I guess I didn’t word that ideally, since I was misunderstood. I didn’t mean to imply that we’re number #1 in the world at accepting refugees. By “that’s who we are” I just meant that’s what our ideals are supposed to be what with the Statue of Liberty and give us your tired and huddled masses and all
Completed 2 years after the Chinese Exclusion Act, it was a memorial to that phase of US History.
1 Like
I think one’s answer to this question depends on how you interpret it. I picked more open as that is a realistic policy goal. Completely open, while preferable in a theoretical vacuum, is impossible as a practical matter.
I just visited the SOL last month. Somehow I didn’t know that initially the main point of the statue was to commemorate the abolition of slavery (that’s why the broken shackles are at her feet, which is also something I never noticed). The welcoming immigrants thing was secondary/came later.
I did not interpret the question that way. Of course open borders aren’t going to happen. Most people hate immigrants or at least they do when they get beyond a small minority. The whole world is turning to fascism while rich countries are depopulating and fighting against immigration that would clearly be in their best interests.
And, along with climate change, it’s going to get worse, not better. Most people would rather be poor and fight than see their race or culture’s dominant position threatened.
No borders
I know we can’t have depopulation because Chipotle will miss their earnings target but it seems like it would be +EV for Earth.
The UN estimate is that the global population will peak around 2086. Until then, the rich countries are still going to shrink while the poor countries continue to grow and it will be fewer and fewer people hogging a greater and greater share of the Earth’s natural resources. Preventing people from moving around the Earth actually means more people will be born, being -EV for the Earth, and it’s…well, I’ll just say immoral instead of evil.
i’m guessing a Venezuelan migrant is going to produce a lot less carbon if they stay in Venezuela versus come to America and fulfil their dream of becoming a 3 SUV household. From a climate perspective, richer countries shrinking is still probably a good thing even if it means the overall number of people on Earth increases.
I see articles on CNN reminding to reuse my wrapping paper and to eat less beef, but there is this huge taboo around telling people the benefits of not having children.
They’re eventually going to have a high energy lifestyle and they will have more children doing it if they stay in Venezuela. The carbon emission per person is going down now in the rich countries. The best thing for the Earth will be moving the most people into the low-children decreasing-carbon rich economy as quickly as possible.
Okay, but your kind of acknowledging that there are situations when a border presence may be +ev.
You’re looking at this from both a moral standpoint of human rights and preserving individual freedom which a total fine argument to make and is something, that in a perfect world, would be factored into a country’s border decisions. My argument is focused on open borders being a +ev move for US citizens for the next generation or so, at large, and my opinion is that I would strongly disagree that it would. bUt change my mind.
We aren’t tightening at the border to arrest some known terrorist or Bibi. For starters, economies around the world are changing, AI and tech are doing more work and they are expected to play an increasingly larger role as time goes by. If govt reacts by funding a stronger form of ubi, which would essentially come from the increased tax revenue that business would make by having a reduced payroll, and use that money towards govt programs and to supplement those people who were kicked out of their jobs, those decisions would all end up affecting immigration just on it’s own.
I think you’ve got a strong argument that the US and most other first world countries should “take some sort of hit” in the name of freedom by allowing others the freedom to move and a chance at an opportunity instead of just closing its doors for maximum market returns. But I think it needs to be understood that those statements are two completely different things.
I honestly appreciate that. I just would like to know who I am wrong.
I think most economists think open borders would be net +EV for the US specifically. This book is a little silly (it’s a comic book), but is by an economist who goes into it and I’ve read it recently, so it’s what comes to mind. It’s by a more right-wing libertarian economist who is a scholar at the Cato Institute.
So, yeah, I don’t think it would be -EV for Americans, but it might be.
primarily yes, but also that it’s +EV for the world. And, despite being born in the USA, aside from my friends and family, I don’t value USA lives more than non-USA lives.
Fundamentally, I don’t think it’s charity. I think someone from Venezuela should have just as much right to move to California as someone from Florida does. If my neighbor wants to sell his house to someone from Pakistan, as far as I’m concerned it’s not within my rights to stop them and have any say in whether the family from Pakistan gets to move into their house or not.
And when you get to specific cases of the people who are actually trying to come to the USA and you find people like Guatemalans whose ancestors have been in North America for thousands of years and then Europeans murdered them and took their land and later the USA invaded them and set up governments and American corporations like United Fruit dominated them and USA funded right wing death squads and they are fleeing violence caused by our drug war and then for me to say they can’t come to the US? Or Mexicans from a country that included California until USA invaded them and took more than half their country? For me to say they can’t even come here? Seems outrageous to me.
5 Likes
I would vote for “open borders” but such a thing can’t really exist. An open border would be no border, meaning no fake country claiming it. Countries, governments, need borders to get people invested in their reality. But these are arbitrary entities invented by the mind.
Not sure how you can completely get rid of borders while still having private property and / or the idea of nations. Would need to see more statistics that unfettered immigration is a net benefit for a country with finite resources.
1 Like
I don’t have a problem with open immigration. I don’t think we should get rid of borders. You still need to delineate where laws apply and jurisdictional boundaries for governments. Those are borders. Also, I don’t interpret open immigration to mean, just let people into and out of the country without requiring some identification upon entry. I think there are non-racist reasons to keep track of who is entering and leaving the country that make sense.
1 Like
If you do an open door immigration policy are you willing to have California levels of tent cities and makeshift housing with millions or tens of millions of homeless all over the country or in this system is only open door immigration for people with economic means?
People seems to be confusing a policy where access to the country is open to all at all times and one where there are literally no delineation of national borders or criteria for being a citizen. When people say open borders they mean the former, not the latter.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting there should be no difference between a citizen and non-citizen or that countries should not exist.
Eh, think plenty of people think that, especially if the message is presented in a pleasant song:
1 Like
USA had essentially open borders for 100 years. When we were all kids you just drove into Canada and Mexico. In many places there wasn’t even a stop sign.
There are 29 countries in Europe with no border control within the Schengen region and everyone in them is free to move and work. Is France no longer a country? Do you only stop being a country when you open the borders to people who aren’t white?
7 Likes