4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
- derefr 5y ago
  > then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires [...] Implicit assumption: that people everywhere aren't just going to eventually all change their minds and be majority-for open borders in every country. Y'know, like with slavery. We didn't need a supra-national authority to get rid of that globally. Some countries just set an example by deciding to get rid of it; and then other countries' populations who interacted with those countries felt shamed into changing their own minds as well, which led to their own laws changing. It spread globally as a virulent meme. (Yes, we also established international bodies that crack down on slavery — but 1. we did that after slavery was mostly abolished; and 2. treaty bodies like that are toothless unless almost every country already agrees on the principle.) I'm not arguing that this is what will happen with open borders; only that it's not impossible for it to happen, and that that has to be accounted for in this kind of argument.
  - jlawson 5y ago
    We did need a supra-national authority to get rid of slavery. British, Americans, and others historically fought many battles (often naval) and pressured many governments to stop slavery. What do you think ended the barbary slave trade? Why do you think Saudi stopped formally trading slaves? You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of racial slaves (i.e. black people kept as slaves for being black) in places like Mauritania. Slavery-like transactions continue in the middle east, Africa, and India. Supra-national authorities are still pushing, albeit often ineffectually, to end this.
    - derefr 5y ago
      That's not a supra-national authority. That's a supra-national force. An authority is something people listen to, without it forcing them to do so. Something people give power over to, rather than having it taken from them. An elected leader is an authority. A valid one-world government would presumably have authority. A military superpower is not an authority. It's just a force. Every time it "unilaterally" makes a decision, it has to back that up with renewed force. As soon as the force stops, its control stops. That's not authority. (Think: the Byzantine empire. It had force over much of Western Europe for a few hundred years; but the people there never saw it as a valid authority. So as soon as its ability to project force ended, it lost control of its Western-European assets, and became the Eastern Byzantine Empire.) Also, a "supra-national" body like the International Court of Justice isn't an authority or a force; it's just a hub for communication. It has no command over anyone. The only thing it does is come up with ideas, and then — if UN member countries like — they can take those ideas for their own (i.e. sign on to a given declaration to give it force within their borders.) Such bodies are basically like the IETF, issuing RFCs. There's nothing requiring anyone to implement an RFC. You just implement it if-and-when you think it's a good idea. Countries are top-level; nobody has true authority over them. That's what "sovereignty" means. You only have a true supra-national authority if sovereignty ceases to exist. > You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. Adults don't generally change their ethical norms in response to exposure to external systems of ethics, no. But children often do. This is why many countries (e.g. the US) think that putting their media out on the global stage is important: it allows them to influence the political/ethical views of children in other countries in ways that make them think more like the origin culture of that media; and so make the country more likely to invite their cooperation and influence two or three generations later, when those children are now the country's leaders. There is a reason that e.g. America had to fight for sovereignty, but Canada did not. Or why France needed a series of internecine wars and bloody revolutions to establish democracy, but many neighbouring countries to France then peacefully, gradually established democratic societies some time later. Cultures are object-lessons for their neighbours! > The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. Well, yeah. Precisely because there isn't a supra-national authority with any authority to tell them to stop. There's just people with guns. You don't have to listen to guns if you have your own guns; especially if the guy that would point the guns at you has too many other higher-priority people to point their guns at first.
Miraste 5y ago
This is definition shifting, no? "Open Borders" means open borders, i.e. no quotas. Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces. Proponents of these slogans often explain that they really mean more limited, reasonable changes when questioned, but they mean what the words say. That's how language works. If the intended policies are "raise the quotas," say so. If it's "do away with controlled borders," stand behind it and explain why. Don't switch from one to the other as is convenient.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  It's a classic motte-and-bailey routine. The bailey are "open borders" or "defund the police" at face value. The motte are the more defensible positions they fall back on when challenged: "Actually when I say 'defund' I mean they should continue getting funding but we just need some reform is all" Often this is paired with gaslighting. When called out, somebody employing the motte-and-bailey may refuse to admit the bailey exists at all. People who argue against the bailey get ridiculed for thinking the bailey exists.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  > Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces. Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. It means to reduce the funding (i.e. defund) the police in the same way that education has been defunded. That doesn't mean that a group is entirely disbanded, rather than the scope gets similarly restricted. When education is defunded, this means that after-school programs get cut, and school lunch programs are reduced. It doesn't mean that the school itself gets shut down. Should police be defunded, it means that extraneous use of police force, such as for mental health checks, are no longer part of the budget. It also means those funds can be shifted to programs specifically designed for mental health checks. You are assuming that "defund" means to completely remove funding rather than partially remove funding.
  - Miraste 5y ago
    I guess that’s fair, it’s used both ways in different contexts. I most associate the word with its use in universities, in which “x program/department has been defunded” means that it’s gone. There’s only one definition of “open borders,” though.

by pas 5y ago

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.

