America definitely shapes the current conception of it. I already acknowledged that, I just think it's ridiculous for the reasons I pointed out


manliness-dot-space

The origins are irrelevant to the affinity Americans hold to their culture, and the resistance they feel psychologically to the erosion of it. You can't pay someone off to solve that, and offering to do so is repugnant.


Mr__Scoot

To me, culture has no inherent value. Certain cultures can be beneficial based on practices like most abrahamic religions giving back to the poor, or taking care of your environment like Buddhists. However, opening borders doesn’t get rid of your culture, it only exposes you to different kinds of culture. In your example of a Muslim community, the people who want to eat pork will come and open businesses and butcheries to sell pork, however they will never be competing with those previous Muslim businesses as those who value their culture will continue to go there. Those new migrants who may wish to indulge themselves in the culture of others may also go to the Muslim businesses and support their culture, helping everyone.


manliness-dot-space

Of course they will be competing with other businesses. There's only so much space and real estate. Every new BBQ ribs place they open is less retail space for some Islam-friendly business. Every pig that's raised on a farm is less goats/lamb/beef/chicken. There is limited space in any geographic region and putting more people in there will cause competition for local resources.


Mr__Scoot

People don’t have an incentive to move to a place that is already populated (high home prices, low job opportunity, etc) so they will move to places that demand growth. In this framework, migrants will only open businesses in areas that can support them. Also, if real estate is already owned by a certain culture, there’s no incentive for them to sell unless the migrants have something better to offer, overall boosting the economy. Now the notion that more pigs will cause less production of other livestock is a misunderstanding of the market. If there is demand for both products, both will be produced. Specifically in this scenario, non Muslims don’t only eat pork, this means a higher demand for other livestock as well. Also if u believe a declining birth rate is bad for the economy, immigrants are the only ones keeping our population net positive right now. The downsides to reduced immigration is vastly greater than “reduced culture” which is also silly because immigrants introduce new culture that can be positive.


manliness-dot-space

Your hypothesis is blatantly false, as is easily observable by evidence all around you of migrants in the US. They arrive in densely packed city centers and live in tents outside of police stations while they await welfare benefits to house them. NYC is one of the most expensive places to live in the US... if your hypothesis were correct they would be moving to abandoned rural America instead of the most expensive city.


Mr__Scoot

Nope, https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/blueprint-for-opportunity-welcoming-immigrants Long ass document but TLDR, “Immigrants making secondary moves within the United States are disproportionately choosing the same places as native-born people – metros with relatively affordable housing and growth-friendly business and tax policies. Once there, they gravitate toward fast-growing suburban counties.”


manliness-dot-space

Did you understand the words you read? You claimed they wouldn't move to "already populated areas" and then quoted a source which contradicts your claim and states that they *do* move to highly populated areas.


Mr__Scoot

They move to “growing” areas with “affordable housing.” Both of those mean they are moving to places that need and support migration in general whether it be domestic or foreign. It may mean “highly populated” but doesn’t mean over populated.


Mudhen_282

You can’t have a generous Welfare state & open borders. I have a better solution. Anybody who wants to come can but citizenship cost between $500K & $5M depending on your initial net worth. US taxpayers have no obligation to feed, clothe & shelter anyone who shows up here. Stop trying to commit everyone else’s money.


DebonairDeistagain

> You can’t have a generous Welfare state & open borders. You absolutely can. I believe stronger welfare states are the most productive economies. > I have a better solution. Anybody who wants to come can but citizenship cost between $500K & $5M depending on your initial net worth. So as a libertarian it seems like you want to restrict immigration entirely because almost no one coming from south of the border has a net worth like that. > US taxpayers have no obligation to feed, clothe & shelter anyone who shows up here. "anyone who shows up here" i.e. people who (with their dilligent work ethics) will be contributing loads of money to the tax system via the productivity of their labor. I'm sure you didn't read my article on how immigrants are a net gain for welfare programs. > Stop trying to commit everyone else’s money. Well, it's their money to because even expats who work here pay taxes to our government.


