> bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy.

Quite right. It wasn't just that Bernie disagrees with open borders, in that video he is visibly upset. He really doesn't like it.

(It was the Vox interview I assume, unless you saw another one)

Also if you are old enough you might remember large anti-globalization protests around G8, Bilderberg and other such meetings.

It is kind of baffling how just a decade ago left groups were getting teargassed fighting globalization and now they are openly advocating it.

Such is the power of propaganda. It is extremely effective and could turn pink into blue, and then yellow with some moderate effort.

I suggest everyone read Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent. It was actual when it was written and just as actual even if not more today.

Speaking of Chomsky, find his writings on NAFTA and globalization as well. It might also surprise you what he has to say.

I'm pretty sure the people getting tear gassed over globalization at the G8 were against capital leveraging international workers to destroy domestic labor power and the ones getting tear gassed recently are fighting against policies targeting immigrant and refugee communities. It seems pretty consistent to want to protect workers and also fight xenophobia.

There's a wide variety of positions between "open borders" and "forcibly take refugee children away from their families and put both in detention facilities".

One can object to the latter without supporting the former.

In theory - in practice though we have had decades of weak borders.

Weak borders are still not open borders, and I again ask that you not conflate the two.

Please name a crime where you are allowed to take your children with you when you're arrested.

Please name a misdemeanor crime that results in loss of custody of your dependent children on the first offense.

I'm pretty sure we don't permanently separate families for doing things like petty theft.

There's also the the 'Affluenza' case where a teenager killed four people and got off scott-free. Well, until he was found fleeing probation in a foreign country and was dragged back here.

So I don't know: Do you think crossing the border is worse than murder?

The affluenza comparison feels like a "whataboutism" to me. Virtually nobody holds that case up as an example of the system working in a healthy and desirable way.

No. It's not. The comment I directly replied to was asking for a crime where you can take your children with you when you're arrested.

We've already established the fact the system is massively stacked against minorities. Then we continue to use 'but it's a crime!' as justification for vile and malicious behavior to people that have committed something without an actual victim like smoking marijuana or crossing the border.

And again, we do not permanently separate families in every single case where someone commits misdemeanor. So then why is it OK to permanently separate all immigrants who cross the border despite it being the same level of crime? Give me one reason outside of 'racism and xenophobia.'

I'm only commenting on your affluenza comparison specifically.

Here's an example of why I think the comparison is meaningless. Grand theft can be charged as a misdemeanor with up to a two year jail sentence. But Brock Turner was sentenced to only six months of jail time for rape. Do you think grand theft is worse than rape? Of course not, but the problem here is the Brock Turner sentence, not the sentencing for grand theft. This question could only be posed because, by design, I selected a more serious crime (rape) for which there exists at least one case where an inappropriately lenient sentence was given out.

You did the same. By design, you selected a more serious crime (murder) for which there exists at least one case where an inappropriately lenient sentence was given out. You then used this highly dysfunctional example to draw a comparison to the less serious crime. But the simplest response to your question comparing crossing the border and murder is simply that the affluenza sentencing was wrong.

And yet you failed to address my point entirely. Which is that far worse crimes in the US end up with more lenient sentencing than immigrants crossing the border.

But fine then, I want to draw up a more apt comparison and I want you to address this. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor similar to crossing the border illegally. How often do you think people caught being publicly intoxicated end up losing custody of their children or being permanently separated from their family?

> Public intoxication is a misdemeanor similar to crossing the border illegally.

I’d argue trying to illegally immigrate to the US is a serious crime and public intoxication is not.

As was clear from my first post, and as I stated explicitly in my second, and as I now state explicitly again, I was only commenting on your affluenza comparison. I found the comparison to be meaningless and invalid for the reasons I stated above. I never registered any opinion whatsoever on the specific issues at the border, so in particular I’m curious why you’re so confident I even disagree with you on that. Someone who agrees with your conclusion may still find your path there fallacious.

Requesting asylum is not a crime, so I'm confused by this request.

I think that's more than valid. Does doing so require always crossing border illegally? Also, what percentage of people are under a legitimate threat of their lives (or relatives)?

Why are you focusing on people who entered the country illegally? The trump admin has separated families who crossed the border legally at ports of entry and then requested asylum[1].

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-right...

crossing the border illegally is

So who is doing this? And why? I only know the top leaders of US politics and all of them pretend that they are holy and the other side is pure evil.

Funnily a child comment to you points out that "trump puts children in cage" and I followed the issue and somebody said it was an Obama era photo and they were detained by Obama because the so called parents were actually traffickers which I of course would support Obama for

Globalism is part of the core philosophy of neo-liberalism, which most mainline political parties were advocating up until the past couple of years when public sentiment went against globalism. Both Republicans and Democrats were in favour of the TPP, for example.

Globalism is orthogonal to leftism/rightism. Brexit support was roughly similar among both Labour and Conservative party supporters.

Chomsky's Profit over People is also a fantastic read.

