We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, July 29. 2014
Are there any nations which have willingly voted for open borders? Or for entry from a foreign place with no passport, or for any residency without a visa?
Many pundits from across the political spectrum are advocating open borders for the US, most recently George Will.
Now with Central American, and Chinese, immigrants coming via Mexico, my question for the open borders crowd is "How many, who, and from where?" Or is there no limit and no choice to be made by Americans? I thought we ran this joint.
There are an estimated 3 billion in poverty on this planet, many living without WiFi or big-screen TVs, and I am sure a large fraction of them would welcome the opportunity to take advantage of American material abundance.
Why don't people just fix their own places?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"There are an estimated 3 billion in poverty on this planet in poverty".
There appears to be no clear cut definition of poverty, probably because in the west, the definition changes annually and is dictated by government, based on an opinion and a formula. Only in America, can someone be "impoverished", and have a cellphone, cable, computer.....blah blah blah. This is an old problem / discussion.
My idea of poverty is not someone with cigarettes, clean sneakers, cellphones, and a cardboard sign, etc..
If you saw how I lived, not for a second would you say I live in poverty. But the government says I live in poverty. But I am where I need to be. I am where I wanna be.
Now ain't that some shit...........the government thinks I am poor because of a formula.
George Will's position seems so mildly reasonable: surely we can assimilate 5,000 children, or 50,000. It's unlike him to be so oblivious to the problem: You can always make a case for assimilating this 50,000 or that 50,000, but if you don't have a plan for the next 3 billion, what are you thinking?
The feasible way to increase immigration by 50,000, or even 12 million, is to amend the immigration quotas to a point the voters can agree on, then enforce the cap. It is not to scrap the idea of quotas altogether.
Alternatively, we could scrap the idea of quotas, but then we'd have to dismantle the welfare state. I think it would be a good trade-off.
I'm for open borders, with some limitations.
First - nothing for free. Just because you show up doesn't mean you get 'stuff' or citizenship right off the bat.
Second - the path to citizenship must be transparent and attainable. The current nonsense is just pathetic and designed to encourage illegals to stick around and work off the books.
Third - no quotas. The old Teddy Kennedy trick of rigging the system so the Irish get in and others are blocked can't be employed. I think a reason people are opposed to immigration right now is because they don't like that these immigrants are "different looking". Willing to bet that's the main reason for a good portion of people.
Fourth - no limitations. 5,000 or 500,000, I don't see an issue with this. A friend of mine said "how can we absorb 3mm more people with the stroke of a pen?" I said "they are already here - we're not absorbing anything." So if more show up, that's actually good for us. More people seeking opportunity means more overall opportunity.
Finally - keep the known criminals out. I have this one limitation. Why should we take on other nations' problems?
The story at the border is a sad one, but it's also blown out of proportion. Too much spin going on. Oh the poor kids. Oh how sad. Blah, blah, blah. They were essentially invited in by Obama and told they'd get everything they wanted. He was looking to build an permanent underclass which would rely on him and his political buddies for everything they need.
Open borders aren't the problem. The problem is building a meaningful method of opening them effectively.
Today the old America exists only in your heart. If you believe in freedom and free markets, if you want to remain the master of your fate and the captain of your soul, you have to become a global nomad. You can find nice places to hang your hat in other lands. And you can find endless opportunities to make money if you consider the entire planet your home.
As I tell my libertarian brother. You can't have open borders and a welfare state. They will overwhelm you. Example. See France.
If the government and the citizens did this honestly I would be OK with whatever they choose. The honest way is to put it to a referendum. Three separate questions:
1. Should we crack down on illegal immigration, secure the border and pull out all the stops to find and deport those here now illegally.
2. Should we have any legal immigration. That is with the third largest populated country in the world do we really need more bodies.
3. Should we end all refugee immigration. Most of it is a scam and the correct solution to the problem is for them to fix their own country.
The voter should understand that voting yes for any and all of these options should (we are being honest, right?) end welfare. We are bankrupt and over 50% of all immigrants require and get welfare (huge amounts of welfare) most for life.
So let's have the vote. I think open borders or even immigration at the current levels will destroy the country and destroy the middle class. So if we are going to commit suicide as a nation at least we should have a say in it.
"More people seeking opportunity means more overall opportunity."
. . . more people seeking welfare means more welfare, more people depending on the state, means a greater state . . .
. . . open borders is the hemlock cup of the Libertarian, wished for by theorists and elites.
I have a couple of issues with this:
1. Culture...if we swamp our Euro/Anglo culture with non Euro/Anglo it weakens the very culture that's been a key component of our success. So it matters a lot who we bring in.
2. IQ/Capability...our society and wealth is significantly determined by the collective IQ/Capability of our citizens. if we allow a hord of low IQ/low capability people in this will drag down our overall capabilities and wealth and cause additional social tension from a larger gap of high capability/higher wealth and low capapbility citizens. But this is not the only consideration, see culture above.
3. I believe, Bulldog, that you are a libertarian. As a libertarian I would think you'd be more concerned with the potential political implications of lots of new citizens from countries/cultures that will tend to vote for larger centralized government and more free stuff.
Frankly I'm perfectly satisfied, even committed to, this country being dominantly Anglo/European in culture and ethnicity. I'm fine with a smaller minority of other ethnicities and cultures as long as they're not so large as to fundamentally change this culture and can be effectively assimilated into it.
I agree with this.
We have a large population but we also still have plenty of space to take more, however, I'd like to see us be much more particular and systematic on who and how many we agree to bring in. Also new immigrants have to earn their way to citizenship and government assistance. Also we have to stop the nonsense of the birth right citizenship just because a non citizen happens to have a baby while within US border.
For a very informative and clear picture of the immigration problem there is a terrific YouTube video. Just go to YouTube and search on "immigration gumballs." I showed this to my semi lib kids (slowly moving out of that idealistic phase and into the real world) and they quickly understood what open borders will do for us.
I brought this up at a recent family BBQ, and almost got exiled. "You're a horrible man!" the wife's cousin crowed (28, pro college student working on her Phd).
I tried to explain, pretty much every other nation, at least one parent (most demand two...) must be a citizen before the offspring\prodigy can have it. We are pretty much the only ones that just, by being born, you become a citizen.
This notion and practice is quite noble, but it sows salt upon the land where amber waves of grain should flow...
Here is a take on how to secure the southern border
I believe that soon the truth of this situation will be obvious to everyone. I think the rush of immigrants/refugees flooding our border is just the beginning. Esitimates are that we have 12-20 million here illegally today and to be honest no one really knows it could be 30 million. Once the president and his enablers effectively give them all amnesty the flood gates will open. The welfare costs, the increase in crime, the loss of jobs for citizens, the bankruptcy and closing of hospitals and clinics, the massive social costs will affect everyone. I'm not saying your wife's cousin or any committed liberal will declare that they were wrong and beg your forgiveness for their blindness. But I am saying that they will see and understand that they were wrong and they will act accordingly.