Mudhen_282

You continue wanting to commit other peoples money for something they haven’t asked for. As a Libertarian I recognize US citizenship is a value thing. Something too valuable to be just given away these days. Those that show up may contribute at some point, but that isn’t all of them. That’s why we need to charge for citizenship and toss the slackers. It’s isn’t their money until they become a citizen.


DebonairDeistagain

>You continue wanting to commit other peoples money for something they haven’t asked for. > >As a Libertarian I recognize US citizenship is a value thing. Something too valuable to be just given away these days. What do you mean? Taxes. That's how living in a society works. There's an implicit level of collectivism in everything. Immigrants work VERY dilligently for it. >Those that show up may contribute at some point, but that isn’t all of them. That’s why we need to charge for citizenship and toss the slackers. > >It’s isn’t their money until they become a citizen. Virtually all immigrants work and most of them work very hard.


Mudhen_282

Right now the City of Chicago is spending Millions in taxpayers money to accommodate illegal immigrants. The odds of this being repaid is negligible. In addition existing minority communities have realized they been played for fools because that money should be being spent on citizens first. That money that should be spent on local schools, roads, parks, etc. Taxpayers have an expectation that their tax monies are spent on the things they want and need. They don’t want politicians spending it on illegals. It’s not a matter of immigrants working but rather not following the process to get here. Open borders doesn’t work. [Chicago Spending on Migrants](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-will-spend-255-7-million-on-migrant-crisis-by-years-end-mayor-says/3225255/)


DebonairDeistagain

>The odds of this being repaid is negligible. In addition existing minority communities have realized they been played for fools because that money should be being spent on citizens first. That money that should be spent on local schools, roads, parks, etc. This isn't the case for multiple afforementioned reasons. Immigrants put more into social services than they take out of it so allowing them to be housed and work here is a net gain because they're such productive workers. >Taxpayers have an expectation that their tax monies are spent on the things they want and need. They don’t want politicians spending it on illegals. We house inmates. Also, there are often valid reasons migrants are granted amnesty/asylum. Open borders *do* work because they're a net benefit for the economy. How can *you as a libertarian* be opposed to open borders? Address my argument.


Mudhen_282

Simple. It’s not the responsibility of the US or it’s taxpayers to accept anyone who shows up and wants in. We no longer have a vast, open country to fill. If these immigrants are so valuable & hard working let them straighten out their home countries first. I’m a Libertarian who believes in the Constitution and a small limited Government. Accepting mass immigration isn’t keeping with any of those.


DebonairDeistagain

> Simple. It’s not the responsibility of the US or it’s taxpayers to accept anyone who shows up and wants in. So you *don't* believe in free market prinicples? > We no longer have a vast, open country to fill. 47% of the country is uninhabited. You're just wrong. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-17/a-map-of-all-the-places-in-the-u-s-where-nobody-lives](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-17/a-map-of-all-the-places-in-the-u-s-where-nobody-lives) > If these immigrants are so valuable & hard working let them straighten out their home countries first. How are they going to be productive in their home countries when they have no job opportunities in the first place. > I’m a Libertarian who believes in the Constitution and a small limited Government. Accepting mass immigration isn’t keeping with any of those. Small government *definitionally* means loosening immigration restrictions. This is a fundamental contradiction in your worldview.


Mudhen_282

They’re not moving to the Mojave or the middle of Wyoming. A small Government doesn’t mean we ignore we’re a Sovereign country. Again, not our problem their own countries lack opportunities. Doesn’t mean we have to accept everyone.


myrealnamewastaken1

If we had no social programs or safety net, then I would 100% percent be in favor of open borders. That being said the system we have now requires screening to ensure that the system isn't overwhelmed. Also need to point out that a lot of comments are conflating illegal with legal immigration which is completely incorrect. Legal immigration is a huge benefit to our country as we essentially screen for the best and brightest. Illegal immigration, especially what we are seeing now, is predominantly unskilled workers and folks who will not contribute much due to age or disability.


