4 ms·

It's interesting to see the efforts to lock down our once permeable borders succeeding in recent decades. It seems that for much of our history we had no issue

It's interesting to see the efforts to lock down our once permeable borders succeeding in recent decades. It seems that for much of our history we had no issue with free passage across, but we have in my lifetime used the politics of fear to militarize our borders. Obviously some will disagree but this seems to me a regressive change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 4y ago
Freedom of movement is tenuous, and one of the greater paradoxes of the modern "libertarian" movement. The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left -- democratic socialist countries rely on high taxes and low economic inequality to maintain their systems, which, the reasoning goes, is unsustainable in the face of an unrestricted influx of economic refugees.
- serial_dev 4y ago
  > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. Also, working class people are more likely to meet with the immigrants that are engaged in illegal activities, whereas if you are middle-upper class or rich, you'll meet the educated, immigrants that maybe help your business growing or at the very least help you keep your household running. I'm just trying to show a different "leftist" take, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue as I believe there are good people on both sides and figuring out the best approach is basically impossible.
  - rascul 4y ago
    > It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. That sounds very similar to the "they're stealing our jobs" argument I hear sometimes from people on the right.
    - adalacelove 4y ago
      And on a lot of countries the right has gained support within the working class
    - serial_dev 4y ago
      It might feel like a cosmetic nitpicking, but if I say they are "stealing our jobs", I'm blaming and vilifying the immigrants without wanting to understand their reasons for coming here and the unfortunate situation they are in. On the other hand, my ability to negotiate with the powerful owner class is strongly reduced if there are people that are willing to be exploited or simply don't have another choice due to their immigration status and poverty. It could be argued that more people coming in results in bad working conditions for both the immigrants and the working class, whereas the rich can take advantage of the situation and amass a fortune on the misfortune of the poor (both native and alien). Bernie Sanders, once a prominent leftie, said in one of his honest moments that the open borders is a "Koch brothers proposal".
      - alisonatwork 4y ago
        From my perspective any self-proclaimed leftist who is against freedom of movement is essentially a crypto-fascist. The working class aren't really taking back the means of the production if that so-called working class is a privileged group drawn along nationalist or racist lines that explicitly exclude the workers of the world. The way I see it, freedom of movement is pretty much the most fundamental freedom that exists in organic beings. We eat, we grow, we migrate. All the other freedoms are built on that one. If people aren't free to change their living conditions by moving somewhere that provides better opportunities, then they're not really free at all.
- SequoiaHope 4y ago
  What you say is correct, but I am reminded of something David Harvey says: “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism.” If you have true community ownership of the means of production, then people gain wealth by working for cooperatives, not by state guaranteed benefits. In such a system I would think there is more flexibility in how benefits are distributed.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left Freedom of movement is tied to left internationalism, but radical (i.e., all-at-once/revolutionary) internationalism is not as strong as it once was, and even people that see freedom of movement as a long-term goal often see unrestricted freedom of movement as having unacceptable costs between states that aren't both much further along than any actually are as having practical problems.
- lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left In the U.S., the left broadly supports immigration as well as freedom of movement. But if you take a peep at European politics, and even parts of the left in Canada, you might find that support for immigration and freedom-of-movement really is more complicated. It's one of those weird usages of terminology that the left in the U.S. is described as "liberal." In Europe and Canada, liberal means center-right. But at least in this case, calling the American left liberal is appropriate.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Having been born in East Germany I can assure you that the "Left" is not a proponent of free movement and that they will gladly attempt to shoot you for trying to escape from socialist paradise. Calling US Democrats "socialist" for wanting things like universal free health care makes me cringe in light of that.
  - chihuahua 4y ago
