Why are Democrats so staunchly against open borders? I heard the Pod Save America guys say that and I'm like, why? That's still the same authoritarian fear monger based othering that suggests our society is unable to handle a population that for the most part is just trying to make their lives better and is usually paying taxes, certainly more than the asshats at the top.
Why are Democrats so staunchly against open borders? I heard the Pod Save America guys say that and I'm like, why? That's still the same authoritarian fear monger based othering that suggests our society is unable to handle a population that for the most part is just trying to make their lives better and is usually paying taxes, certainly more than the asshats at the top.
I dunno, maybe I'm a crazy person.
A country generally has an interest in knowing what and who is coming in and out. Passport inspection and the like at the very least.
Even the idea of free movement between countries is terrifying to a bunch of folks if only for the simple reason that it further destabilizes countries as a thing that matters. It's a move towards a more global citizenship that folks living by the ideology of two centuries ago just can't even begin to fathom and are terrified by the prospect of.
I see what you guys are saying, it just seems like border security should barely be a thing in the US because we have the two biggest natural borders on earth and most people don't actually want to leave where they are from unless they feel like they have to.
Also a truly migrant workforce seems like would be a better thing than the grey area don't ask don't tell policy we currently have visa vi agriculture in this country.
Why are Democrats so staunchly against open borders? I heard the Pod Save America guys say that and I'm like, why? That's still the same authoritarian fear monger based othering that suggests our society is unable to handle a population that for the most part is just trying to make their lives better and is usually paying taxes, certainly more than the asshats at the top.
I dunno, maybe I'm a crazy person.
A country generally has an interest in knowing what and who is coming in and out. Passport inspection and the like at the very least.
Also because it doesn't garner much support, and what support it has now is a pretty recent phenomenon. Particularly compared to a framing of just cutting red tape and welcoming all these brain surgeon movie star shortstops. Especially when immigration is something that voters/citizens literally never have to interact with, unless they're friends with/marrying an immigrant. Our fucked up system is entirely an abstraction.
Gallup:
Should immigration be kept at it's present level, increased, or decreases?
Increase: 28% (which is up from single digits in 2000)
Same: 39%
Decrease: 29% (which is down from ~50% during the aughts)
I'd be okay with essentially open borders, but I am way outside the mainstream and I know that. So anything that gets anywhere closer to that goal is a win. Even the shortcomings proposed under Bush the Lesser and Obama.
Why are Democrats so staunchly against open borders? I heard the Pod Save America guys say that and I'm like, why? That's still the same authoritarian fear monger based othering that suggests our society is unable to handle a population that for the most part is just trying to make their lives better and is usually paying taxes, certainly more than the asshats at the top.
I dunno, maybe I'm a crazy person.
A white supremacist country gets pissy when the borders are open.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Rush Limbaugh on his show today described the compromise as a win for Trump. The basic logic goes: the original thing democrats wanted was no wall, but now there is wall, so Trump won.
I only mention this because I think the compromise will pass as a 'win' for Trump based on what I heard from one of his immigration advisors (Rush). It seems like a narrative that will carry.
The USA already has open borders, in that a person born in poor Appalachia or Mississippi can freely take a bus to the bright lights of New York City to seek their fortune, if they want. Most choose not to.
Even the idea of free movement between countries is terrifying to a bunch of folks if only for the simple reason that it further destabilizes countries as a thing that matters. It's a move towards a more global citizenship that folks living by the ideology of two centuries ago just can't even begin to fathom and are terrified by the prospect of.
Has a first world country ever had open borders with 3rd world neighbors?
3rd world? Not really. Relatively poor former communist east bloc nations? Sure. Internal regions in otherwise first world nations with third world standards of living or poverty rates (Indian reservations, for example)? Sure.
Has a first world country ever had open borders with 3rd world neighbors?
Since those terms are Cold War inventions, no. The US had open borders until the 1870s though.
And even later with Mexico specifically. Our first bit of immigrant racism (*not considering slaves to be immigrants) was actually anti-asian with the Page then Chinese Exclusion Act.
Has a first world country ever had open borders with 3rd world neighbors?
Since those terms are Cold War inventions, no. The US had open borders until the 1870s though.
And even later with Mexico specifically. Our first bit of immigrant racism (*not considering slaves to be immigrants) was actually anti-asian with the Page then Chinese Exclusion Act.
There's a reasonable argument that closing borders with Mexico specifically encouraged permanent migration paradoxically, because instead of just freely crossing the border for seasonal work and returning to Mexico periodically, suddenly every crossing was a risk, so workers felt compelled to bring their families over to the US.