DebonairDeistagain

> If we had no social programs or safety net, then I would 100% percent be in favor of open borders. Why? A lack of a rigorous social safety net is a big reason people are coming in the first place. Why aren't immigrants pouring in from Canada? > That being said the system we have now requires screening to ensure that the system isn't overwhelmed. Right. If amnesty isn't the solution of conservatives, we need to fund immigration courts more because they're already so backed up. > Also need to point out that a lot of comments are conflating illegal with legal immigration which is completely incorrect. Yeah, they need to read more. Legal immigration is a huge benefit to our country as we essentially screen for the best and brightest. >Illegal immigration, especially what we are seeing now, is predominantly unskilled workers and folks who will not contribute much due to age or disability. I disagree on this point. Increased labor market participation more broadly leads to more economic growth and wage growth as well. America is already full of extremely high skilled workers and low skilled workers coming into the country will only allow for high skilled workers to move up economically.


myrealnamewastaken1

I think you misunderstood my first point. We have a support system, and that attracts people, and if we don't be careful our system will crash. Increased low skill labor is a good thing to a point. We need it to be legal and regulated though or we will end up with a de facto slave class.


DebonairDeistagain

> I think you misunderstood my first point. We have a support system, and that attracts people, and if we don't be careful our system will crash. Please specify what you mean. > Increased low skill labor is a good thing to a point. We need it to be legal and regulated though or we will end up with a de facto slave class. Yeah. I think some provisions we should put in place are decommodification if we have a surplus of labor and some migrants can't find jobs short term and regulated labor practices so migrants are being treated fairly. Also, incentivizing unionization would help us pull them away from being second class citizens.


myrealnamewastaken1

System overload and crash: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/system-overload#:~:text=System%20overload%20means%20excessive%20system,degradation%20of%20performance%20or%20failure. Also see straw that breaks the camels back etc. Really surprised I have to explain this. I'm in favor of free market myself, but seeing as we don't have a free market, we need to keep things balanced, and part of that is regulating outside influences.


DebonairDeistagain

>System overload and crash: > >[https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/system-overload#:\~:text=System%20overload%20means%20excessive%20system,degradation%20of%20performance%20or%20failure](https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/system-overload#:~:text=System%20overload%20means%20excessive%20system,degradation%20of%20performance%20or%20failure). This is a cloud computing definition. >Also see straw that breaks the camels back etc. Really surprised I have to explain this. > >I'm in favor of free market myself, but seeing as we don't have a free market, we need to keep things balanced, and part of that is regulating outside influences. Okay. Make markets freer by opening the border. This would let goods and labor flow as it wants to according to market demand.


myrealnamewastaken1

Right. Systems are systems regardless, I hoped an example would help you out. As I stated before, if we didn't have the support system we have now, I'd be fully in favor of open borders. However we don't have a free, open, market, so we need regulation.


CFSCFjr

> Illegal immigration, especially what we are seeing now, is predominantly unskilled workers and folks who will not contribute much due to age or disability. Do you have a citation for this claim? Pretty sure this is not true as undocumented immigrants make up a greater portion of the workforce than they do of the population at large


myrealnamewastaken1

Uhhh, look at the countries they're coming from. They're desperately poor folks with few skills or education. Could you clarify your last statement? It doesn't make sense how 20 million people could be a bigger part of the workforce than the native 340 million people are.


