Eliminating borders is a recipe for disaster. You can't expect your country to remain the same if you let millions or dozens of millions of people freely coming in from different cultures and backgrounds. Immigration is all about "how much is still OK to let in (trade-off between risks and benefits)", and once you say "whoever wants to enter", it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously.
Countries should not remain the same. Stealing all this land from California to Texas from Mexico was absolutely not about leaving the country the same. Expelling the Latinos from there was certainly not about conservation of the then current state of affairs, it was a social adventure.
Moreover the US actually had more or less open borders for a long time, calling into some kind of date at which its society should be preserved at is a little bit arbitrary.
You think you expelled the Latinos and stole the land? That's simplistic perspective. If you go read the real Mexican history books (serious scholars and historians) you will realize that many people in those state were pro-leaving Mexico. Why? Well, Mexican 19th century history is defined by the conflict between Federalism and Centralism where everything was to be controlled from Mexico City. You can guess how people living on the outskirts of Mexico took to taxations and impositions of politicians from the center of the country. Sure, the US swooped on this, but you can bet the people in those territories were not particularly bothered, au contraire. Also you have to factor in that Mexicans have not felt particularly united as a nation until after our Revolutionary War in the 1900's
He didn’t make an economic argument, he made a social and political one about changes to culture. I support open borders for the same reason I support free trade but the idea that it would be anything but massively disruptive to most existing political settlements is a joke. The US fifty years after open borders would have a lot in common with before but the Roman Empire had a lot in common with the Republic too.
No way a welfare state, democracy and open borders go together. Open borders isn’t going to be costless for existing residents.
Borders are an authoritarian tool of control, so allusions to empire and talking about a democratic society with a safety net being unable to handle open borders is bizarre to say the least.
The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
> The entire point of the argument is that in aggregate the benefits outweigh the costs, not that it's costless.
True, if you don’t have the concept of community. If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members. From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
> If you do you value fellow members differently than non-members.
This is where xenophobia comes from, nevermind the fact that however slice it (unless counting military action/colnialism as immigration, like you do) 'community members' are more likely to commit acts of violence on other community members than non-members.
> From a net human welfare perspective the conquest and settlement of the Americas was pretty great. More people, richer people, healthier people, more educated people. Not so great for the people and peoples who were there before 1492 though.
This is a rich example to use given what you're arguing for. Colonizers weren't immigrants, they were colonizers. Blaming the original inhabitants' border control (in a world where borders were very different than the ones we have today) for colonialism, and conflating modern-day migration with colonization, is disgusting.
If free trade ends up being bad for a country, it's much easier to change that compared to deporting some insane amount of people. Especially when the migrant home country can't even be determined.
Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.
- erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures
- erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture
- identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines)
Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance.
I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.
>>>Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric.
Cross-border population movements are a potential vector for disease transmission. Just look at the Google Scholar results from some similar searches, especially [1] and [2]. Casting objective physical science concerns as some sort of subjective expression of xenophobia is unhelpful to mitigating or solving real problems.
Yet no serious commentator advocates shutting down tourism out of concern for spread of disease, and it's long been found that the key to preventing infection outbreaks is to have a well-functioning medical system.
Probably because tourists move through very easily monitored access points. Not sure about the US, but most major airports in Asia have body-heat sensors to flag anyone who might be suffering from an infection-related fever. Similar controls should exist at all immigration points to the US. Implementing processes and technical systems to mitigate risk first requires acknowledging that the risk exists, and isn't just "vile rhetoric". Then we can reap the benefits of legal immigration while avoiding the negatives.
I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia.
It’s hard to imagine how much use it would be; an active fever is only one indicator of whether someone is carrying an infectious illness, so such a test will lead to many false positives and negatives.
I'm fine with a sober discussion about the economic and moral pros/cons of immigration, and about fair and humane means of controlling immigration.
But this line of argument seems like a red herring.
>>>I've never knowingly been tested by any body heat sensor at an airport or other border crossing, and I've travelled plenty in Asia, USA, Europe, and in/out of my home country of Australia.
I guess they are easy to miss, they just look like camcorders on tripods, usually, but the checkpoints themselves and their purpose are usually clearly marked.
Both those links refer to specific infection outbreaks, that health authorities feared (rightly or wrongly) may escalate into global pandemics. Both were contained due mostly to medical systems implementing standard procedures for controlling outbreaks. Checking some people at some border crossings may have helped somewhat, but it was only one part of a much broader response.
The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
It's just not a serious part of the discussion, and it is likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
>>>Checking some people at some border crossings may have helped somewhat, but it was only one part of a much broader response.
To clarify, the body-heat scans aren't "some people at some border crossings", they are literally every human who walks through the gate at most airports, including Incheon, Taipei, Narita, BKK, and Noi Bai (Hanoi). Usually just before the immigration checkpoints.
