Society How do you feel about open borders?

[Truck Party]

No borders. No governments. No countries. No world order.

this is insane

 

[Ted Williams' head]

@Splinty is always saying the liberal endgame is open borders (despite the vehement protectionist pro labor policies of the far left and the mass deportations under Obama). So how do you feel about them?

Obviously they would lead to concerns, but it can be argued corporations already enjoy all the benefits of open borders through various free trade agreements that allow them to take most of the resources of other countries and outsource their labor at low wages to sell products around the world.

So if ALL borders were open you could basically go live in any country you wanted anytime you wanted, do whatever business you wanted and keep whatever money you made wherever you wanted.

The downside to this is it would basically erode the prestige of nation-states and likely decrease tax bases while also representing a huge security risk that the diminished nation-state would be hard pressed to manage. This is to say nothing of wealthy nations suddenly facing resource challenges as people flood their labor markets and social programs.

In some senses, it could have an equalizing effect as every nation could end up just a bit more miserable. On the other hand, it could lead to a true free market where people go to the resources rather than the resources being hoarded in arbitrary locations.

Rather than just saying whether you're yay or nay, expound a bit on what types of governmental and economic changes you see the idea of open borders bringing to the world, for good or ill.

Anyone who wants open borders but doesn't believe in leaving their front doors open for anyone is a hypocrite.

 

[KWingJitsu]

this is insane

Genius ideas sound insane at first.

I like to think of it as "advanced", not insane.
In about 200-300 years, we should have evolved to that point.
Think about it. In 50 years or less we'll be colonizing the moon and Mars. Do you think there'll be are borders there?

Note I said "No World Government" which is not the same as those who tout 'Globalisim's 'One World Government'".....

 

[Truck Party]

Genius ideas sound insane at first.

I like to think of it as "advanced", not insane.
In about 200-300 years, we should have evolved to that point.
Think about it. In 50 years or less we'll be colonizing the moon and Mars. Do you think there'll be are borders there?

Note I said "No World Government" which is not the same as those who tout 'Globalisim's 'One World Government'".....

sounds great if you want to be ruled by barbarians. did you ever have a horrible acid trip or something?

 

[jason73]

sounds like a great way to make all the first world countries into liberal level shit holes and all the shit holes in to slightly better shit holes

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

sounds like a great way to make all the first world countries into liberal level shit holes and all the shit holes in to slightly better shit holes

The lib end game. Nothing new..

 

[Disciplined Galt]

Personally I am all for it. Geopolitically it will cause misery. I would do well though

 

[Zeph]

The lib end game. Nothing new..

Good find. Look at that neoliberal Thatcher describing trickle down economics which has driven us to this current predicament.

 

[Leigh]

In a perfect world, yes. In the current world, fuck no.

 

[1031]

Honestly, damn near any system will work on the condition that those governing are honest and of at least average intelligence.
Feel free to spread the word

 

[kneeblock]

Not sure what's that's about. I didn't say Democrat party.

I said Democrat. As in the group of people commonly referring to themselves as Democrats.




What was the question?
How do I feel about them?

I'm against open borders as you already answered for me.

And as I answered...

"World GDP" is not possible. It's called "domestic product." The concept of doubling it makes no sense. Every other nation's GDP would double? Is that what you mean? If this is a liberal end game, is the objective simply to raise all other boats to this imagined equilibrium at the expense of American prestige? I suppose you could mean gross world product, but in that case what is the mechanism for it increasing rather than staying constant or declining? What makes it double? What system does this occur under?

 

[kneeblock]

Touchy subject. I'm all for the free movement of people and immigration through legal channels. The problem is that the channels are expensive, lengthy, and very complex. This is why you have relatively normal families coming here illegally and are then classified as criminals. The process needs to be more streamlined to be faster and more affordable while also properly vetting anyone with a criminal past and proper job history. I have no issues when contributing members of society moving here to better their life. It's when criminals or people who will not hold a job and contribute to our welfare problem that I begin to take issue. Liberals have turned this into a nanny state and illegal immigrants have begun taking advantage of that. The social security I'm forced to pay because the government thinks I can't save my own money will be nothing when I reach the age where I can get my money back.