Yep, indeed. This has turned quite strikingly since the Seattle round. Democrats used to be pro-Us workers. Pro-Union. Now they forget about US workers, except to demand minimum wage increases but that does not do anything to protect well-paying union jobs which get shipped off or get undercut by illegal workers who work for less then minimum wage.

It's quite interesting to see the Trump faction take this mantle and the Democrats (and traditional Repubs) have no idea how to react except to be reactionary and be pro-Globalization pro-TPP, pro-intervention, etc.

The left was the major source of anti immigration law until they replaced xenophobic labor laws with today's political reality

Why was this so downvoted?

They think it's political point scoring but you are substantially correct. Maybe mentioning that this shift took place in the late 80s and 90s would have helped.

I will sound jaded and trite when I say this but if you want to understand American decisions (corporate or government) the most accurate thing to do is to follow the money. If you remember that point, it becomes quite simple that decisions are not really inconsistent. They're actually completely consistent. It's not bad or good, it's just the way it is.

If you think putting children in cages and having open borders is the only two positions you can hold, you're delusional.

Bernie wants a stronger social system in the U.S. If you want universal healthcare, you can't have open borders. But you also don't have to put children in cages. You consider each case, provide asylum if they're in danger, deport if not etc.

Yeah, "Open borders" is a pretty extreme example of "weasel words" that we would spot if it came in a set of product requirements. Does it refer to residency or just to visiting? What's the opposite of an open border, a closed border? Would a closed border with Mexico really mean no travel across it at all, like the Berlin wall?

People argue about "health tourism" in the UK system of near-universal healthcare(+), and the actual hospitals point out that it would cost them far more to check everyone's immigration status than they would recover from visitors who technically aren't entitled to care. There's nothing to say you can't have a "universal" healthcare system which imposes a residency requirement for non-acute care.

(+) except dental and optician services, $10 prescription co-pay applies outside Scotland

I agree, that "health tourism" isn't really a thing, however my use of the term "open-borders" was in reference to how detractors of universal healthcare, (mostly on the right), in the U.S. straw man it as meaning that it means the entire Latin America moving to the U.S. Putting aside the implied supremacy of the U.S. etc., I just wanted to point out that this is not what people like Bernie are arguing for and is therefore a total strawman.

Health tourism absolutely is a thing. There are even companies that specialize in arranging it. However, my understanding is that it predominantly falls into two categories, neither of which is particularly about exploiting systems like the NHS:

1) People traveling to e.g. the US or Israel to get procedures that aren't available in their home country.

2) People traveling from high-cost to low-cost countries and paying everything out-of-pocket because even forgoing insurance and adding travel costs still leaves it drastically cheaper than their home country.

There are some cases of people scamming government-funded healthcare, but I think those have been sensationalized by the press.

I meant [exploitative] health tourism as that's what the term usually refers to.

I think you have a wonderful observation. I don't think so lot of people know what is right. I think most people's definition of right is totally driven by political ideology consumed via mass media and social network echo chambers. I think most of us aren't educated about this topic to know the real long-term effects of open borders or isolationism. I think all sides have to put the emotion and rhetoric down and view it through multiple lenses. What does open borders look like for our economy and form of government in 10. 25, or 50 years? Does it likely lead to a place America loses the good parts of its national identity because the amount of people coming in can't be assimilated into our philosophies in our constitution? Does isolationism lead us to a place where we aren't longer a world leader and some horrible state fills the vacuum on the world's stage? I certainly don't know. How do we define right and wrong in an era where ever issue of morality is polarized? Or where it's okay for one politician to do something but not for another politician? I think in the case of Google, they are selling their souls by providing services to a government that persecutes Muslims (and their own people), but we can't forget that they also have cooperated with the U.S. government which has committed just as many atrocities here and around the world. It's not in this moment that Google crossed the line. I think unfortunately, the great experiment of democracy is just about over. I fear it will be looked upon by historians as this emergent phenomenon that occurred between massive tyrannical empires.

> Does it likely lead to a place America loses the good parts of its national identity because the amount of people coming in can't be assimilated into our philosophies in our constitution?

The people who have most challenged U.S. principles of liberty and democracy, and 'all men are created equal", have been those whose families have been in the U.S. for generations. They've supported slavery, segregation, lynching and other oppression, voter suppression, and, whether one agrees with the policies or not, the Republican Party's current policies of being anti-immigrant, voter suppression, supporting partisanship in the judiciary, and in foreign policy ignoring human rights and democracy while supporting dictators.

I hear ya.

I'm definitely not saying that ideology is right, I'm just saying that I don't think that any side really has a good understanding of the impacts of either decision. I've been careful to not express my own opinion, but I'll share it now, probably to my own detriment.

I think that immigration doesn't have to be a polarized thing. The two major sides have done their best to turn this into a polarized issue and a false dichotomy. While I would certainly love to see people coming into the country through legal means, I also feel that our legal process is shit. The thing that I can't get through the heads of anyone that oppose "those brown people" is that yeah, statistically, we may get some criminals, but per capita, we have wayyyy more people trying to come here than are likely criminals. If this many people are trying to escape from their country, be it Syria or Mexico, we have to look at that and think about what it takes to drive someone to leave the place that they grew up.