    You are 100% correct of course. Political discussions in the U.S. using the word "socialism" are basically meaningless, because people use that word to mean several completely different things: 1. Socialism as practiced in eastern Europe during the Cold War - basically the state is a prison, no one is allowed to leave, people who attempt to leave are shot and left to die, everyone is under surveillance, and dissent is punished very harshly. These governments were proud to call themselves socialist. In East Germany, they referred to themselves as "Socialism as it exists in reality" ("real existierender Sozialimus.") These are not governments that someone is now choosing to call socialist to give socialism a bad name. 2. Socialism as practiced in Europe these days, with a focus on Scandinavia. Somewhat higher taxes, reasonable universal health care, generally people are not left to starve in the street. I'm not sure if it makes sense to call this "socialism." I guess it's social-something. 3. Socialism as a scarecrow in American politics: Anything I don't like is Socialism. Any policy where the government provides benefits is Socialism. Any healthcare system where illness doesn't lead to bankruptcy is Socialism. As a result, people talk past each other, and discussions tend to become nonsensical. Anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on socialism should just take a look at what happened in East Germany and the rest of eastern Europe from 1945-1990.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      What they have in Scandinavia is called "social democracy".[1] It's not socialism. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
    - SequoiaHope 4y ago
      There is another kind of socialism discussed in the USA today. That’s a type of socialism not driven by government but instead direct ownership of the means of production by workers. Basically your economy is a bunch of cooperatives instead of a bunch of firms with a bunch of workers and a small number of owners. The former leads to an economy where everyone is part of the ownership class, eliminating the sharp divide in our current society between owners and workers. It is also a free market system that does not require government intervention to function. This is truer to the writings of Karl Marx than the various 20th century socialisms, as Marx did not generally advocate for a state of affairs where the state owns the means of production. See for example Richard Wolff for a modern day economist who has been advocating for this type of socialism for a long time. Though you will find a historical through line of advocates going back to the 19th century. Notably there is a growing body of socialists who see the folly and horror of state-run socialisms who have gone back to the original theories and renewed their interest in direct control of collectively owned firms instead of state control.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Countries with freedom of movement still have limits on how many people can stay. Those are more organic than dumb border controls though: it comes down to wether you can find a job and a pay a place to stay, and those aren’t infinite. That’s where coming in to become homeless won’t be allowed , same way housing laws will forbid staying in places that are not adequate for residency (rooms with no windows, packing 12 people in one bedroom etc.). Same for minimum wages and taxation stopping a run to the bottom if too many people come in with no value to add to the economy. Basically you’re free to come and go, but will need to find a spot you fit in if you intend to stay.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  And yet almost all of the most prosperous democratic socialist countries have signed on to allow free movement of people from many of the poorer parts of Europe.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
FpUser 4y ago
Yes this is very regressive change. I remember times when I could drive into US and back with just regular driver license. I see a zero reason other than turning people into a cattle for sacrificing freedom of movement.
015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
The increasing legal constraints offset the declining technological constraints. Given modern communications and transportation technology, open borders would have very different practical effects today than a century or two ago. The number of people who would come in would be hugely greater than in the past.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Cool. Let’s welcome them and also stop bombing their countries with our militaries and restricting their ability to clone our working technology and maybe they’ll stop trying to leave their homes. EDIT: Point being that open borders has the benefit of forcing us to face the ways in which we are harming other places. The fact that currently many people would leave their homes to come here is a feature not a bug. We’re trying to abuse the rest of the world for our benefit and that makes other people unhappy. We should stop.
  - 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
    No, they'll still want to come here en masse even if we don't do those things to them.
  - ralph84 4y ago
    The US mostly abandoned its involvement in Central America and all it did was provide an opening for drug cartels to take over, which has led to a huge influx of migrants. Sorry but your theory just isn't supported by the facts in evidence.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