+35
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The US has open borders between 50 small countries, some of them pretty third world in places. There’s freedom of movement, a single market, etc. It’s practically socialist. Those Europeans could learn a thing or two from us.
The US has open borders between 50 small countries, some of them pretty third world in places. There’s freedom of movement, a single market, etc. It’s practically socialist. Those Europeans could learn a thing or two from us.
Open borders in the sense of visa free short visits, though, right? Not true freedom of migration?
I think there is a lot of evidence that even with free migration you wouldn’t just have vast rushes of people move from poorer to wealthy areas. There are still plenty of people in Indian reservations for example in spite of free movement and the federal goverment actively offering incentives to relocate, Puerto Rico still has plenty of people living on it, etc.
The US has open borders between 50 small countries, some of them pretty third world in places. There’s freedom of movement, a single market, etc. It’s practically socialist. Those Europeans could learn a thing or two from us.
Open borders in the sense of visa free short visits, though, right? Not true freedom of migration?
I think there is a lot of evidence that even with free migration you wouldn’t just have vast rushes of people move from poorer to wealthy areas. There are still plenty of people in Indian reservations for example in spite of free movement and the federal goverment actively offering incentives to relocate, Puerto Rico still has plenty of people living on it, etc.
What? He's saying nothing is stopping people from moving to other states and yet most don't. You could do the same thing on our northern and southern borders and it probably would not change anything, it might actually improve things because migrants could be truly freely migrant.
The US has open borders between 50 small countries, some of them pretty third world in places. There’s freedom of movement, a single market, etc. It’s practically socialist. Those Europeans could learn a thing or two from us.
Open borders in the sense of visa free short visits, though, right? Not true freedom of migration?
I think there is a lot of evidence that even with free migration you wouldn’t just have vast rushes of people move from poorer to wealthy areas. There are still plenty of people in Indian reservations for example in spite of free movement and the federal goverment actively offering incentives to relocate, Puerto Rico still has plenty of people living on it, etc.
What? He's saying nothing is stopping people from moving to other states and yet most don't. You could do the same thing on our northern and southern borders and it probably would not change anything, it might actually improve things because migrants could be truly freely migrant.
Blah, sorry my reading comprehension is bad today.
21 Savage is out of ICE custody on bail. Funny how they couldn't let him get out on bail until after the Grammies, where he had been scheduled to perform. Almost like they just enjoy engaging in petty cruelties, huh?
21 Savage is out of ICE custody on bail. Funny how they couldn't let him get out on bail until after the Grammies, where he had been scheduled to perform. Almost like they just enjoy engaging in petty cruelties, huh?
They are considering deporting someone to the United Kingdom a month before brexit, I am not sure how much cruel you can get.
21 Savage is out of ICE custody on bail. Funny how they couldn't let him get out on bail until after the Grammies, where he had been scheduled to perform. Almost like they just enjoy engaging in petty cruelties, huh?
They are considering deporting someone to the United Kingdom a month before brexit, I am not sure how much cruel you can get.
Pretty much everything said by ICE about 21 Savage in the initial media coverage was entirely false, but character assassination is nothing new for them.
21 Savage is out of ICE custody on bail. Funny how they couldn't let him get out on bail until after the Grammies, where he had been scheduled to perform. Almost like they just enjoy engaging in petty cruelties, huh?
They are considering deporting someone to the United Kingdom a month before brexit, I am not sure how much cruel you can get.
Pretty much everything said by ICE about 21 Savage in the initial media coverage was entirely false, but character assassination is nothing new for them.
Yeah it seemed like they were pushing the idea that he was English and intentionally fabricating his history to get sales, rather than the obvious idea that a black guy that moved to Atlanta at a very young age might identify more as a black American than an Englishman.
+3
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
21 Savage is out of ICE custody on bail. Funny how they couldn't let him get out on bail until after the Grammies, where he had been scheduled to perform. Almost like they just enjoy engaging in petty cruelties, huh?
They are considering deporting someone to the United Kingdom a month before brexit, I am not sure how much cruel you can get.
Pretty much everything said by ICE about 21 Savage in the initial media coverage was entirely false, but character assassination is nothing new for them.
ICE always seam like we have a really important job to people who couldn’t any other job with the fed. Just we are like you are 2,000 highly qualified people leading 10,000 people who would get bounced on their second shift at Denny’s, protect the border.
