4 ms·

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 i

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.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  I'm confused; why isn't the idea of making something more or less legal related to how many people illegally do that thing? They wouldn't be illegal immigrants if we didn't have "tight border controls" by definition, so it feels related and not "divorced from reality"... We lived through this, basically all of American history up until 9/11, where the Mexican border was "loose"(er, the US committed some pretty fucked up atrocities using that border a few times in its history); it seems to me that if we returned to that level of interaction with Mexico, the vast majority of concerns raised by anti-immigration folks would be quelled.
  - jewayne 4y ago
    Yep. Only in my lifetime have we attempted to limit movement across that border. But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people. When in fact they're the same people who mow our lawns and wash our dishes every time we eat out. smh
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      > But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people. I guess pretending the issue is just some kind of Fox News conspiracy theory is easier than actually understanding it? People use the language of "invasion" for a reason. In Texas, non-hispanic whites make up ~30% of births[0], but accounted for only 5% of the population growth[1]. You'll write that off as "muh replacement conspiracy", of course--I can tell that you've been well programmed! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/

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.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
I'm confused; why isn't the idea of making something more or less legal related to how many people illegally do that thing? They wouldn't be illegal immigrants if we didn't have "tight border controls" by definition, so it feels related and not "divorced from reality"... We lived through this, basically all of American history up until 9/11, where the Mexican border was "loose"(er, the US committed some pretty fucked up atrocities using that border a few times in its history); it seems to me that if we returned to that level of interaction with Mexico, the vast majority of concerns raised by anti-immigration folks would be quelled.
- jewayne 4y ago
  Yep. Only in my lifetime have we attempted to limit movement across that border. But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people. When in fact they're the same people who mow our lawns and wash our dishes every time we eat out. smh
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    > But because certain media outlets use the language of war and invasion to describe the peaceful migration of people from country to country, the followers of said outlets have decided that we are, in fact, at war with these people. I guess pretending the issue is just some kind of Fox News conspiracy theory is easier than actually understanding it? People use the language of "invasion" for a reason. In Texas, non-hispanic whites make up ~30% of births[0], but accounted for only 5% of the population growth[1]. You'll write that off as "muh replacement conspiracy", of course--I can tell that you've been well programmed! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/