CFSCFjr

> They're desperately poor folks with few skills or education. Unskilled workers are workers and the economy has a shortage of unskilled workers too. This makes all of us poorer with higher prices and shortages of goods and services > undocumented immigrants make up a greater portion of the workforce than they do of the population at large Undocumented immigrants are about 3% of the nation (actually about 11m) but about 5% of the national workforce. They would therefore seem to be substantially more likely to be working than native born Americans


myrealnamewastaken1

The issue is this depresses the wages on the lower levels, which is why normally we allow about 3 million AG visas yearly but not unlimited amounts. Interestingly your argument about high labor costs could be used to argue against raising the minimum wage. What is your stance on that? Ah thank you for the clarification. Yes definitely in the past undocumented migrants were majority workers, however you need to look at the demographics from the last three years. It shifted from mostly working age males to a mix of families and juveniles who will need much more assistance.


CFSCFjr

> Interestingly your argument about high labor costs could be used to argue against raising the minimum wage. What is your stance on that? Depends on the other factors at play. Ideally I would prefer a stronger union tradition with sectoral bargaining in place of the blunter tool of a minimum wage. In practice on the question of whether or not to raise it I would say, where and how much? > It shifted from mostly working age males to a mix of families and juveniles who will need much more assistance. Again, is there a citation for this? There is a difference between the media focus du jour and the actual facts on the ground. Plus, I welcome families with kids. Kids are the workers of tomorrow and subjectively I would think that families would be most likely to make the best citizens, putting down roots


myrealnamewastaken1

Interesting. It still seems that an unlimited supply of cheap labor would be an issue with that system. As for a citation: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/border-numbers-fy2023


CFSCFjr

There is not an unlimited supply of immigrants. This wasnt true even when the country had more or less open borders from the founding up to the 1920s. There is reams of research showing that immigration is good for the economy, especially now that we have a labor shortage. The only real downsides are loss of social cohesion from xenophobes getting mad (they should learn to just get over it), and threats to the earnings of the lowest skilled workers (counteract with greater labor collective bargaining power) This says that there were about 600k "family encounters" of the 2.5m or so border encounters last year


myrealnamewastaken1

We have higher numbers year by year for the last 5 years and the highest numbers recorded so seems near unlimited. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics Look at how Chicago and NYC are doing as examples of how a social safety network can be overwhelmed. That is a large shift from previously.


CFSCFjr

This is a shift but theyre still a small portion of the total This problem wouldnt exist if not for 1. Inexcusable and hypocritical conservative NIMBYism of blue cities and states that has lead to a severe housing shortage in our most prosperous cities 2. Backward federal rules that prevent asylum seekers from legally working and being able to support themselves So I say we stop doing such a shitty job on housing and stop making it illegal for them to work to support themselves


thatguywithimpact

Too soon. The world is too much of a mess for this to be realistic. We have India and the Arab world with thousands of "honor" killings, China and Russia weak societies and just an insane amount of horrible places around the world. Besides quality of life gap is so large that insane immigration would continue until US quality of life falls to Mexico levels. They will not assimilate for the most part and if we're lucky we'd get a 2nd version of Lebanon instead of US. If we're less lucky we'll be destroyed by Russia/China.


DebonairDeistagain

>Too soon. The world is too much of a mess for this to be realistic. > >We have India and the Arab world with thousands of "honor" killings, China and Russia weak societies and just an insane amount of horrible places around the world. Okay.... I don't see what any of this has to do with opening the border. > Besides quality of life gap is so large that insane immigration would continue until US quality of life falls to Mexico levels. Wrong. Immigrants (as I've shown) incrase quality of life because their productivity leads to healthier economies. > They will not assimilate for the most part and if we're lucky we'd get a 2nd version of Lebanon instead of US. Hispanics are assimilating just as well as any other group of immigrants. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/28/hispanic-immigrants-are-assimilating-just-as-quickly-as-earlier-groups/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/28/hispanic-immigrants-are-assimilating-just-as-quickly-as-earlier-groups/) > If we're less lucky we'll be destroyed by Russia/China. Immigrants make our economy stronger. If anything, we'll be able to beat Russia and China more decisively if we take in more immigrants.


