Open Borders

[sky dancer]

I thought this idea deserves it's own thread. Here is a clip from an essay to start the topic going:

"Israel’s experience is instructive. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the mass exodus of Russian Jews swelled Israel’s working-age population by 8 percent in two years and by more than 15 percent between 1989 and 1997 — the equivalent of 15 million foreigners unexpectedly arriving in the United States over the next two years, and 29 million by 2016. Jews everywhere have an automatic right to settle in Israel, which leaves the country open to mass inflows of immigrants, irrespective of the country’s economic needs and circumstances.

The influx of Russian Jews in the 1990s posed a severe test of the economic viability of Israel’s “right of return” policy. After all, the newcomers didn’t speak Hebrew and didn’t have jobs to go to. Yet as I explain in detail in my book Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, Israel was able to absorb this huge and unexpected inflow of immigrants without a rise in unemployment, and with only a temporary fall in wages. The upshot is clear: even when migration is motivated by political crisis rather than economic demand, flexible advanced economies can absorb large numbers of immigrants with scarcely any cost to native workers."

When Britain opened its borders to the Poles and other East Europeans, all 75 million people in those much poorer countries could conceivably have moved, but in fact only a fraction have, and most have already left again. Many are, in effect, international commuters, splitting their time between Britain and Poland. Of course, some will end up settling, but most won’t. Most people don’t want to leave home at all, let alone leave it forever: they want to go work abroad for a while to learn English and earn enough to buy a house or set up a business back home.

Studies show that most Mexican migrants have similar aspirations. If they could come and go freely, most would move only temporarily. But perversely, U.S. border controls end up making many stay for good, because crossing the border is so risky and costly that once a person has got across he tends to stay. A Mexican who overstays his visa knows that if he returns home, he will never be able to reenter the United States legally.


Open Borders Work, Part 2

 

[Mad Scientist]

Open borders only provides cheap illegal alien slave labor for business and depresses wages by increasing the pool of workers.
If the people are smart, and I'm not saying they are, but if they're smart, they will want the borders secured. Not closed, just secured so that we may regulate who comes in.

Think about it. In this economy, do you want to compete for jobs against Americans, or Mexicans and Americans?

 

[sky dancer]

I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic. It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.

If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.

The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic. It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.

If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.

The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.

Obviously you have no problem with illegal aliens in the U.S. Perhaps you are one yourself, who knows. And obviously your 'issue' is not their illegality. We're in a rut because we object to people sneaking across the border, taking U.S. jobs, leaching off of the system, not paying taxes, committing crimes and not being punished for them and just being parasites? Ok, I admit it -- I'm in a rut.

So now you want to wave a magic wand like the man behind the curtain and make all the illegals legal overnight? Why should they get a free ride? Why shouldn't they be booted out and sent to the back of the line? What makes these people so damned special that they can just sneak in here and stay?

 

[sky dancer]

Obviously you have no problem with illegal aliens in the U.S. Perhaps you are one yourself, who knows. And obviously your 'issue' is not their illegality. We're in a rut because we object to people sneaking across the border, taking U.S. jobs, leaching off of the system, not paying taxes, committing crimes and not being punished for them and just being parasites? Ok, I admit it -- I'm in a rut.

So now you want to wave a magic wand like the man behind the curtain and make all the illegals legal overnight? Why should they get a free ride? Why shouldn't they be booted out and sent to the back of the line? What makes these people so damned special that they can just sneak in here and stay?

What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the idea of open borders. There is a book I'd like to read by Jason Riley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page called LET THEM IN.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1592403492/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1[/ame]

 

[Mad Scientist]

What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the idea of open borders.

Uh, I think I did discuss the idea of open borders. Perhaps you just want someone to agree with you?
If you really want to discuss the "idea" of open borders then go here:
http://saveourstate.org/index.php
http://www.sos.orgRead up on those who are "living the dream" of open borders on a daily basis. Post a little and see how they respond to your "idea" of open borders.

 

[xsited1]

Have you heard of Jason Riley? He recently wrote a new book about this.

In a provocative new book, Jason Riley makes the case for welcoming more legal immigrants to the United States. Drawing on history, scholarly studies and first-hand reporting, Riley argues that today's newcomers are fueling America's prosperity and dynamism. He challenges the prevailing views on talk radio and cable TV that immigrants are overpopulating the country, stealing jobs, depressing wages, bankrupting social services, filling prisons, resisting assimilation and promoting big government.

[YOUTUBE]A3q9K3NFRlI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[sky dancer]

I am just learning about Mr Riley's book.

 

[sky dancer]

Uh, I think I did discuss the idea of open borders. Perhaps you just want someone to agree with you?
If you really want to discuss the "idea" of open borders then go here:
Save Our State - Home
http://www.sos.orgRead up on those who are "living the dream" of open borders on a daily basis. Post a little and see how they respond to your "idea" of open borders.

saveourstate is a nativist organization, isn't it? That's another topic--nativism and anti-immigration extremism.