klyrs 4y ago

Freedom of movement is tenuous, and one of the greater paradoxes of the modern "libertarian" movement. The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left -- democratic socialist countries rely on high taxes and low economic inequality to maintain their systems, which, the reasoning goes, is unsustainable in the face of an unrestricted influx of economic refugees.

serial_dev 4y ago
> The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. Also, working class people are more likely to meet with the immigrants that are engaged in illegal activities, whereas if you are middle-upper class or rich, you'll meet the educated, immigrants that maybe help your business growing or at the very least help you keep your household running. I'm just trying to show a different "leftist" take, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue as I believe there are good people on both sides and figuring out the best approach is basically impossible.
- rascul 4y ago
  > It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. That sounds very similar to the "they're stealing our jobs" argument I hear sometimes from people on the right.
  - adalacelove 4y ago
    And on a lot of countries the right has gained support within the working class
  - serial_dev 4y ago
    It might feel like a cosmetic nitpicking, but if I say they are "stealing our jobs", I'm blaming and vilifying the immigrants without wanting to understand their reasons for coming here and the unfortunate situation they are in. On the other hand, my ability to negotiate with the powerful owner class is strongly reduced if there are people that are willing to be exploited or simply don't have another choice due to their immigration status and poverty. It could be argued that more people coming in results in bad working conditions for both the immigrants and the working class, whereas the rich can take advantage of the situation and amass a fortune on the misfortune of the poor (both native and alien). Bernie Sanders, once a prominent leftie, said in one of his honest moments that the open borders is a "Koch brothers proposal".
    - alisonatwork 4y ago
      From my perspective any self-proclaimed leftist who is against freedom of movement is essentially a crypto-fascist. The working class aren't really taking back the means of the production if that so-called working class is a privileged group drawn along nationalist or racist lines that explicitly exclude the workers of the world. The way I see it, freedom of movement is pretty much the most fundamental freedom that exists in organic beings. We eat, we grow, we migrate. All the other freedoms are built on that one. If people aren't free to change their living conditions by moving somewhere that provides better opportunities, then they're not really free at all.
SequoiaHope 4y ago
What you say is correct, but I am reminded of something David Harvey says: “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism.” If you have true community ownership of the means of production, then people gain wealth by working for cooperatives, not by state guaranteed benefits. In such a system I would think there is more flexibility in how benefits are distributed.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left Freedom of movement is tied to left internationalism, but radical (i.e., all-at-once/revolutionary) internationalism is not as strong as it once was, and even people that see freedom of movement as a long-term goal often see unrestricted freedom of movement as having unacceptable costs between states that aren't both much further along than any actually are as having practical problems.
lambdasquirrel 4y ago
Not sure why this is being downvoted. > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left In the U.S., the left broadly supports immigration as well as freedom of movement. But if you take a peep at European politics, and even parts of the left in Canada, you might find that support for immigration and freedom-of-movement really is more complicated. It's one of those weird usages of terminology that the left in the U.S. is described as "liberal." In Europe and Canada, liberal means center-right. But at least in this case, calling the American left liberal is appropriate.
jupp0r 4y ago
Having been born in East Germany I can assure you that the "Left" is not a proponent of free movement and that they will gladly attempt to shoot you for trying to escape from socialist paradise. Calling US Democrats "socialist" for wanting things like universal free health care makes me cringe in light of that.
- chihuahua 4y ago
  You are 100% correct of course. Political discussions in the U.S. using the word "socialism" are basically meaningless, because people use that word to mean several completely different things: 1. Socialism as practiced in eastern Europe during the Cold War - basically the state is a prison, no one is allowed to leave, people who attempt to leave are shot and left to die, everyone is under surveillance, and dissent is punished very harshly. These governments were proud to call themselves socialist. In East Germany, they referred to themselves as "Socialism as it exists in reality" ("real existierender Sozialimus.") These are not governments that someone is now choosing to call socialist to give socialism a bad name. 2. Socialism as practiced in Europe these days, with a focus on Scandinavia. Somewhat higher taxes, reasonable universal health care, generally people are not left to starve in the street. I'm not sure if it makes sense to call this "socialism." I guess it's social-something. 3. Socialism as a scarecrow in American politics: Anything I don't like is Socialism. Any policy where the government provides benefits is Socialism. Any healthcare system where illness doesn't lead to bankruptcy is Socialism. As a result, people talk past each other, and discussions tend to become nonsensical. Anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on socialism should just take a look at what happened in East Germany and the rest of eastern Europe from 1945-1990.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    What they have in Scandinavia is called "social democracy".[1] It's not socialism. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
  - SequoiaHope 4y ago
    There is another kind of socialism discussed in the USA today. That’s a type of socialism not driven by government but instead direct ownership of the means of production by workers. Basically your economy is a bunch of cooperatives instead of a bunch of firms with a bunch of workers and a small number of owners. The former leads to an economy where everyone is part of the ownership class, eliminating the sharp divide in our current society between owners and workers. It is also a free market system that does not require government intervention to function. This is truer to the writings of Karl Marx than the various 20th century socialisms, as Marx did not generally advocate for a state of affairs where the state owns the means of production. See for example Richard Wolff for a modern day economist who has been advocating for this type of socialism for a long time. Though you will find a historical through line of advocates going back to the 19th century. Notably there is a growing body of socialists who see the folly and horror of state-run socialisms who have gone back to the original theories and renewed their interest in direct control of collectively owned firms instead of state control.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Countries with freedom of movement still have limits on how many people can stay. Those are more organic than dumb border controls though: it comes down to wether you can find a job and a pay a place to stay, and those aren’t infinite. That’s where coming in to become homeless won’t be allowed , same way housing laws will forbid staying in places that are not adequate for residency (rooms with no windows, packing 12 people in one bedroom etc.). Same for minimum wages and taxation stopping a run to the bottom if too many people come in with no value to add to the economy. Basically you’re free to come and go, but will need to find a spot you fit in if you intend to stay.
nerdbert 4y ago
And yet almost all of the most prosperous democratic socialist countries have signed on to allow free movement of people from many of the poorer parts of Europe.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

FpUser 4y ago

Yes this is very regressive change. I remember times when I could drive into US and back with just regular driver license. I see a zero reason other than turning people into a cattle for sacrificing freedom of movement.

015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago

The increasing legal constraints offset the declining technological constraints. Given modern communications and transportation technology, open borders would have very different practical effects today than a century or two ago. The number of people who would come in would be hugely greater than in the past.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Cool. Let’s welcome them and also stop bombing their countries with our militaries and restricting their ability to clone our working technology and maybe they’ll stop trying to leave their homes. EDIT: Point being that open borders has the benefit of forcing us to face the ways in which we are harming other places. The fact that currently many people would leave their homes to come here is a feature not a bug. We’re trying to abuse the rest of the world for our benefit and that makes other people unhappy. We should stop.
- 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
  No, they'll still want to come here en masse even if we don't do those things to them.
- ralph84 4y ago
  The US mostly abandoned its involvement in Central America and all it did was provide an opening for drug cartels to take over, which has led to a huge influx of migrants. Sorry but your theory just isn't supported by the facts in evidence.