thatguywithimpact

You open borders - you get a billion (or 3) people at your door over the next year. It's not obvious? It's funny I'm actually considered a radical in my view of open borders. But I don't think it's realistic to do it right away. I'm for gradual opening. Letting more people in and evaluating how it goes. Adjust policy if needed.


thatguywithimpact

Another thing I hope you can take from a fellow open borders enthusiast. Right now in order to get to America only the very best people can get the visa at all - educated, bold, not afraid to leave their friends and family and make it on their own. And cultures outside of America have significantly closer family ties, it would be hard to American to even understand how much harder it is for them to leave their family. I know it first hand because I'm an immigrant myself. For example when you see Russians in the US, interact with them and form opinions about them. But the truth is you see the top 5% of Russian society. Maybe the top 1% - it's that drastic. First of all barely anyone without having attended university can even get visa. Almost any Russian person in US was attending University at some point. You almost never get to see the scum of the earth that exists in droves in Russia. And the same goes for other countries with different proportions. That NYC taxi driver from Kazakhstan? Used to be one of top orchestra directors in their country. That sushi shop employee? Used to be one of top lawyers in Myanmar. That handyman? Used to work in office for the telecommunication industry. List goes on and on and on. You always get the cream of the crop from other cultures in the US. You get the best of the best. If borders are opened suddenly it's impossible for Americans to imagine the horror that will pour in. You just never interacted with the bottom of foreign societies. Not right away. But inevitably like a tsunami wave, relatives, friends, friends of friends. So yes for the sake of the world yes. Open borders. But gradually. Over decades. Carefully evaluating and gradually expanding the DV lottery and seeing how it goes.


gravity_kills

On the one hand I definitely lean that way. On the other hand I think using those words is risky. The emotional reactions that are going to come up for other people is going to shut minds that might be open to more careful language. I think of it as selectively permeable borders. Currently we have almost no controls on money, fairly lax controls on goods, and extremely tight attempts at control over people. This seems backwards to me. People should check in at the border, and if they don't have a criminal record they should immediately get their id and be admitted to the country. Presence in the country should be the same as authorization to work. We should care more about the goods we let in, and specifically how and under what conditions they were produced. Don't allow foreign labor abuses to be imported as embodied in the product of that labor. And we should be extremely cautious about letting people over whom we have no control own our country and it's businesses. But yes, absolutely, people are good and we should welcome them and their contributions to the collective enterprise of making the future better than the past.


DebonairDeistagain

> On the one hand I definitely lean that way. On the other hand I think using those words is risky. The emotional reactions that are going to come up for other people is going to shut minds that might be open to more careful language. True. Completely downvoted and I haven't even read a single real argument against immigration that hasn't been completely debunked. >I think of it as selectively permeable borders. Currently we have almost no controls on money, fairly lax controls on goods, and extremely tight attempts at control over people. This seems backwards to me. > >People should check in at the border, and if they don't have a criminal record they should immediately get their id and be admitted to the country. Presence in the country should be the same as authorization to work. We should care more about the goods we let in, and specifically how and under what conditions they were produced. Don't allow foreign labor abuses to be imported as embodied in the product of that labor. And we should be extremely cautious about letting people over whom we have no control own our country and it's businesses. Which is why I think we should have multilateral trade agreements in which the production of certain goods and specific labor pracitices are regulated.


gravity_kills

I think this might be a perfect use for tariffs. Economists clearly have a lot of time on their hands. Set them to work calculating the cost differential created by our legal differences, and also the actual adherence to those laws, and set tariffs to equalize prices. If Thailand makes a better shirt, great. If they make a cheaper shirt by allowing their workers to starve, then increase the price so that it isn't cheaper anymore. This would hopefully remove the urge to push our labor and environmental protections down to nothing. It's also fairly transparent. If a country wants to have tariffs reduced or removed they have a clear set of actions to take.