The USA already has open borders, in that a person born in poor Appalachia or Mississippi can freely take a bus to the bright lights of New York City to seek their fortune, if they want. Most choose not to.
It's not really about 'open borders', it's about who is crossing them.
I don't really want to embrace the term "open borders" because that has a specific connotation of "we don't even bother tracking who comes into our country, people should come on over and not pay taxes and extract free services and health care." In the way it's used by the right, it's a synonym for "no borders."
I would like there to be a border. I would like us to track who comes in and out. I would also like immigration levels to be high enough that if you want to come here, you can after filing the necessary paperwork, and that said paperwork is pretty easy to get through. Is that an open border? Maybe, but calling it such in this environment cedes the argument to the right, so I'd rather not use the term. Much like there are plenty of policies I'd like that amount to socialism, but I don't want to use WOOOOO SOCIALISM as a rallying cry right now.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The USA already has open borders, in that a person born in poor Appalachia or Mississippi can freely take a bus to the bright lights of New York City to seek their fortune, if they want. Most choose not to.
It's not really about 'open borders', it's about who is crossing them.
Amply demonstrated by Republicans trying to redefine what counts as Real America, etc.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I have to admit, part of me is morbidly curious about what would happen if you whispered into the GOP's ear that states should have soft borders between each other in the USA.
An "open border" in the context they are using is, much like the state lines, a ceding of sovereignty so yeah I get that.
I guess I'm advocating for soft borders?
It's a bit more wordy, but my go to bumper sticker version is: 'Like my great grandpa had to go through: check for Polio and Consumption, misspell their name, then say welcome to America.'
I have to admit, part of me is morbidly curious about what would happen if you whispered into the GOP's ear that states should have soft borders between each other in the USA.
The Californian Exclusion Act is enacted in 49 states.
I was googling to figure out the different terminology between border types, and it sounds like a "hard border" is one with a wall or fence and almost completely restricted crossing of the border for any reason, while a "soft border" is anything else?
So "open borders" are like between states, "soft borders" are like between the US and Mexico, and "hard borders" are like between north and south Korea.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have to admit, part of me is morbidly curious about what would happen if you whispered into the GOP's ear that states should have soft borders between each other in the USA.
I've seen evidence that public universities' reliance on the in-state tuition model actually serves a soft border for the lower middle class. As a policy, it is amazingly effective at limiting cross-state mobility, especially below certain income levels and for first-generation students. I imagine there are a ton of similar policies tied to state residency that create similar barriers.
I was googling to figure out the different terminology between border types, and it sounds like a "hard border" is one with a wall or fence and almost completely restricted crossing of the border for any reason, while a "soft border" is anything else?
So "open borders" are like between states, "soft borders" are like between the US and Mexico, and "hard borders" are like between north and south Korea.
That makes sense, although it seems like the US borders are way on the hard side of soft, compared to say...France/Spain
I was googling to figure out the different terminology between border types, and it sounds like a "hard border" is one with a wall or fence and almost completely restricted crossing of the border for any reason, while a "soft border" is anything else?
So "open borders" are like between states, "soft borders" are like between the US and Mexico, and "hard borders" are like between north and south Korea.
That makes sense, although it seems like the US borders are way on the hard side of soft, compared to say...France/Spain
France/Spain are part of Schengen and have an open border. Same as the other Nations within the EU aside from Ireland and the UK.
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I was googling to figure out the different terminology between border types, and it sounds like a "hard border" is one with a wall or fence and almost completely restricted crossing of the border for any reason, while a "soft border" is anything else?
So "open borders" are like between states, "soft borders" are like between the US and Mexico, and "hard borders" are like between north and south Korea.
In the application of Brexit discussion, especially when it comes to Ireland, the definitions kinda change.
The lack of borders within the EU was pretty much the primary motivator of Brexit. Racist British people hated that Polish people could come over freely and “take our jobs.” Why yes, before you ask, they were racist towards white Christian Europeans. Racism knows not logic.
I don't really want to embrace the term "open borders" because that has a specific connotation of "we don't even bother tracking who comes into our country, people should come on over and not pay taxes and extract free services and health care." In the way it's used by the right, it's a synonym for "no borders."
I would like there to be a border. I would like us to track who comes in and out. I would also like immigration levels to be high enough that if you want to come here, you can after filing the necessary paperwork, and that said paperwork is pretty easy to get through. Is that an open border? Maybe, but calling it such in this environment cedes the argument to the right, so I'd rather not use the term. Much like there are plenty of policies I'd like that amount to socialism, but I don't want to use WOOOOO SOCIALISM as a rallying cry right now.