The social security trust is projected to be okay, which you can read about here. In fact, some would argue we need more immigrants to pay into social security to help bolster it more since migrants can't collect on the back end, but can still endure payroll deductions automatically.

But you bring up a common point, which is that open borders would increase the strain on entitlement programs. Would you then say eliminating all social welfare programs is a necessary precondition to making open borders work?

 

[kneeblock]

My only personal argument against such loose border policy is that prosperous cities are already congested enough as it is. Maybe let them found their own new immigrant city out in the Southwest. Otherwise I'm totally okay with limiting people from moving into my already overpopulated area.

Florida population continues to outdistance New York

Florida population grew by 367,525 people in 2016, to 20,612,439 million, the second largest gain in sheer numbers after Texas, according to new U.S. Census numbers.

Florida continues to outdistance New York as the third largest state in the nation. Compared to Florida’s gain, the Empire State lost almost 2,000 people from July 1, 2015, to July 1, 2016, according to the new estimates. New York’s total population slipped to 19,745,289.

Florida growth rate was fourth highest in the nation, behind three Western states. The percentage of Florida growth was 1.82 percent, just behind Utah (2.03 percent); Nevada (1.95 percent); and Idaho (1.83 percent).

U.S. population grew by 0.7 percent to 323.1 million, the U.S. Census Bureau said.

Florida population continues to outdistance New York

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. As the nation-state declines in prestige in an open border system, regionalism would become the default. Already most clustering occurs in cities thanks to a global trend toward urbanism. Globalized capitalism has already seen a return to something similar to city-states. Open borders would likely continue this trend as national systems were weakened.

So decentralized small federal governments will ultimately put burdens on smaller regions to increase their taxes. If the political will isn't there, people in those regions would have to just live without certain public services and rely on the market to provide options.

 

[kneeblock]

That's almost entirely false. Free trade agreements are full of tariffs and limits.

A true free market (like true democracy) will never be allowed. We're not to be trusted with our own fates.

It's an overstatement for the benefit of the thought experiment. The tariffs and limits under most free trade agreements are negligible enough that few manufacturing corporations use their own domestic labor and few resource rich nations retain ownership and use of their own resources.

 

[Yossarian]

Touchy subject. I'm all for the free movement of people and immigration through legal channels. The problem is that the channels are expensive, lengthy, and very complex. This is why you have relatively normal families coming here illegally and are then classified as criminals. The process needs to be more streamlined to be faster and more affordable while also properly vetting anyone with a criminal past and proper job history. I have no issues when contributing members of society moving here to better their life. It's when criminals or people who will not hold a job and contribute to our welfare problem that I begin to take issue. Liberals have turned this into a nanny state and illegal immigrants have begun taking advantage of that. The social security I'm forced to pay because the government thinks I can't save my own money will be nothing when I reach the age where I can get my money back.

The process of legal immigration are not cheap but not bank breaking. It's like making use of any service, it needs to get paid for to ensure national security and health. I had to get through a lot of stuff to finally live here but I understand the process. So after 2 HIV tests and other health screenings, a criminal back-ground check, and gathering people's personality statements about me, and several hundreds of dollars, I am now resident. A couple of hundred more, and another year or so, I can be citizen. But I would like everyone lese to follow the same rules. Then I am fine with it. But illegals think they deserve special treatment over others that abide by the law.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

It's an overstatement for the benefit of the thought experiment. The tariffs and limits under most free trade agreements are negligible enough that few manufacturing corporations use their own domestic labor and few resource rich nations retain ownership and use of their own resources.

If that were true German cars would still be primarily made in Germany and Japanese cars in Japan. It's not accurate to call the tariffs involves "negligible". When outsourcing of labor takes place it's out of necessity. Whether that's due to labor availability or is just profit driven varies from situation to situation. That's the main reason why its primarily inexpensive good manufacturing that's farmed out to cheap labor countries. The tariffs applied to those goods don't effect the profit as much as wages in North America would.

