What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humanitarian ideals. It's blatantly obvious that this advocacy for open borders is part of a power grab by the left to ensure that they stay in power for decades to come, at the expense of the people who actually built the society that they want to invite everyone else to live in. What party do they think these people are going to overwhelmingly vote for? I don't understand how people can openly advocate for destroying our society just for political gain.
I self-identify as a neoliberal (fiscally conservative); is that part of the left?
Economics research says low wage immigrants are a net economic benefit, so it is in the interest of its citizens, but not completely objectively as some people are harmed. Also, I think the extreme poverty in parts of the world can justify help, just like how 1000$ is more to a poor person than a millionaire.
No, immigration alleviates poverty as Americans are much richer than the average person. Why do you think so many people want to immigrate?
I don't think it's a power grab by the left (open borders are not popular, as you can see right here) and that's irrelevant to the merits of open borders.
> the people who actually built the society that they want to invite everyone else to live in
This criticism seems to be for leftists.
Well, I am against forcing racial diversity, so you can stay with your ethnic group/society in my proposal.
There's also a group of well-meaning people who see the plight of good people who just want to make a living and therefore are for open borders. The first group takes advantage of the second group and there's no way of disentangling them.
There is a very real criticism, however, that something like open borders could destroy the productive society people are fleeing to especially if that immigration is against rule of law or eventual assimilation.
As the descendants of immigrants who are now Americans, a lot of people are opposed to haphazard immigration without assimilation. American society is so great because people of various cultures come together and make it something new. It appears (to me) that some people don't care about what is sustainable and would rather win for the sake of politics.
Economics is not the only factor to factor into someone's interests. Everyone has things they value more than money.
>Also, I think the extreme poverty in parts of the world can justify help, just like how 1000$ is more to a poor person than a millionaire.
How does that justify help? It's not just like you help them to get on their feet and you're done. They and their descendants will live in your society for generations. Nobody is obligated to give them this at the expense of their citizens.
>No, immigration alleviates poverty as Americans are much richer than the average person. Why do you think so many people want to immigrate?
They want to immigrate here because wages are higher. However, there are only a limited number of jobs, and so flooding the job market with more people prevents natives from being able to find work, which is against their interests.
>I don't think it's a power grab by the left (open borders are not popular, as you can see right here) and that's irrelevant to the merits of open borders.
It's exactly like Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, where he tried to pack the supreme court with justices favorable to his political faction, except this time they are trying to pack the US electorate. These people and their descendants overwhelmingly vote left.
>Well, I am against forcing racial diversity, so you can stay with your ethnic group/society in my proposal.
That's illegal in the United States. Every ethnic group has to live among every other ethnic group. Nobody can create societies that only allow people of their ethnic group to live among them, so it's not true that anyone can stay with their ethnic group, barring some serious constitutional reforms.
What are the things that affect the case for open immigration?
> How does that justify help? It's not just like you help them to get on their feet and you're done. They and their descendants will live in your society for generations. Nobody is obligated to give them this at the expense of their citizens.
What is the harm in them living in my society?
> They want to immigrate here because wages are higher. However, there are only a limited number of jobs, and so flooding the job market with more people prevents natives from being able to find work, which is against their interests.
No, there are not a limited number of jobs. See lump of labor fallacy. Some natives will have a harder time finding work, but there's a net benefit to natives.
Just read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_immigration
> It's exactly like Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, where he tried to pack the supreme court with justices favorable to his political faction, except this time they are trying to pack the US electorate. These people and their descendants overwhelmingly vote left.
Don't give immigrants the right to vote or full citizenship then. Problem solved.
> >Well, I am against forcing racial diversity, so you can stay with your ethnic group/society in my proposal. That's illegal in the United States. Every ethnic group has to live among every other ethnic group. Nobody can create societies that only allow people of their ethnic group to live among them, so it's not true that anyone can stay with their ethnic group, barring some serious constitutional reforms.
Source for constitutional reforms being needed? I think the U.S. constitution only says the government can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, etc.
People worry about losing their cultural and ethnic identity. Nobody wants to be made a minority in their own country, no matter how much cheap labor they get out of it.
>What is the harm in them living in my society?
They bring their values and culture with them, and by sharing a society they change it, to a degree relative to how many of them there are, to be like theirs. The places many these people come from often have much different values than the American leftists who lobby for them to be here. I am particularly scared of this as an LGBT individual, as in a lot of immigration, particularly from Muslim majority countries, comes from places where public attitudes towards homosexuality are extremely negative and often violent (see: Omar Mateen).