Posts
I dunno, maybe I'm a crazy person.
A country generally has an interest in knowing what and who is coming in and out. Passport inspection and the like at the very least.
Also a truly migrant workforce seems like would be a better thing than the grey area don't ask don't tell policy we currently have visa vi agriculture in this country.
Also because it doesn't garner much support, and what support it has now is a pretty recent phenomenon. Particularly compared to a framing of just cutting red tape and welcoming all these brain surgeon movie star shortstops. Especially when immigration is something that voters/citizens literally never have to interact with, unless they're friends with/marrying an immigrant. Our fucked up system is entirely an abstraction.
Gallup:
Should immigration be kept at it's present level, increased, or decreases?
Increase: 28% (which is up from single digits in 2000)
Same: 39%
Decrease: 29% (which is down from ~50% during the aughts)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
I'd be okay with essentially open borders, but I am way outside the mainstream and I know that. So anything that gets anywhere closer to that goal is a win. Even the shortcomings proposed under Bush the Lesser and Obama.
A white supremacist country gets pissy when the borders are open.
I only mention this because I think the compromise will pass as a 'win' for Trump based on what I heard from one of his immigration advisors (Rush). It seems like a narrative that will carry.
Look at the EU. It really doesn't.
Since those terms are Cold War inventions, no. The US had open borders until the 1870s though.
3rd world? Not really. Relatively poor former communist east bloc nations? Sure. Internal regions in otherwise first world nations with third world standards of living or poverty rates (Indian reservations, for example)? Sure.
And even later with Mexico specifically. Our first bit of immigrant racism (*not considering slaves to be immigrants) was actually anti-asian with the Page then Chinese Exclusion Act.
There's a reasonable argument that closing borders with Mexico specifically encouraged permanent migration paradoxically, because instead of just freely crossing the border for seasonal work and returning to Mexico periodically, suddenly every crossing was a risk, so workers felt compelled to bring their families over to the US.
Open borders in the sense of visa free short visits, though, right? Not true freedom of migration?
I think there is a lot of evidence that even with free migration you wouldn’t just have vast rushes of people move from poorer to wealthy areas. There are still plenty of people in Indian reservations for example in spite of free movement and the federal goverment actively offering incentives to relocate, Puerto Rico still has plenty of people living on it, etc.
What? He's saying nothing is stopping people from moving to other states and yet most don't. You could do the same thing on our northern and southern borders and it probably would not change anything, it might actually improve things because migrants could be truly freely migrant.
Blah, sorry my reading comprehension is bad today.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They are considering deporting someone to the United Kingdom a month before brexit, I am not sure how much cruel you can get.
Pretty much everything said by ICE about 21 Savage in the initial media coverage was entirely false, but character assassination is nothing new for them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah it seemed like they were pushing the idea that he was English and intentionally fabricating his history to get sales, rather than the obvious idea that a black guy that moved to Atlanta at a very young age might identify more as a black American than an Englishman.
It's not really about 'open borders', it's about who is crossing them.
I would like there to be a border. I would like us to track who comes in and out. I would also like immigration levels to be high enough that if you want to come here, you can after filing the necessary paperwork, and that said paperwork is pretty easy to get through. Is that an open border? Maybe, but calling it such in this environment cedes the argument to the right, so I'd rather not use the term. Much like there are plenty of policies I'd like that amount to socialism, but I don't want to use WOOOOO SOCIALISM as a rallying cry right now.
Amply demonstrated by Republicans trying to redefine what counts as Real America, etc.
MWO: Adamski
I guess I'm advocating for soft borders?
It's a bit more wordy, but my go to bumper sticker version is: 'Like my great grandpa had to go through: check for Polio and Consumption, misspell their name, then say welcome to America.'
The Californian Exclusion Act is enacted in 49 states.
So "open borders" are like between states, "soft borders" are like between the US and Mexico, and "hard borders" are like between north and south Korea.
I've seen evidence that public universities' reliance on the in-state tuition model actually serves a soft border for the lower middle class. As a policy, it is amazingly effective at limiting cross-state mobility, especially below certain income levels and for first-generation students. I imagine there are a ton of similar policies tied to state residency that create similar barriers.
That makes sense, although it seems like the US borders are way on the hard side of soft, compared to say...France/Spain
France/Spain are part of Schengen and have an open border. Same as the other Nations within the EU aside from Ireland and the UK.
So no open borders, and no closed borders.
When is a border not a border? When it's ajar!
I'll show myself out.