Here is an idea to open the borders--and completely eliminate 'immigration illegality'. I would think that would be of some interest to you to investigate.

 

[sky dancer]

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine

 

[007]

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine

Just... THROW OPEN THE BORDER aye Sky... well, I can't believe you think this is a good idea, unless of course YOU are an illegal alien yourself, which you very well may be. At this point, you've given me every reason to believe you are, and not one to believe you're not. But, here's a little reading to chew on...



A Good Deal or a Pig in a Poke?

President George Washington warned the nation against foreign entanglements: "‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world."43 Washington, who had invested blood, sweat, and tears in winning independence and establishing the United States, counseled: So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils . . . facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, . . . unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained[,] . . . it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country. . . .

. . . The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.44 (emphasis in original)

With regard to SPP, NAFTA, and other "free trade" deals of the sort, in which immigration and the ceding of national sovereignty have increased, the Bush administration would do well to heed the wisdom of the first U.S. president.


Marriage to Mexico?

Beyond the core threat to national sovereignty that SPP poses to each of the member states, Mexico presents its own set of problems in the prospect of greater integration with the United States and Canada. By far, Mexico is the chief sending country of immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal. Mexicans make up some 30 percent of the foreign-born U.S. population, with more than half of Mexican immigrants being illegal aliens.45 Canada sends only a fraction of the immigrants to the United States that Mexico does — both legal and illegal. Mexico is a Third World nation sharing a 2,000-mile land border with the pre-eminent First World nation.

Harvard’s Samuel Huntington has chronicled how Latin American and Western, in this case Mexican and American, cultures differ fundamentally, as well as Latino, especially Mexican, stubborn resistance to assimilation here.46 Latin American civilization is characterized as "corporatist, authoritarian."47 Pursuing a significantly different historical path than its northern neighbors, Mexico derives from "superstitious enthusiasms of Spain and Portugal[,] . . . discontents in the Spanish and Portuguese dominions."48

Sadly for Mexico and its Latino cohort, those nations developed a society of "insecurity, bad government, corruption, and economic retardation. . . . At the top, a small group of rascals, well taught by their earlier colonial masters, looted freely. Below, the masses squatted and scraped."49 No agreement signed by elites can sweep away such long-ingrained, integral characteristics of corruption in a society. SPP cannot. Nor could any United Nations-style bureaucracy.

The Heritage Foundation ranks nations by their degree of economic freedom. The United States is the fourth most free nation in the world; Canada is 10th; Mexico lags far behind at 49th.50 Not exactly a match made in Heaven on the compatibility scale.

The U.S. ranking is first of 29 countries in the Americas, with a much higher score than the region’s average: "The United States enjoys high levels of investment freedom, trade freedom, financial freedom, property rights, business freedom, and freedom from corruption."51 Canada ranks second in the region, also earning an above-average score for the Americas: "A strong rule of law ensures property rights, a low level of corruption, and transparent application of the country’s admittedly thorough commercial code."52

By contrast, Mexico pales beside its northern neighbors. An endemic ineffectiveness in its civil government, coupled with ingrained corruption, and monopolistic and socialistic elements equal a national economy better than much of the region, but not by much on average. "Freedom from corruption [in Mexico] is weak and is the only factor worse than the world average. . . . A weak judicial system produces slow resolution of cases and is subject to fairly significant corruption."53 In fact, the Heritage report cites Mexico’s "freedom from corruption" rating at 35 percent, placing that country 65th of 158 nations. Both investment freedom and private property rights rate no better than 50 percent.54

Because of Mexico’s endemic corruption, putting American and Canadian hopes in Mexico securing its southern border amounts to a leap of blind faith. Mexico’s lax, corrupt security perimeter today leaks badly. Chances of Mexican border security improving appreciably, even with American and Canadian help, are slim. The New York Times reported that, even with 170,000 deportations last year, thousands of illegal Central American aliens slip across Mexico’s southern border (the one that, under the SPP, would become America’s and Canada’s de facto border). "Corruption is rampant," and corrupt Mexican soldiers and police officers means that "a majority [of illegal aliens] gets through."55 Mexico’s track record of ferreting out corruption, faithfully cooperating with its neighbors on stopping drug and human traffickers, or getting real, sustained results has been meager, to put it mildly.

To American highways and roads, Mexican trucks will soon have full access, despite American concerns regarding public safety, fairness, and the various unintended consequences, especially on American truckers’ livelihoods. The Bush administration has forced a "pilot project" involving 100 Mexican trucking companies. Yet American truckers will have to wait at least six months later before gaining access to Mexican roads.56

Liberalizing cross-border trucking with Mexico does much, much more than further trade. It expands the opportunity to smuggle illegal aliens, international sex slaves, drugs, and firearms into the United States. Moreover, criminal enterprises in Mexico will gain yet another means of laundering their illicit activities, profiting from them, and expanding them (or simply making it easier for them to conduct current criminal activity) that encroaches on the United States and threatens American public safety.57

Similarly, public health threats will increase and be exacerbated by SPP’s erasure of controlled national borders. Mexico is among many Third World countries where exotic diseases proliferate. For instance, the "deadly hemorrhagic form of dengue fever is increasing dramatically in Mexico, and experts predict a surge throughout Latin America."58 Latin American migration helps spread this disease, where migrants take new strains of this and other viruses with them into other nations, abetting resistance to medicines. In the instance of dengue fever, no drug treatment exists.

