5 ms·

A problem being, if you open the door, you don't control who comes through. I am totally against an open borders policy.

by sigzero 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago
Before you open the national border, you have to start small! First, get everyone not to lock their front door. Then, ban all fences and "no trespassing" signs. If that pilot program is successful, then think about opening the borders. It occurs to me that any country that opens its borders will be instantly flooded with every murderous scumbag that is fleeing from the law elsewhere. You will also be an instant transfer point for the trade of weapons, narcotics and so on. Not to mention human trafficking. I guess how you deal with that is that you open your border to foreign law enforcement and give them a carte blanche about to conduct their investigation how they see fit, and make arrests. Speaking of arrests, open borders means that someone can sneak into your country, kidnap someone, and sneak out.
- ericdschmidt 11y ago
  Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, fallacy. Oh, I lost count. Private property != public property. There are things called roads, parks, forests that are public - these spaces are designed for common use. Separately, there is private property. Like your house or your real estate. That's yours. Just for you. Open borders is about removing borders between our public spaces. Allowing one to drive from e.g. a US road to a Mexican road without a passport. Open borders isn't about letting someone stay in your house. It's about letting someone rent or buy a house in America and inhabit what would then be their private property. It's about letting them take a job in a foreign country or hire a foreigner to work in their business. See my other two comments for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632
zzalpha 11y ago
You didn't answer the question. The claim was "countries that are based on a unique language, ethnicity and culture, [immigration] is damaging." Again, I ask the question: damaging in what sense?
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Just guessing here: instability, differing expectations, increased costs to everybody thru inefficiencies. It becomes hard to predict what folks will consider fair, adequate government services. Result is a lowering of standard of living for those in the dominant cultural group.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    No, he actually answered the question elsewhere: cultural dilution. He's afraid these foreigners might somehow pollute or destroy his culture. 'course, when you get right down to it, it's just bald faced xenophobia, dressed up in nationalist rhetoric.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      That's harsh. What if I proposed to destroy a culture, say Judaism, by dilution? Would that be ok? Why is it not OK that this guy wants to preserve his?
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        Your example specifically contradicts your point. Judaism is alive and well as a minority group in many many parts of the world. "Dilution" has never threatened the existence of Judaism. The one thing that did was actual genocide, as a result of racism and xenophobia because of fear that the Jews, the minority group, were destroying German culture. Go figure. But a few immigrants? I think Judaism, or really any culture, is stronger than that. Another interesting example is indigenous populations in Canada, Australia, and the US. Those cultures have remained strong with the exception of those where active attempts to extinguish them have occurred. The Canadian residential school system is a disgusting, shameful example of the latter. Frankly, I'd be very interested to see an example where simple "dilution" has actually led to the destruction of a culture. I can't think of one.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ericdschmidt 11y ago
Uh, you can get smuggled into the US via the Mexican borders for like a couple thousand bucks. There's a whole industry around this. The people who do the smuggling are called 'coyotes". Any serious terrorist is already here, via that border. Also, so what if anyone can come and go. You live in a town or city, right? So the adjacent towns, they let you just waltz in and out of them right? They "don't control who comes through." Is that so terrible? Do you think your town should have a big wall around it and strict security cause you're worried about a potential fugitive slipping in? No, that's stupid. It's just a really inefficient/cumbersome way to deal with the problem of criminals. Instead, you leave society open and free, and when a criminal pops up, you track him down, arrest him, stick him in jail or whatever. You don't wrap everything up with giant walls and security just cause sometimes there are criminals. "I'm totally against an open borders policy." That's cause you're severely underinformed. Please see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  So under open-borders policies, how do you control the spread of epidemic diseases? How are quarantines imposed?

A problem being, if you open the door, you don't control who comes through. I am totally against an open borders policy.

by sigzero 11y ago

A problem being, if you open the door, you don't control who comes through. I am totally against an open borders policy.

kazinator 11y ago

Before you open the national border, you have to start small! First, get everyone not to lock their front door. Then, ban all fences and "no trespassing" signs. If that pilot program is successful, then think about opening the borders. It occurs to me that any country that opens its borders will be instantly flooded with every murderous scumbag that is fleeing from the law elsewhere. You will also be an instant transfer point for the trade of weapons, narcotics and so on. Not to mention human trafficking. I guess how you deal with that is that you open your border to foreign law enforcement and give them a carte blanche about to conduct their investigation how they see fit, and make arrests. Speaking of arrests, open borders means that someone can sneak into your country, kidnap someone, and sneak out.

ericdschmidt 11y ago
Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy, fallacy. Oh, I lost count. Private property != public property. There are things called roads, parks, forests that are public - these spaces are designed for common use. Separately, there is private property. Like your house or your real estate. That's yours. Just for you. Open borders is about removing borders between our public spaces. Allowing one to drive from e.g. a US road to a Mexican road without a passport. Open borders isn't about letting someone stay in your house. It's about letting someone rent or buy a house in America and inhabit what would then be their private property. It's about letting them take a job in a foreign country or hire a foreigner to work in their business. See my other two comments for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632

zzalpha 11y ago

You didn't answer the question. The claim was "countries that are based on a unique language, ethnicity and culture, [immigration] is damaging." Again, I ask the question: damaging in what sense?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Just guessing here: instability, differing expectations, increased costs to everybody thru inefficiencies. It becomes hard to predict what folks will consider fair, adequate government services. Result is a lowering of standard of living for those in the dominant cultural group.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  No, he actually answered the question elsewhere: cultural dilution. He's afraid these foreigners might somehow pollute or destroy his culture. 'course, when you get right down to it, it's just bald faced xenophobia, dressed up in nationalist rhetoric.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    That's harsh. What if I proposed to destroy a culture, say Judaism, by dilution? Would that be ok? Why is it not OK that this guy wants to preserve his?
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Your example specifically contradicts your point. Judaism is alive and well as a minority group in many many parts of the world. "Dilution" has never threatened the existence of Judaism. The one thing that did was actual genocide, as a result of racism and xenophobia because of fear that the Jews, the minority group, were destroying German culture. Go figure. But a few immigrants? I think Judaism, or really any culture, is stronger than that. Another interesting example is indigenous populations in Canada, Australia, and the US. Those cultures have remained strong with the exception of those where active attempts to extinguish them have occurred. The Canadian residential school system is a disgusting, shameful example of the latter. Frankly, I'd be very interested to see an example where simple "dilution" has actually led to the destruction of a culture. I can't think of one.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ericdschmidt 11y ago

Uh, you can get smuggled into the US via the Mexican borders for like a couple thousand bucks. There's a whole industry around this. The people who do the smuggling are called 'coyotes". Any serious terrorist is already here, via that border. Also, so what if anyone can come and go. You live in a town or city, right? So the adjacent towns, they let you just waltz in and out of them right? They "don't control who comes through." Is that so terrible? Do you think your town should have a big wall around it and strict security cause you're worried about a potential fugitive slipping in? No, that's stupid. It's just a really inefficient/cumbersome way to deal with the problem of criminals. Instead, you leave society open and free, and when a criminal pops up, you track him down, arrest him, stick him in jail or whatever. You don't wrap everything up with giant walls and security just cause sometimes there are criminals. "I'm totally against an open borders policy." That's cause you're severely underinformed. Please see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
So under open-borders policies, how do you control the spread of epidemic diseases? How are quarantines imposed?