derefr 5y ago
> then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires [...] Implicit assumption: that people everywhere aren't just going to eventually all change their minds and be majority-for open borders in every country. Y'know, like with slavery. We didn't need a supra-national authority to get rid of that globally. Some countries just set an example by deciding to get rid of it; and then other countries' populations who interacted with those countries felt shamed into changing their own minds as well, which led to their own laws changing. It spread globally as a virulent meme. (Yes, we also established international bodies that crack down on slavery — but 1. we did that after slavery was mostly abolished; and 2. treaty bodies like that are toothless unless almost every country already agrees on the principle.) I'm not arguing that this is what will happen with open borders; only that it's not impossible for it to happen, and that that has to be accounted for in this kind of argument.
- jlawson 5y ago
  We did need a supra-national authority to get rid of slavery. British, Americans, and others historically fought many battles (often naval) and pressured many governments to stop slavery. What do you think ended the barbary slave trade? Why do you think Saudi stopped formally trading slaves? You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of racial slaves (i.e. black people kept as slaves for being black) in places like Mauritania. Slavery-like transactions continue in the middle east, Africa, and India. Supra-national authorities are still pushing, albeit often ineffectually, to end this.
  - derefr 5y ago
    That's not a supra-national authority. That's a supra-national force. An authority is something people listen to, without it forcing them to do so. Something people give power over to, rather than having it taken from them. An elected leader is an authority. A valid one-world government would presumably have authority. A military superpower is not an authority. It's just a force. Every time it "unilaterally" makes a decision, it has to back that up with renewed force. As soon as the force stops, its control stops. That's not authority. (Think: the Byzantine empire. It had force over much of Western Europe for a few hundred years; but the people there never saw it as a valid authority. So as soon as its ability to project force ended, it lost control of its Western-European assets, and became the Eastern Byzantine Empire.) Also, a "supra-national" body like the International Court of Justice isn't an authority or a force; it's just a hub for communication. It has no command over anyone. The only thing it does is come up with ideas, and then — if UN member countries like — they can take those ideas for their own (i.e. sign on to a given declaration to give it force within their borders.) Such bodies are basically like the IETF, issuing RFCs. There's nothing requiring anyone to implement an RFC. You just implement it if-and-when you think it's a good idea. Countries are top-level; nobody has true authority over them. That's what "sovereignty" means. You only have a true supra-national authority if sovereignty ceases to exist. > You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. Adults don't generally change their ethical norms in response to exposure to external systems of ethics, no. But children often do. This is why many countries (e.g. the US) think that putting their media out on the global stage is important: it allows them to influence the political/ethical views of children in other countries in ways that make them think more like the origin culture of that media; and so make the country more likely to invite their cooperation and influence two or three generations later, when those children are now the country's leaders. There is a reason that e.g. America had to fight for sovereignty, but Canada did not. Or why France needed a series of internecine wars and bloody revolutions to establish democracy, but many neighbouring countries to France then peacefully, gradually established democratic societies some time later. Cultures are object-lessons for their neighbours! > The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. Well, yeah. Precisely because there isn't a supra-national authority with any authority to tell them to stop. There's just people with guns. You don't have to listen to guns if you have your own guns; especially if the guy that would point the guns at you has too many other higher-priority people to point their guns at first.

Miraste 5y ago

This is definition shifting, no? "Open Borders" means open borders, i.e. no quotas. Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces. Proponents of these slogans often explain that they really mean more limited, reasonable changes when questioned, but they mean what the words say. That's how language works. If the intended policies are "raise the quotas," say so. If it's "do away with controlled borders," stand behind it and explain why. Don't switch from one to the other as is convenient.

wearywanderer 5y ago
It's a classic motte-and-bailey routine. The bailey are "open borders" or "defund the police" at face value. The motte are the more defensible positions they fall back on when challenged: "Actually when I say 'defund' I mean they should continue getting funding but we just need some reform is all" Often this is paired with gaslighting. When called out, somebody employing the motte-and-bailey may refuse to admit the bailey exists at all. People who argue against the bailey get ridiculed for thinking the bailey exists.
MereInterest 5y ago
> Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces. Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. It means to reduce the funding (i.e. defund) the police in the same way that education has been defunded. That doesn't mean that a group is entirely disbanded, rather than the scope gets similarly restricted. When education is defunded, this means that after-school programs get cut, and school lunch programs are reduced. It doesn't mean that the school itself gets shut down. Should police be defunded, it means that extraneous use of police force, such as for mental health checks, are no longer part of the budget. It also means those funds can be shifted to programs specifically designed for mental health checks. You are assuming that "defund" means to completely remove funding rather than partially remove funding.
- Miraste 5y ago
  I guess that’s fair, it’s used both ways in different contexts. I most associate the word with its use in universities, in which “x program/department has been defunded” means that it’s gone. There’s only one definition of “open borders,” though.