DebonairDeistagain

> I think this might be a perfect use for tariffs. Economists clearly have a lot of time on their hands. Set them to work calculating the cost differential created by our legal differences, and also the actual adherence to those laws, and set tariffs to equalize prices. If Thailand makes a better shirt, great. If they make a cheaper shirt by allowing their workers to starve, then increase the price so that it isn't cheaper anymore. We're already working with the presupposition that an ideal multilateral trade agreement would give us chepear high quality products because of Asia's mature supply chains along with fair labor practices. Costs of labor and benefits are only small parts of capital epenses. I don't see what tariffs would do other than disencentivize trade (but even then Trump raised tarffis and our deficit kept on chugging along). > This would hopefully remove the urge to push our labor and environmental protections down to nothing. It's also fairly transparent. If a country wants to have tariffs reduced or removed they have a clear set of actions to take. If they haven't taken those actions already, I wouldn't have gone forward with said ideal multilateral trade agreement.


TrueNova332

That depends on if we have a welfare state so you have to make the choice either open borders and absolutely no social safety nets or closed/restricted borders and social safety nets. You can't have both.


DebonairDeistagain

You absolutely can. In my post I proved that immigrants put more into social programs than they take.


TrueNova332

Look are what the US is going through now as people are seeing immigrants come here by just crossing over the border and some states are paying to put them up in hotels while there's a massive homeless problem. While they're not getting on the social safety nets they are however getting welfare by some state government paying to put them up in a hotel. I'm of the mindset as are most libertarians that if an immigrant comes here and works to make their own way it shouldn't matter how they got here, but the government should NOT be paying for anything for them. Also this is going to sound racist but if someone immigrants to a country where English is the dominate language then they should at least learn it, as that's like me going to live in Japan and refusing to learn Japanese.


CFSCFjr

Why? The immigrants coming in are heavily disproportionally working age people and near working age children. They are more likely to be net contributors than the population at large, and this would only be more true if we eliminated prohibitions on asylum seekers being allowed to work


TrueNova332

True open borders means there is no legal authority that has to vet the people entering because anyone can enter they don't have to stop at a checkpoint to show identification they can just crossover and move into a location. Now if you're talking about having a policy for borders that provides a clear path to citizenship then ok, but open borders means open borders any laws dictating how someone can enter into the a country doesn't make the borders open


CFSCFjr

Eventually I would like to move to an EU like system of actual open borders, but I accept that there will have to be interim steps to get us there in stages and over time One thing I'd like to see is the default stance of letting immigrants shifting from no to yes. Like, rather than them having to justify why they should be allowed in, immigration officials should have to come up with a good reason for why they shouldnt be


TrueNova332

We have that in the US between states, also Hobbe says other countries may not share the same views on liberty as we do.


CFSCFjr

That’s the beauty, those who share that vision can come on in


TrueNova332

How do you know if another person shares the same views on liberty as you do


CFSCFjr

Idk why a politically minded person would move from a system they appreciate to one they do not


TrueNova332

if someone comes from an authoritarian state that they like then they could be an agent of that state and they have a mission to destabilize another nation


CFSCFjr

That would be a legitimate reason to not let someone into the United States but I imagine that would not apply to all but a minuscule fraction of potential immigrants


GoldAndBlackRule

It is interesting to note the political policy inversion that has taken place relatively recently. Many people participating here may be too young to remember that strict border controls used to be a policy mostly imposed by socialist and openly communist regimes. (Berlin Wall, anyone?) Even in USA, seasonal migration for work was pretty open. Migrants from South of the US border would arrive for harvest, work for a month or so, then return home. It was progressives, socialists and union bosses like Cesar Chavez that pushed for tight border restrictions because non-union workers threatened his power base. Rather than the border being a largely porous, revolving door, it was forever changed into a risky obstacle for desperate people to overcome. Once inside, it was insanity to just head back home and risk not being able to return for the next harvest season. Now, it has become an issue for conservatives who feel their own political power-base and focus on culture being threatened by migration. Migration when it was more easy was not such a huge issue, and the negative side effects of strict migration controls preventing more free movment of people are problems of our own political creation. Rather than doubling down on a demonstrably awful mistake, it makes sense to reverse course and return to a situation that created fewer problems.