The other thing that I've shared in the past that will likely get me shredded if the wrong person comes across this, is that I'm happy to not be in the majority race. I would rather be in a place where everyone has a seat at the table. As far as losing our national identity, I don't buy that either. The number one threat to our national identity right now is... wait for it... Americans. For years we were told that Muslims would come here and implement Sharia law. We are now seeing court enabled protections for those who feel their religious beliefs are violated by LGBT people such as myself. We are actively taking the steps to implement the Christian version of Sharia law.

Even at the end of these opinions, I still don't think I fully understand the right solution. I think this is a dangerous time for this country. History is on the side of us having another civil war or revolution. I hesitate to compare us to the French Revolution as so many do, so I'll draw out a larger comparison. What has happened in history when laws begin to favor wealth and the center of power? I don't mean everyday legislation, but the level of shit we are beginning to see here with extreme tax breaks and protections. It doesn't look good.

> As far as losing our national identity, I don't buy that either.

Well there is an easy compromise - for the first two generations immigrants have their vote automatically assigned to the most right wing candidate.

Then the right wing won’t be so worried about losing their voice.

There won't be any historians if you are right.

This is politics in general. The power structure incentivises liars and crooks. It shouldn't be a surprise.

Conflating things like maintaining a border and detaining children of asylum seekers as a deterrent doesn't help the discussion other than to muddy the waters.

Politics is dirty pool and is mostly a distraction. Show me the incentives and I'll show you the result.

For context , this is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

and yeah, open borders was a libertarian idea but somehow the tables have turned.

> but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side?

What is the “right” side?

Trump is quintessentially American and a nationalist.

Is that good? I guess it depends on who you are and what you want.

The “right” side is the one supported by evidence. There are some things maybe people can never agree on, but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other.

I disagree. Political questions are matter of choice, not fact. Values will always be a matter of debate.

Absolutely true. The only problem is that rarely are actual values being debated in politics.

And that's a shame. People are scared to debate values because they don't want the value structures that their lives center around to crumble. Without debating values, you might end up spending a huge proportion of your life on something that later doesn't matter to you...

> but for the vast majority of issues, there is evidence that supports one side more than the other.

I’m not so sure that is true.

In my experience there is propaganda everywhere and politicians are trying to build a narrative instead of trying to find the truth.

> there is propaganda everywhere

The propagandists would love you to throw up your hands and believe this; their goal is to paralyze you, sow chaos and despair.

It's like a liar saying to you, after they lie to your face for the 10th time, 'everyone lies'. It's a false attempt to justify and normalize their bad behavior. Technically yes, but it's meaningless; some people are far more trustworthy than others. The trustworthiness of information and politicians varies greatly.

> The trustworthiness of information and politicians varies greatly.

Yes it does - and we are hopeless at determining who is trustworthy and who isn’t.

For example I am a well educated, well paid, and politically aware person and I trust Trump. Other equally educated, paid, aware, etc people distrust Trump.

> throw up your hands

I think we need techniques to move in a positive direction even in the face of propaganda.

Techniques to ensure politicians are worse off when we the people are worse off. E.g. Salary capping for life at say 2x median state pay.

Techniques that help us risk adjust decisions based on how easy it is to back out of them. E.g. It’s far easier to add more immigrants if we find out we have taken in too few than it is to kick out immigrants if we find out we have taken in too many.

Techniques that ensure negative consequences of voting a particular way are felt by the voters. E.g. if you vote to ban private schools and it goes through then your kids are assigned to a bottom 25% public school.

Etc.

> we are hopeless at determining who is trustworthy and who isn’t

We are not at all hopeless. We're not perfect, but we do pretty well. Just because people make mistakes sometimes doesn't at all mean that everyone is hopeless. Bad software is written, but we can produce good software. People trust the wrong person, but democracy and human rights has blossomed and spread.

Your proposals about politicians are interesting in that Trump likely wouldn't agree to facing the consequences of his actions.

> Bad software is written, but we can produce good software.

Great example! How do we make our political system more robust like software dev?

Even good software developers make plenty of mistakes and the system overall manages to keep trucking on.

It’s because we have a whole host of techniques to limit our losses - for example at work we have systems in place to automatically roll back recent changes if we detect a problem.

We could apply this technique to legislation by putting in a set of conditions under which the legislation would be automatically revoked.

> Your proposals about politicians are interesting in that Trump likely wouldn't agree to facing the consequences of his actions.

It is not just politicians - we all have an aversion to taking responsibility for our actions and beliefs.

You have every right to meddle in American affairs. This is the country of all people of the world. All people who value freedom and individual dignity. Decent Americans welcome everyone and want to help everyone because they realize it helps themselves to do so. It does no good for regular people to buy into these notions of separation. That notion is a tool for maintaining power. The underbelly of the world are the only ones who care about power for themselves. It's a disease.

Also this is not meddling. Part of being a super power is out politics is world polifics . Keep asking questions

Good point,thank you. No offense but I guess your politics affects ours very directly.

I totally agree although I now have people down voting everything I post. Bizarre

Why was this downvoted?