5 ms·

> "but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now" No one is arguing that Mexicans and Somalians don't have a right to leave their current emplo

by rsj_hn 5y ago

> "but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now" No one is arguing that Mexicans and Somalians don't have a right to leave their current employer and find a better employer. Oh, but you are talking about illegally entering another country they have no legal right to enter, which is a very different situation. Forcing yourself on a country where the citizens have decided to not allow you to enter is not the same thing as just looking for a higher paying employer. If you want open borders and believe that borders are immoral and citizens of a nation do not have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to be a fellow citizen, then argue for open borders and a one world government in which no nation has the ability to control who crosses their border and who can participate in their legal, production, electoral, and social insurance system. That is an intellectual position that a small minority holds, but make the case for denying citizens of a nation this right of self-determination and autonomy clearly and directly, don't couch it in the language of someone looking to switch employers. And then don't wring your hands that a nation has deteriorating solidarity and social insurance when you simultaneously advocate for citizenship having no meaning.

vasco 5y ago
I'm not arguing about anything related to borders. If someone is working a non-remote job, I assume they are a local worker. What the comment I replied to based their argument on is that certain people should have the freedom choose to trade work conditions for higher wages to improve their lives, but other people shouldn't. The classification that was given for that distinction was on the basis of nationality or refugee status, read Mexicans and Somalians.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > should have the freedom ...is doing a lot of work here. No argument was being made about what Somalis and Mexicans should be allowed to do, arguments are being made about what US employers should be allowed to do. It's a common anti-slavery argument - the exploitation of people in a precarious position to do the same work that free people do demeans the value of work. If you want to see a real market in wages, and you have a real belief in the goodness of that, remove the legal situation that makes the immigrant workforce's situation precarious.
pas 5y ago
Open Borders means increasing the immigration quota to 10x (or more times). No need for one gov, and hyperbole. Despite all the money spent on ICE and border patrol, deportations, etc. there are still a lot of undocumented workers, who are in turn exploited, which in turn pushes wages down. It would be much much much easier to let people go in the legal route. It would also help a bit with the war against cartels. Obviously the self-determination of the US population is at least as important as the humanitarian/altruistic principle of allowing people to seek a better future for themselves by moving to a better place. That said - as far as I know - economists are very much in consensus that legal immigration does not suppress wages.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  No, the parent claimed that anyone had a right to force themselves on any country whenever they thought they could make more money. This idea that you have a "right" to cross whatever border you want is very different from changing laws to increase immigration. No matter what laws you pass, there will be people excluded, so if your position is that you have a right to live in any nation where your income is expected to be higher, then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires some supra-national authority that can override the will of the population. And this must be a universal right otherwise the right-based logic does not apply. Thus it applies also to Mexico and most other nations where there are some countries somewhere in which wages are lower. Especially in Mexico, that would be a problem given they have a constitutional ban on immigration changing the demographics of Mexico, and even a border "barrier" at the south. Somalia, while mostly in anarchy, also would not allow uncontrolled migration to it if it ever obtains a functional government. Ethiopia, a rising star in Africa, has strict border controls in place. As does basically every nation on earth. The common consensus is that no one has a right to force themselves on a nation just because it would benefit them financially. That truth is not incompatible with immigration as a policy. The debate is about who gets to set the policy -- the people whose nation is being entered or those who want to enter. So while my arguments are extreme in force, they are not hyperbole, as the comment I was replying to was staking out some very radical and anti-democratic positions, but couching them in the mild language of changing employers. I was merely pointing out the extreme nature of these claims, and was not engaging in hyperbole. Claiming you have a right to violate a nation's border controls is a very big deal, and has nothing to do with wanting to increase or decrease immmigration policies, just as claiming a buyer (rather than the seller) has right to decide how much a product should cost is a radical claim, even if it's couched in the mild language of affordability and seeking discounts.
cmeacham98 5y ago
All of us in the US are here as a direct result of immigration (except native Americans). If immigration causes "deteriorating solidarity and social insurance" then it happened long ago before you and I were even born.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  You really don't think the US has a weaker social safety net and less solidarity than Europe? And the issue isn't necessarily immigration per se as ethnic fractionalization. E.g. if a ton of French expats were to immigrate to France that would create different levels of social strife than, say, a ton of Russians entering France. There have been many studies on this, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586963?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586963?seq=1 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20504 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20504 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4551797 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4551797 https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/events/EthnicPublicGoods.pdf https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/events...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Imported slaves aren't immigrants.
- jlawson 5y ago
  Settlers are not immigrants in the normal sense of the word. There's a difference between moving to join a society and moving to land so you can spread your society onto it while ignoring/overruling anyone who might have been there. Also - I would say that from the point of view of the native Americans, the migration of Europeans into their land kind of did cause something like "deteriorating solidarity and social insurance". Wouldn't you? Can't you imagine why others would not want to suffer the same fate?
FireBeyond 5y ago
And yet we see, repeatedly, that the employers who do this hiring are rarely, if ever, punished. Two years ago, seven factories owned by the same company: 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented - a misdemeanor, leaving aside all the other polarization of opinions on that. It's a felony to (knowingly) employ someone without work authorization. Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE announced that they have no plans to do so.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