To say your resource rich nation statement is misleading would be somewhat of an understatement.

 

[kneeblock]

If that were true German cars would still be primarily made in Germany and Japanese cars in Japan. It's not accurate to call the tariffs involves "negligible". When outsourcing of labor takes place it's out of necessity. Whether that's due to labor availability or is just profit driven varies from situation to situation. That's the main reason why its primarily inexpensive good manufacturing that's farmed out to cheap labor countries. The tariffs applied to those goods don't effect the profit as much as wages in North America would.

To day you resource rich nation statement is misleading would be somewhat of an understatement.

Few means few. Citing 2 nations where that is not the case does not mean the answer is still not very few. I'll retreat from the resource argument for the sake of not derailing this thread further.

In an open border scenario, capital would no longer be at all restricted from owning property in foreign lands and the cost of supply chains would presumably be the only restriction on driving labor costs all the way down. This would be as close to the impossible free market you describe. Do you think this is favorable?

 

[SongExotic2]

Who would be the governing body and what law would rule the land?

Or are we talking a scenario where each country maintains it's current laws, but we can just walk freely between them.

For me I couldn't give 2 fucks. I can already go to other countries. Apart from Canada probably. And I don't wanna go there .

 

[Splinty]

"World GDP" is not possible. It's called "domestic product." The concept of doubling it makes no sense. Every other nation's GDP would double? Is that what you mean? If this is a liberal end game, is the objective simply to raise all other boats to this imagined equilibrium at the expense of American prestige? I suppose you could mean gross world product, but in that case what is the mechanism for it increasing rather than staying constant or declining? What makes it double? What system does this occur under?

Slow your roll...
I wasn't just randomly picking a factor of increase. Doubling is the commonly cited amount. The reasons are all over. Pick the source you trust. Wapo?

LMGTFY

 

[Splinty]

If this is a liberal end game, is the objective simply to raise all other boats to this imagined equilibrium at the expense of American prestige?

Here is the standard liberal argument for open borders:

The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely

Every liberal friend of mine believes the above. Many far more aggressively than the author. Describing borders as "arbitrary lines" or "man made barriers" is a common pejorative against the current design of the nation state.

 

[Splinty]

Borders have a function, and it is simple to say that they cause poverty elsewhere.

Agreed.

That would be ignoring a lot of factors other than economics. Borders have secured a group of people to function within a platform based on law, ethics, culture, ancestry, religion, etc. It is easy to look back and say borders are irrelevant or obsolete, it even may be a bit arrogant.

You make a good case that borders don't cause poverty, but rather they cause prosperity that wouldn't exist otherwise.

At one point in human history borders began to make sense, and may have prevented violence over territory. Then we had time for development.

What makes us sure we are beyond that? (I know you didn't say that)

In 1920 they probably thought they were at the Pinnacle of development too. Then we had time for development.

 

[member 3289]

We obviously need a certain number of illegal immigrants to accept the shitty wages that will keep production costs down. I am aware of this.

But we need to do our best to limit the number while at the same time plead blind ignorance.

It's not easy.

 

[Splinty]

We obviously need a certain number of illegal immigrants to accept the shitty wages that will keep production costs down

This is where we part ways. We don't need modern slaves to maintain a good quality of life.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Someone said something about not having borders on the Moon or Mars when we eventually colonize those places, cant find the post cause its 0200 but you can bet your ass we will be creating very man made borders on the Moon and Mars as soon as the second group gets there. Animals like us create borders as a matter of instinct. We've done it in Antarctica very very recently.

 

[Yossarian]

We obviously need a certain number of illegal immigrants to accept the shitty wages that will keep production costs down. I am aware of this.

But that would cost money elsewhere since this is untaxed employment. We end up losing the money on the other side. The employer gets to make the extra money, and you get to pay more taxes, or higher fees for governmental services. It will come back to us somehow. This is why automation presents such a challenge. And in the dawn of automation, where do we fit illegal workers, or more importantly, where do we fit in?