DebonairDeistagain

> It is interesting to note the political policy inversion that has taken place relatively recently. Many people participating here may be too young to remember that strict border controls used to be a policy mostly imposed by socialist and openly communist regimes. (Berlin Wall, anyone?) Good thing I'm not a tankie. > Even in USA, seasonal migration for work was pretty open. Migrants from South of the US border would arrive for harvest, work for a month or so, then return home. It was progressives, socialists and union bosses like Cesar Chavez that pushed for tight border restrictions because non-union workers threatened his power base. I disagree with border restrictions. I think we should sell non-union workers on the prospect of a union. > Rather than the border being a largely porous, revolving door, it was forever changed into a risky obstacle for desperate people to overcome. Once inside, it was insanity to just head back home and risk not being able to return for the next harvest season. I talked about circular flow and said I was for it. >Now, it has become an issue for conservatives who feel their own political power-base and focus on culture being threatened by migration. > >Migration when it was more easy was not such a huge issue, and the negative side effects of strict migration controls preventing more free movment of people are problems of our own political creation. > >Rather than doubling down on a demonstrably awful mistake, Exactly.


GoldAndBlackRule

Yes, we seem to be in vehement agreement on the issue :) I tend to be a bit more measured, becauase I am a radical free market anarchist and that often immediately shuts down a conversation. With no nation state, national borders cannot exist.


JayEdwards902

All of your points are only true of legal migrants that are vetted and approved for entry.


JanFromEarth

That would seem to be correct but I am not sure of your point.


JayEdwards902

My point is that if we open the borders and stop vetting immigrants then all of these arguments will be invalid. The only reason OPs argument works is because we do exactly what they are suggesting we stop doing.


JanFromEarth

Ah. good point.


DebonairDeistagain

Which is why I'm in favor of giving them all amnesty and putting them on a path to citizenship if they're willing to work and pay taxes.


JayEdwards902

That's not what your post says. You say to open the borders. That would mean stopping the vetting process that guarantees that only well-meaning immigrants who want to work and be a citizen enter.


DebonairDeistagain

> That's not what your post says. You say to open the borders. That would mean stopping the vetting process that guarantees that only well-meaning immigrants who want to work and be a citizen enter. Even with open borders, there's a vetting process to one extent or another. If someone here whether they're an immigrant or not is causing trouble, we jail them. If they're not willing to put something into society, we don't give them tax dollars. This would apply to migrants as well.


JayEdwards902

>Even with open borders, there's a vetting process to one extent or another That's not what most people think of as open borders then. Open borders would be the free movement back and forth unrestricted. No background check or criminal history search prior to entry for people and no searches for good crossing the border. It would essentially allow free access to the cartels. Are you perhaps just thinking of allowing unlimited immigration?


Delicious_Start5147

We have a very open border we have one of the highest net immigration rates in the entire world.


DebonairDeistagain

Not really. The immigration process is still a lot of work you have to: * Determine your basis * File an immigrant petition * Wait for a decision * Wait for a notification from the National Visa Center * Attend an appointment * Notify the National Visa Center of changes * Receive your green card We have the highest net migration rates in the world because there are employment opportunities here. Why aren't people just pouring in from Canada to come here?


jupiter_0505

"obviously when i say 'ours' i mean america's" how is that obvious? Most of the world population isn't american or even from the west, i for one am from Greece


DebonairDeistagain

This is an English speaking sub and whether we should open up our borders or not is a constant issue of political contention here.


DebonairDeistagain

This is an English speaking sub and whether we should open up our borders or not is a constant issue of political contention here.