vasco 5y ago

I'm not arguing about anything related to borders. If someone is working a non-remote job, I assume they are a local worker. What the comment I replied to based their argument on is that certain people should have the freedom choose to trade work conditions for higher wages to improve their lives, but other people shouldn't. The classification that was given for that distinction was on the basis of nationality or refugee status, read Mexicans and Somalians.

pessimizer 5y ago
> should have the freedom ...is doing a lot of work here. No argument was being made about what Somalis and Mexicans should be allowed to do, arguments are being made about what US employers should be allowed to do. It's a common anti-slavery argument - the exploitation of people in a precarious position to do the same work that free people do demeans the value of work. If you want to see a real market in wages, and you have a real belief in the goodness of that, remove the legal situation that makes the immigrant workforce's situation precarious.

pas 5y ago

Open Borders means increasing the immigration quota to 10x (or more times). No need for one gov, and hyperbole. Despite all the money spent on ICE and border patrol, deportations, etc. there are still a lot of undocumented workers, who are in turn exploited, which in turn pushes wages down. It would be much much much easier to let people go in the legal route. It would also help a bit with the war against cartels. Obviously the self-determination of the US population is at least as important as the humanitarian/altruistic principle of allowing people to seek a better future for themselves by moving to a better place. That said - as far as I know - economists are very much in consensus that legal immigration does not suppress wages.

rsj_hn 5y ago
No, the parent claimed that anyone had a right to force themselves on any country whenever they thought they could make more money. This idea that you have a "right" to cross whatever border you want is very different from changing laws to increase immigration. No matter what laws you pass, there will be people excluded, so if your position is that you have a right to live in any nation where your income is expected to be higher, then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires some supra-national authority that can override the will of the population. And this must be a universal right otherwise the right-based logic does not apply. Thus it applies also to Mexico and most other nations where there are some countries somewhere in which wages are lower. Especially in Mexico, that would be a problem given they have a constitutional ban on immigration changing the demographics of Mexico, and even a border "barrier" at the south. Somalia, while mostly in anarchy, also would not allow uncontrolled migration to it if it ever obtains a functional government. Ethiopia, a rising star in Africa, has strict border controls in place. As does basically every nation on earth. The common consensus is that no one has a right to force themselves on a nation just because it would benefit them financially. That truth is not incompatible with immigration as a policy. The debate is about who gets to set the policy -- the people whose nation is being entered or those who want to enter. So while my arguments are extreme in force, they are not hyperbole, as the comment I was replying to was staking out some very radical and anti-democratic positions, but couching them in the mild language of changing employers. I was merely pointing out the extreme nature of these claims, and was not engaging in hyperbole. Claiming you have a right to violate a nation's border controls is a very big deal, and has nothing to do with wanting to increase or decrease immmigration policies, just as claiming a buyer (rather than the seller) has right to decide how much a product should cost is a radical claim, even if it's couched in the mild language of affordability and seeking discounts.

cmeacham98 5y ago

All of us in the US are here as a direct result of immigration (except native Americans). If immigration causes "deteriorating solidarity and social insurance" then it happened long ago before you and I were even born.

rsj_hn 5y ago
You really don't think the US has a weaker social safety net and less solidarity than Europe? And the issue isn't necessarily immigration per se as ethnic fractionalization. E.g. if a ton of French expats were to immigrate to France that would create different levels of social strife than, say, a ton of Russians entering France. There have been many studies on this, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586963?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586963?seq=1 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20504 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20504 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4551797 http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4551797 https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/events/EthnicPublicGoods.pdf https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/events...
pessimizer 5y ago
Imported slaves aren't immigrants.
jlawson 5y ago
Settlers are not immigrants in the normal sense of the word. There's a difference between moving to join a society and moving to land so you can spread your society onto it while ignoring/overruling anyone who might have been there. Also - I would say that from the point of view of the native Americans, the migration of Europeans into their land kind of did cause something like "deteriorating solidarity and social insurance". Wouldn't you? Can't you imagine why others would not want to suffer the same fate?

FireBeyond 5y ago

And yet we see, repeatedly, that the employers who do this hiring are rarely, if ever, punished. Two years ago, seven factories owned by the same company: 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented - a misdemeanor, leaving aside all the other polarization of opinions on that. It's a felony to (knowingly) employ someone without work authorization. Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE announced that they have no plans to do so.