5 ms·

You forgot convincing the Mexicans and Canadians that they are better off giving up their sovereignty... unless you planned on pulling a Hawaii.

by lutorm 10y ago

mozumder 10y ago
I think for that to happen, we'd have to have universal health-care, at the minimum, along with lots of other details. Maybe a fair court system, gun control, proper environmental actions, etc.. All these details are negotiable. The question is: what would it actually take to do that?
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It seems like an impossible task. The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans. Gun control is an issue in the US now, imagine the arguments against it when really nasty criminals really do have sizable armories. Good luck convincing the average person to give up the right to carry a pistol.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    "The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans." I agree there is a challenge here (because I support universal healthcare and I support open borders, while seeing how that could be disastrous for fiscal responsibility). It really should have happened years ago...Mexico would be economically healthier (though they're actually in better shape than most Americans have been led to believe), and it would be easier to find a path toward universal healthcare across the continent, so that'd no longer be a major factor for where people choose to live. Also, by even the most pessimistic measure immigrants become a net positive for our economy by the second generation...and that fact is a big part of US economic growth over most of its existence. So, we just need to find a way to hasten that transition to contributing member of society, reduce the inefficiencies of the "emergency room and debt" universal healthcare system we currently have for immigrants, the homeless, etc., and negotiate with Mexico to normalize services across the continent (normalizing means we've got to start to catch up with Canada, too). Sure, it's a longterm project, but I think it's worth doing. Economic growth in the US has slowed tremendously. Expanding our trade with Mexico, including free movement of human capital, would be a great thing, IMHO. We're just in such an ugly time in our history. People are lashing out at any convenient scapegoat, and a few billionaires are happy to point at Mexicans, lest people start to question their own motives and actions.
arcticbull 10y ago
You don't need to give up sovereignty for open borders. The EU model, recent Trumpian behavior in the UK aside, works quite well. Freedom of movement and of labor are good things, if you can convince people of it. Remember, borders are just imaginary anyways.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Borders are imaginary as laws; doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    Even more so, laws apply within borders. In a world with no borders which laws apply?
    - arcticbull 10y ago
      The imaginary thing was just an aside, my point was that rule of law and sovereignty can remain (and should, IMO) even with open borders in the immigration sense. I view 'countries' as experiments in human self-organization -- the more the merrier up to a point. European nations are able to retain both language and national identity in spite of freedom of movement.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        The EU leadership seems to have a problem with that, and is actively working against nations having a national identity, spending tax money to do this. And this is why open borders are becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe.
  - camus2 10y ago
    All laws of a country are imaginary by definition. What you meant is borders are imaginary lines.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
SwellJoe 10y ago
I don't believe that's necessary, at all. Free movement is not the same as "dissolve" bordering states. There are challenges on both sides of the border, but losing sovereignty isn't one of them. It just takes both states agreeing to the terms, which has been done in numerous states across Europe for many years, without disaster.

You forgot convincing the Mexicans and Canadians that they are better off giving up their sovereignty... unless you planned on pulling a Hawaii.

by lutorm 10y ago

You forgot convincing the Mexicans and Canadians that they are better off giving up their sovereignty... unless you planned on pulling a Hawaii.

mozumder 10y ago

I think for that to happen, we'd have to have universal health-care, at the minimum, along with lots of other details. Maybe a fair court system, gun control, proper environmental actions, etc.. All these details are negotiable. The question is: what would it actually take to do that?

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It seems like an impossible task. The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans. Gun control is an issue in the US now, imagine the arguments against it when really nasty criminals really do have sizable armories. Good luck convincing the average person to give up the right to carry a pistol.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  "The US can't provide universal health care to its own citizens...how could it offer it to tens of millions of poor Mexicans." I agree there is a challenge here (because I support universal healthcare and I support open borders, while seeing how that could be disastrous for fiscal responsibility). It really should have happened years ago...Mexico would be economically healthier (though they're actually in better shape than most Americans have been led to believe), and it would be easier to find a path toward universal healthcare across the continent, so that'd no longer be a major factor for where people choose to live. Also, by even the most pessimistic measure immigrants become a net positive for our economy by the second generation...and that fact is a big part of US economic growth over most of its existence. So, we just need to find a way to hasten that transition to contributing member of society, reduce the inefficiencies of the "emergency room and debt" universal healthcare system we currently have for immigrants, the homeless, etc., and negotiate with Mexico to normalize services across the continent (normalizing means we've got to start to catch up with Canada, too). Sure, it's a longterm project, but I think it's worth doing. Economic growth in the US has slowed tremendously. Expanding our trade with Mexico, including free movement of human capital, would be a great thing, IMHO. We're just in such an ugly time in our history. People are lashing out at any convenient scapegoat, and a few billionaires are happy to point at Mexicans, lest people start to question their own motives and actions.

arcticbull 10y ago

You don't need to give up sovereignty for open borders. The EU model, recent Trumpian behavior in the UK aside, works quite well. Freedom of movement and of labor are good things, if you can convince people of it. Remember, borders are just imaginary anyways.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Borders are imaginary as laws; doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.
- kmonsen 10y ago
  Even more so, laws apply within borders. In a world with no borders which laws apply?
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    The imaginary thing was just an aside, my point was that rule of law and sovereignty can remain (and should, IMO) even with open borders in the immigration sense. I view 'countries' as experiments in human self-organization -- the more the merrier up to a point. European nations are able to retain both language and national identity in spite of freedom of movement.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      The EU leadership seems to have a problem with that, and is actively working against nations having a national identity, spending tax money to do this. And this is why open borders are becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe.
- camus2 10y ago
  All laws of a country are imaginary by definition. What you meant is borders are imaginary lines.
mynameisvlad 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

I don't believe that's necessary, at all. Free movement is not the same as "dissolve" bordering states. There are challenges on both sides of the border, but losing sovereignty isn't one of them. It just takes both states agreeing to the terms, which has been done in numerous states across Europe for many years, without disaster.