>>>The point stands; no recent, serious infectious outbreak can be blamed on immigration - authorised or not - any more than any can be blamed on tourism.
Handbook on Migration and Security, pg 320:
"The spread of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic...was facilitated by human mobility."[1]
Or look at the quarantines during the 2009 influenza pandemic[2]. Entire hotels quarantined and cruise ships diverted.
>>>likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
I'm not trying to paint foreigners as "unclean". I AM a "foreigner". I'm an African-American living in Japan. I know exactly what being treated as an unclean underclass is like. I'm nevertheless able to rationally assess that the country's robust immigration controls are likely a major contributing factor to managing the assimilation rate of other cultures in order to maintain national stability.
But instead of responding with well-sourced and rational debate points you've instead lept to implications that I must just be a xenophobe who hates brown people.
Sorry to be slow replying to this, and to imply that I believed you personally were a xenophobe.
That's not what I thought or meant; I was referring more broadly to the motivations of many of the people who make this a primary focus of their anti-immigration argument, not accusing you personally of this.
To summarise my thoughts on this:
- The topic of immigration is one I've wrestled with and debated for well over a decade, since it became a big issue in Australia, and I've generally been the one railing at open-borders advocates, asking in exasperation "how does this work economically?"
- These days I don't get emotionally invested in positions on immigration, as it's an issue that's too big and complex for any strong opinion I might form to make any difference (and I've literally made myself sick by getting too emotionally invested in things in the past so I now take care to avoid doing that about any political issue).
- That said, my position on open-borders policies is that it sounds like a nice idea but the onus is on advocates to articulate a way in which it can work, economically and practically, and I haven't heard anyone do so convincingly.
- My objection to the focus on disease-spread as a risk of immigration it's just not a convincing argument, due to the fact that it's a concern that applies pretty much equally to tourism and authorised immigration [1], and it exposes the proponent to accusations of xenophobia - justifiably in many cases.
In short: I'm on the side of those who are skeptical about uncontrolled immigration; I just want all the arguments in the discussion to be convincing, and to avoid being derailed by arguments over xenophobia, which is inevitable when people cry "disease!" in the context of immigrants.
[1] I understand those prosecuting the argument above are focused on the risk of immigration that doesn't go through any kind of checkpoints where vetting can take place; but there are versions of open-borders systems that can still require passing through checkpoints and undergoing health checks if necessary.
> It's just not a serious part of the discussion, and it is likely invoked as an attempt to cast certain classes of foreigners as unclean and trigger susceptible people's disgust response.
The CDC literally has policies about who can be admitted to the U.S. as an immigrant or refugee based on their health status[1], including whether or not they are carrying a communicable disease (such as TB).
This unsubstantiated inference about other people's intentions is misguided at best, and disingenuous at worst.
So are you arguing that disease isn't a risk, or just that there is never a need to have border control to deal with it?
It is a risk, one that we can and do take into consideration. Anyone seeking to be a permanent resident in the U.S. is required to have certain vaccinations. That requires a certain level of border and immigration control to enforce.
Having a well-functioning medical system is good, but won't help much if your dealing with the spread of disease that isn't easily treatable. Or rather, quarantine is part of a well-functioning medical system. And yes, shutting down travel to/from certain countries experiencing a serious epidemic has been a real consideration in the past.
Look, I'm not saying "shut down the borders". All I'm saying is that completely open borders are impractical and ignores real risks.
> You can't expect your country to remain the same
Why would anyone want or expect their country to remain the same? Especially the US? There are massive problems here, with millions of people hurting every day. The current state of the US is not a nice place for tens of millions+ of its residents.
Stating that you'd expect a country to 'remain the same' is tantamount to stating you want the current horrible problems that presently plague our society to persist - with no action against them. That doesn't make any sense.
Things are awful right now. Thing should _not_ stay the same. Things should improve, and people should work every day to improve them.
> it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously.
> Stating that you'd expect a country to 'remain the same' is tantamount to stating you want the current horrible problems that presently plague our society to persist - with no action against them. That doesn't make any sense.
This was the entire premise of the current president's platform; going back to before things "changed" and everything was "better"
Nonsense, and you don't believe that either. Otherwise you'd be arguing for hard borders between US states to preserve their unique character. Border politics are drive by racism, pure and simple. You may not be racist, but you should look into the history around the politics of this and the extreme right wingers that back the various anti-immigration front groups.
Are you implying that wanting to have a border is a belief that is "basically racism"? What you are doing is stretching and expanding the word "racism", which doesn't do anyone any good because you are diluting the real phenomenon, you make free speech harder, because suddenly you call many more phenomenon "racist", you alienate a lot of people who would even agree with you otherwise - you are basically corrupting your language.
This is not a good thing for any cause, this is just a tool that is used in a political debate to try to win arguments through linguistical tricks, not through real arguments.
