4 ms·

> 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 inter

> 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.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Realistically there is a group within the Democratic party which justifies illegal immigration because it excites the base and offers a potential constituency. We've had this cycle once before - in the 80s the Republicans agreed to amnesty on the condition of enforcement. The enforcement never came. 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.
ue_ 10y ago
>I self-identify as a neoliberal (fiscally conservative); is that part of the left? 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.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  It's really not as complicated as you make it out to be. Everyone has a right to put the interests of themselves and their group first and foremost. Given that, the "solution" to immigration is to just not bother with it when it isn't in your interests. The reason the left wants immigration is because they overwhelmingly vote left. The reason the right doesn't is because they don't want to lose their cultural and national identity. Nowhere along the line does anybody care about why people want to be here - it's not their concern.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >The reason the left wants immigration is because they overwhelmingly vote left. 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.
Oxitendwe 10y ago
>Economics research says low wage immigrants are a net economic benefit, so it is in the interest of its citizens 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.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > Economics is not the only factor to factor into someone's interests. Everyone has things they value more than money. 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 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.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Realistically there is a group within the Democratic party which justifies illegal immigration because it excites the base and offers a potential constituency. We've had this cycle once before - in the 80s the Republicans agreed to amnesty on the condition of enforcement. The enforcement never came. 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.

ue_ 10y ago

>I self-identify as a neoliberal (fiscally conservative); is that part of the left? 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.

Oxitendwe 10y ago
It's really not as complicated as you make it out to be. Everyone has a right to put the interests of themselves and their group first and foremost. Given that, the "solution" to immigration is to just not bother with it when it isn't in your interests. The reason the left wants immigration is because they overwhelmingly vote left. The reason the right doesn't is because they don't want to lose their cultural and national identity. Nowhere along the line does anybody care about why people want to be here - it's not their concern.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >The reason the left wants immigration is because they overwhelmingly vote left. 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.

Oxitendwe 10y ago

>Economics research says low wage immigrants are a net economic benefit, so it is in the interest of its citizens 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.

witty_username 10y ago
> Economics is not the only factor to factor into someone's interests. Everyone has things they value more than money. 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 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.