SPP will increase the likelihood that diseases previously uncommon or eradicated in the United States will enter and infect Americans and Canadians. With its much more sophisticated (and expensive) health care system, the United States will see even more Mexican patients arriving at its clinics and emergency rooms seeking charity care. This surge in demand will present even harsher financial strains on an already stressed health care system; privately insured Americans will see even more health care costs shifted onto their wallets. The result assuredly will be less health care for Americans at greater costs (both public and private).

 

[007]

Here is an absolute MUST WATCH...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ[/ame]

 

[sky dancer]

I admit it. I'm in the US illegally.

"Transnationalization is not a slogan. Transnationalization is a process, and it is a project. Inside and outside Europe, migrants move from one country to another one, looking for a better future, refusing subordination and exploitation. Crossing the borders, migrants are transnationalizing the world. This process is already taking place, that is why the transnationalization of migrants' struggles, against the border regime, must become a project too."
http://www.noborder.org/item.php?id=447

 

[tigerbob]

Just... THROW OPEN THE BORDER aye Sky... well, I can't believe you think this is a good idea, unless of course YOU are an illegal alien yourself, which you very well may be. At this point, you've given me every reason to believe you are, and not one to believe you're not. But, here's a little reading to chew on...

Someone doesn't share your views so they must be an illegal alien? Hmmm...

That said, throwing open the borders would be a potentially disastrous decision. It has recently happened in Britain. The only market sector that is genuinely benefitting in terms of new ideas and dynamism from the Eastern European influx is that of crime.

While there are plenty of smart, honest, hardworking Eastern Europeans in Britain, many of them choose to earn a living on (comparatively high) British wages and send the money home to the family in the old country. In the meantime, British people whose jobs they have taken are unemployed. An unhealthy dynamic.

Australia's system of points is, in my opinion, a good one - "you're welcome to come to Australia if you bring us skills that are in short supply". I'm paraphrasing, but you get my drift.

 

[sky dancer]

Jason Riley is a conservative African-American and a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

Here is a quote from Jason Riley while being interviewed by Paul Gigot:

"The reason they were breaking the law is because we have a policy in which too many immigrants are chasing too few visas. I believe that the best way to reduce illegal immigration and to prevent illegal workers working in factories is to give people who come here to work more ways to come legally. The best way to to decrease illegal immigration is to provide more legal ways to come here to work. And we know that this is effective because we tried it before. We had a bracero program after World War II to take care of a shortage of farm workers. And when that program was in effect, illegal immigration from Mexico was reduced to a trickle. Now there are all kinds of problems in terms of worker exploitation with this program so Iwouldn't recommend resurrecting it in the exact form; we'd have to tinker with it. But the fundamental principle is sound. If you give people more legal ways to come you get less illegal immigration."
Let Them In: WSJ Editor Argues for Open Borders | NewsBusters.org

 

[AVG-JOE]

I say open the borders up. Just make damn sure we know who is here and make damn sure all visitors have a means for feeding themselves. There should also be some sort of bonus for being a bona fide citizen like the right to own property or the ability to earn $30,000 tax free.

-Joe

 

[sky dancer]

I say open the borders up. Just make damn sure we know who is here and make damn sure all visitors have a means for feeding themselves. There should also be some sort of bonus for being a bona fide citizen like the right to own property or the ability to earn $30,000 tax free.

-Joe

It would be a lot easier to vet out the criminals if the borders were open.

 

[Gunny]

I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic. It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.

If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.

The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.

You're damned right. You make all the illegals legal and guess what? You just killed out economy. Make them legal and they have to be paid minimum wage at least. You know as well as I do no one can live on minimum wage. There attraction to the employer who now has to pay minimum way and unemployment tax just went to nil. The employer can't afford as many anymore either, so he cuts a few, putting them on welfare or unemployment. Most illegals are unskilled labor, so they aren't going to just find another job.

In the meantime, MORE illegals pour over the border, become the new illegal class, the employers hire them instead, and the old illegal class is now the new welfare class supported by our tax dollars.

Good job.

 

[sky dancer]

Whatever you say, Gunny.


Make all the illegals legal and you don't have an illegal immigration problem. You make the best argument for Open Borders. It sounds to me that immigration would self-regulate by your way of thinking.

I don't buy the welfare state bit.

 

[007]

Someone doesn't share your views so they must be an illegal alien? Hmmm...

I didn't come by that opinion by just one of her posts. I've been reading pages and pages of her pro illegal alien rhetoric for days, and took an educated guess she may very well likely be an illegal alien herself. Evidently I was right.

It would be a lot easier to vet out the criminals if the borders were open.

How so? Seems like it work just the other way around to me.