>Don't give immigrants the right to vote or full citizenship then. Problem solved.
This won't work. Sure, the push now is just for them simply to be here, but creating an underclass of unrepresented people without the same rights as everyone else is a recipe for disaster. It will be easy for people seeking power to inspire hatred in them for their countrymen who are first-class citizens due to their unfair treatment, and then to incite them to violence for their political gain. A much better solution is simply to not let them in at all.
>Source for constitutional reforms being needed? I think the U.S. constitution only says the government can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, etc.
No one can refuse to let people of a certain ethnicity live among them. This is racial discrimination, which was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act under the Civil Rights Act of 1968. You're right, this is not technically a constitutional amendment, but the result is the same: you cannot stay with your ethnic group. If someone from another ethnic group wants to live in your society, you are obligated by law to let them.
No. The left believes in the workers controlling the means of production and stopping capitalists from exploiting labour by appropriating value that they have no right to. I am for the concept of open borders, though. I wish for the destruction of nations, and like Marx, I am only in favour of 'globalisation' for this purpose - to break down and dissolve those old traditions and natonalities.
The dialectic of immigratation asks to investigate the reason why people immigrate - to move from one state of exploitation (or even a feudal way of living) into a slightly better one (such as you would find in the US). They also immigrate beacuse of war, moved on in no small part by the capitalism of the military industrial complex.
Rather than selfishly trying to 'fix' immigration by building walls, perhaps we should destroy the reason why people want to immigrate. It's unfortunate that world leaders have such little foresight to do this.
This is extermely narrow-sighted and very uncharitable, and fails to explain the radical left's stance on immigration, given that very few immigrants vote for, say, the Communist party.
>Nowhere along the line does anybody care about why people want to be here - it's not their concern.
And that's what I'm saying the problem is. People have very little foresight such that instead of trying to implement a much more effective solution to this perceived threat to "cultural and national identity" they just say "let's build a wall".
It does not fix the material conditions that lead to immigration. The wall crumbles. People are still getting in, because they want to get in. If those people really cared about their culture so much, they would be willing to help address the cause of immigration.
At the very least, it's a shoddy hack designed to plug a big hole. And this is where we are now; 'the right' wants to use a poorly thought out hack out of narrow self-interest. Because apparently the only humans who matter are those on this side of the line in the sand.
>Because apparently the only humans who matter are those on this side of the line in the sand.
Everyone has a right to act in their best interests. Charity is never obligatory.
These are material conditions, but they do not cover all immigration, so they are insufficient. The bigger material conditions are namely that people want to live better lives, and they think that they can do so in "better" countries like the US.
>and remove their incentive to be here
This is what I am talking about. You must fix the material conditions, which means that you must either (i) make your own country worse or (ii) make others better. Why not do the second?
>We have our own country to make great (again!).
America has always been founded on capitalist exploitation. It never was 'great'.
>Everyone has a right to act in their best interests.
Sure, and it's in your best interest to fix the material conditions for immigration if you don't like immigration.
>Charity is never obligatory.
That's true, but it seems very selfish to not care about the fate of others, simply beacuse they were born somewhere else.
Are you sure nothing has changed about the economy since 1914?
Tell me a relevant change that affects my case.
Take a look at https://openborders.info for lots of reasons.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
I don't think you need >3x the annual median income (that's top 10%) for immigrants to benefit.
Economics research says high wage immigrants benefit while low wage immigrants benefit the natives on net, although it may harm some natives.
In my opinion, even if it may harm some natives, due to the poverty alleviating effects of immigration, we should open immigration to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. This isn't that crazy, till 1914 in the U.S.:
"Generally, those immigrants who were approved spent from two to five hours at Ellis Island. Arrivals were asked 29 questions including name, occupation, and the amount of money carried. It was important to the American government that the new arrivals could support themselves and have money to get started. The average the government wanted the immigrants to have was between 18 and 25 dollars ($600 in 2015 adjusted for inflation). Those with visible health problems or diseases were sent home or held in the island's hospital facilities for long periods of time. More than three thousand would-be immigrants died on Ellis Island while being held in the hospital facilities. Some unskilled workers were rejected because they were considered "likely to become a public charge." About 2 percent were denied admission to the U.S. and sent back to their countries of origin for reasons such as having a chronic contagious disease, criminal background, or insanity."
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island#Primary_inspectio... )
What I want is this minus the racism and disqualification for health problems except maybe for contagious diseases.