6 ms·

You think that the concept of unauthorized workers coming across the border has only existed since the year 2000? I think you're confusing the term "undocument

You think that the concept of unauthorized workers coming across the border has only existed since the year 2000? I think you're confusing the term "undocumented" or "undocumented worker" with the underlying concept that's referenced by the terms. The concept has long been in in the public spotlight using different terms ("illegal" or "illegal alien"). Here's some statements from Gerald Ford on the same concept, using the old lingo: https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0110/1181029.pdf https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0110/1181...

rtkwe 4y ago
Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently. When border crossings were easier and cheaper migrant workers could come work for a harvest or several and return to Mexico or beyond during the off season only living in the US for a short period while working. Now the crossing is more expensive and dangerous so the incentive is to move here full time.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  > Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently. Border crossings are at a 20 year high, but the problem is that border controls are too tight? That seems odd.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    The problem you're having here is that you think "border crossings = bad", but that's not really the issue, is it? If a person doesn't live in the US, and is instead allowed to commute to/from Mexico, you get the upsides of their labor without the "downsides" of supporting them (IMO a disgusting way of thinking about it but here we are). Considering they pay income taxes, sales taxes, social security/medicaid, and don't make much use of US resources, it seems to me that you would want border crossings to increase dramatically, as long as they're accompanied by a corresponding crossing back home at the end of the day. ...which is exactly how it was, 20ish years ago, before 9/11.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      It's more profitable to our lower classes to keep the Mexicans / Guatemalans / whatever locked up in their own country to suppress their wages and competition and then allow free trade of goods. That gets us lots of cheap shit without having to pay USA wages. I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that.
      - marcusverus 4y ago
        I don't really understand the argument for open borders as a net humanitarian good. For the individuals who come to the US, sure. But how will these countries in Middle America ever develop while their most ambitious, most hard-working, most risk-taking people are siphoned off to live (relatively) cushy lives in the USA? Just look at what has happened to Puerto Rico. Everyone who can, leaves. What's left is grim. Easy access to the USA is a great deal for the minority who get out, but for most Puerto Ricans, it's hard to imagine that they're better off as a result. > I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that. Half the country agrees with you, but they'd never admit it.
        notch656c 4y ago
        I hope those countries would adapt by competing and fixing the things that fuck up their business climate. Also worth noting if their labor flees the price of labor in their country would rise and hopefully make things better for the remainder.
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      Your comment would make sense if the primary goal of our border policy was to facilitate cross-border commuting for Mexicans without work visas. If the primary goal is having control of your border (i.e. choosing who gets to come into your country, which is a basic function of competent governments) then this activity would be either prevented, or regulated via special work visas. Either way, the idea that "tight border controls" are a contributing factor to the large number of illegal immigrants in the united states is entirely divorced from reality.

rtkwe 4y ago

Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently. When border crossings were easier and cheaper migrant workers could come work for a harvest or several and return to Mexico or beyond during the off season only living in the US for a short period while working. Now the crossing is more expensive and dangerous so the incentive is to move here full time.

marcusverus 4y ago
> Ironically modern tighter boarder controls contribute to more people moving here permanently/semi-permanently. Border crossings are at a 20 year high, but the problem is that border controls are too tight? That seems odd.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  The problem you're having here is that you think "border crossings = bad", but that's not really the issue, is it? If a person doesn't live in the US, and is instead allowed to commute to/from Mexico, you get the upsides of their labor without the "downsides" of supporting them (IMO a disgusting way of thinking about it but here we are). Considering they pay income taxes, sales taxes, social security/medicaid, and don't make much use of US resources, it seems to me that you would want border crossings to increase dramatically, as long as they're accompanied by a corresponding crossing back home at the end of the day. ...which is exactly how it was, 20ish years ago, before 9/11.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    It's more profitable to our lower classes to keep the Mexicans / Guatemalans / whatever locked up in their own country to suppress their wages and competition and then allow free trade of goods. That gets us lots of cheap shit without having to pay USA wages. I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that.
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      I don't really understand the argument for open borders as a net humanitarian good. For the individuals who come to the US, sure. But how will these countries in Middle America ever develop while their most ambitious, most hard-working, most risk-taking people are siphoned off to live (relatively) cushy lives in the USA? Just look at what has happened to Puerto Rico. Everyone who can, leaves. What's left is grim. Easy access to the USA is a great deal for the minority who get out, but for most Puerto Ricans, it's hard to imagine that they're better off as a result. > I'm in favor of open borders mostly on humanitarian grounds, and I offer our lower wage laborers as offerings on the pillar of sacrifice for that. Half the country agrees with you, but they'd never admit it.
      - notch656c 4y ago
        I hope those countries would adapt by competing and fixing the things that fuck up their business climate. Also worth noting if their labor flees the price of labor in their country would rise and hopefully make things better for the remainder.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    Your comment would make sense if the primary goal of our border policy was to facilitate cross-border commuting for Mexicans without work visas. If the primary goal is having control of your border (i.e. choosing who gets to come into your country, which is a basic function of competent governments) then this activity would be either prevented, or regulated via special work visas. Either way, the idea that "tight border controls" are a contributing factor to the large number of illegal immigrants in the united states is entirely divorced from reality.