3 ms·

Oh, there might be quite a few in terms of absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the population they are most definitely in the minority. See this Harvard p

Oh, there might be quite a few in terms of absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the population they are most definitely in the minority. See this Harvard poll from last year: https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigration-and-foreign-policy https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigrati... Not only do the majority of Americans not want open borders, they want less immigration than is currently occurring.

shkkmo 7y ago
Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. There are good practical reasons why open borders are a bad fit for many situations. That does not mean that those situations can't be changed to make that no longer true.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily read it that way, but I think we're more or less on the same page. > I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. I'm not sure that we will see a practical set of circumstances where people would actually be OK with open borders. People have always had some reflex against migration (for cultural reasons, as well as perhaps an instinct fear of disease) and mass migration has historically almost always led to violence. On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons".
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons". This one of the practical reasons I alluded to and is part of my reasons for opposing certain types of welfare systems (and thus something I wish more attention was paid to in the creation of policy proposals.) Many services (e.g. education, infrastructure, policing and more) pay off so well in the long term that paying these costs for immigrants is in our own interest as they increase the long term value of those immigrants. (I think the US would be greatly served by doing something like what Germany does, offering free higher education to foreigners who qualify to attend their public universities.) If other public services are actually being abused they can be limited to citizens of the US (and of countries with which the US has reciprocity agreements with.) Immigration fears make a strong argument in favor of a citizenship dividend. I think subsidizing your workers and making them more competive vs. immigrants is far better for our country than the dehumanizing policing (not just at the borders) required to effectively enforce immigration laws. Personally, I view this as a negative since I think immigration has been unabashedly good in the long term for our country throughout it's history. Immigration controls may offer some sort term benefits, but it seems hypocritical to ask for those benefits for ourselves (at the cost of future generations) while reaping the advantages of historical immigration.
tunesmith 7y ago
This strikes me as one of those things where the polled results vary drastically depending on how the question is asked. The border situation (between whatever countries) is affected by globalization and communication, including the creation of the internet. When people realize how much better they can have it elsewhere (which is much easier to realize than it used to be), it creates more demand to move. But this results in a spike of demand that will normalize over time. And this is because other effects of globalization have already started to normalize the differences between countries. For instance, it's not as cheap to offshore as it used to be, and that trend will continue. Human rights are increasing in other countries at a faster rate than they used to, just from the greater visibility of the rights people enjoy in other countries. If we're all lucky, most of the normalization will be that other less advanced countries will improve, rather than other countries degrading - like hopefully we can all "grow" enough fast enough that it'll lift those boats, rather than sink the boats in the more societally/technologically advanced countries. And that fear that "them getting ahead" might mean that "we will fall behind" is basically what drives the demand to "protect" our borders, even while generally people are in favor of everyone having a better life. So I think it's totally possible for a majority of the country to be in favor of more open borders over time, while also being against entirely opening all our borders tomorrow.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > This strikes me as one of those things where the polled results vary drastically depending on how the question is asked. I've seen a few different polls on the subject. From what I understand open borders has always been a minority position (even among immigrants). > And that fear that "them getting ahead" might mean that "we will fall behind" is basically what drives the demand to "protect" our borders, even while generally people are in favor of everyone having a better life. I think it's deeper than that. I've tried to address some of the reasons why in other comments on this thread.

shkkmo 7y ago

Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. There are good practical reasons why open borders are a bad fit for many situations. That does not mean that those situations can't be changed to make that no longer true.

lliamander 7y ago
> Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily read it that way, but I think we're more or less on the same page. > I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. I'm not sure that we will see a practical set of circumstances where people would actually be OK with open borders. People have always had some reflex against migration (for cultural reasons, as well as perhaps an instinct fear of disease) and mass migration has historically almost always led to violence. On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons".
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons". This one of the practical reasons I alluded to and is part of my reasons for opposing certain types of welfare systems (and thus something I wish more attention was paid to in the creation of policy proposals.) Many services (e.g. education, infrastructure, policing and more) pay off so well in the long term that paying these costs for immigrants is in our own interest as they increase the long term value of those immigrants. (I think the US would be greatly served by doing something like what Germany does, offering free higher education to foreigners who qualify to attend their public universities.) If other public services are actually being abused they can be limited to citizens of the US (and of countries with which the US has reciprocity agreements with.) Immigration fears make a strong argument in favor of a citizenship dividend. I think subsidizing your workers and making them more competive vs. immigrants is far better for our country than the dehumanizing policing (not just at the borders) required to effectively enforce immigration laws. Personally, I view this as a negative since I think immigration has been unabashedly good in the long term for our country throughout it's history. Immigration controls may offer some sort term benefits, but it seems hypocritical to ask for those benefits for ourselves (at the cost of future generations) while reaping the advantages of historical immigration.

tunesmith 7y ago

This strikes me as one of those things where the polled results vary drastically depending on how the question is asked. The border situation (between whatever countries) is affected by globalization and communication, including the creation of the internet. When people realize how much better they can have it elsewhere (which is much easier to realize than it used to be), it creates more demand to move. But this results in a spike of demand that will normalize over time. And this is because other effects of globalization have already started to normalize the differences between countries. For instance, it's not as cheap to offshore as it used to be, and that trend will continue. Human rights are increasing in other countries at a faster rate than they used to, just from the greater visibility of the rights people enjoy in other countries. If we're all lucky, most of the normalization will be that other less advanced countries will improve, rather than other countries degrading - like hopefully we can all "grow" enough fast enough that it'll lift those boats, rather than sink the boats in the more societally/technologically advanced countries. And that fear that "them getting ahead" might mean that "we will fall behind" is basically what drives the demand to "protect" our borders, even while generally people are in favor of everyone having a better life. So I think it's totally possible for a majority of the country to be in favor of more open borders over time, while also being against entirely opening all our borders tomorrow.

lliamander 7y ago
> This strikes me as one of those things where the polled results vary drastically depending on how the question is asked. I've seen a few different polls on the subject. From what I understand open borders has always been a minority position (even among immigrants). > And that fear that "them getting ahead" might mean that "we will fall behind" is basically what drives the demand to "protect" our borders, even while generally people are in favor of everyone having a better life. I think it's deeper than that. I've tried to address some of the reasons why in other comments on this thread.