Open borders has allowed millions through. Quarter million last month.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna66818

These aren’t trivial numbers that can be ignored. But a replacement of much the country.

Grew up in Southern California. It was strange watching everything go from English speaking to Spanish speaking by the time I left the area.

I married a “legal” immigrant who got her citizenship as we were dating.

Borders can be managed. Certain political parties want them to be open however.

I grew up in Southern California in the 1970s, and a non-trival percentage of the daily conversations I had with normal people had to be in Spanish, because their English was much worse than my Spanish, which was fair.

"Southern California" was/is a very, very big area. I grew up southeast of downtown.

Can you share where/when you grew up? Just curious.

As far as 'replacement': I can't dismiss such opinions out of hand, but for another anecdote: two of my great grandparents, who came from Germany in the late 19th century, lived in the US for many decades and never learned English that well.

Their children, my dad's father, of course spoke English fluently.

I guess I’m not sure I understand what’s so great about English anyway. Why not switch to Spanish, or at least adopt a more bilingual approach where it makes sense.

You think that the concept of unauthorized workers coming across the border has only existed since the year 2000?

I think you're confusing the term "undocumented" or "undocumented worker" with the underlying concept that's referenced by the terms. The concept has long been in in the public spotlight using different terms ("illegal" or "illegal alien").

Here's some statements from Gerald Ford on the same concept, using the old lingo: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0110/1181...

Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently. When border crossings were easier and cheaper migrant workers could come work for a harvest or several and return to Mexico or beyond during the off season only living in the US for a short period while working. Now the crossing is more expensive and dangerous so the incentive is to move here full time.

> Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently.

Border crossings are at a 20 year high, but the problem is that border controls are too tight? That seems odd.

The problem you're having here is that you think "border crossings = bad", but that's not really the issue, is it? If a person doesn't live in the US, and is instead allowed to commute to/from Mexico, you get the upsides of their labor without the "downsides" of supporting them (IMO a disgusting way of thinking about it but here we are).

Considering they pay income taxes, sales taxes, social security/medicaid, and don't make much use of US resources, it seems to me that you would want border crossings to increase dramatically, as long as they're accompanied by a corresponding crossing back home at the end of the day.

...which is exactly how it was, 20ish years ago, before 9/11.

It's more profitable to our lower classes to keep the Mexicans / Guatemalans / whatever locked up in their own country to suppress their wages and competition and then allow free trade of goods. That gets us lots of cheap shit without having to pay USA wages.

I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that.

I don't really understand the argument for open borders as a net humanitarian good. For the individuals who come to the US, sure. But how will these countries in Middle America ever develop while their most ambitious, most hard-working, most risk-taking people are siphoned off to live (relatively) cushy lives in the USA?

Just look at what has happened to Puerto Rico. Everyone who can, leaves. What's left is grim. Easy access to the USA is a great deal for the minority who get out, but for most Puerto Ricans, it's hard to imagine that they're better off as a result.

> I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that.

Half the country agrees with you, but they'd never admit it.

I hope those countries would adapt by competing and fixing the things that fuck up their business climate. Also worth noting if their labor flees the price of labor in their country would rise and hopefully make things better for the remainder.

Your comment would make sense if the primary goal of our border policy was to facilitate cross-border commuting for Mexicans without work visas. If the primary goal is having control of your border (i.e. choosing who gets to come into your country, which is a basic function of competent governments) then this activity would be either prevented, or regulated via special work visas.

Either way, the idea that "tight border controls" are a contributing factor to the large number of illegal immigrants in the united states is entirely divorced from reality.

I'm confused; why isn't the idea of making something more or less legal related to how many people illegally do that thing?

They wouldn't be illegal immigrants if we didn't have "tight border controls" by definition, so it feels related and not "divorced from reality"...

We lived through this, basically all of American history up until 9/11, where the Mexican border was "loose"(er, the US committed some pretty fucked up atrocities using that border a few times in its history); it seems to me that if we returned to that level of interaction with Mexico, the vast majority of concerns raised by anti-immigration folks would be quelled.

Yep. Only in my lifetime have we attempted to limit movement across that border. But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people. When in fact they're the same people who mow our lawns and wash our dishes every time we eat out. smh

> But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people.

I guess pretending the issue is just some kind of Fox News conspiracy theory is easier than actually understanding it?

People use the language of "invasion" for a reason. In Texas, non-hispanic whites make up ~30% of births[0], but accounted for only 5% of the population growth[1].

You'll write that off as "muh replacement conspiracy", of course--I can tell that you've been well programmed!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/

Wow, I did Nazi that coming.

Can you elaborate on what's wrong with, "In Texas, non-hispanic whites make up ~30% of births[0], but accounted for only 5% of the population growth[1]?"

I think it'd be awesome if we all had to learn Spanish in some parts of the US. What a boon for cultural diversity that would be! The exchange of ideas would be so good for our shared society.

I have memories of illegal immigrant workers from longer than 22 years ago and the USA has had immigration laws for much longer than 22 years. Have I misunderstood your statement?

I think you missed the “as we know it now” part.

How did the US southern border work in your memories? Would you be surprised to learn it was almost unrecognizable compared to what it is now?

Here are Reagan and H.W. debating whether "children of illegal aliens should be allowed to use schools" https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=YsmgPp_nlok

This is from 43 years ago.