Open Borders? Convince Me

[Bakery Hill]

What about between these:
OPEN- No border regulation
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate bureaucracy
TIGHT- Very beuracratic vetting process and/or policies are put in place to turn immigrants into full patriots.
CLOSED- No immigration

Situational depending on the bordering nations.

Take North America, the US and Canada could have Loose or Open borders with very few problems (Hell, before 9/11 the borders might as well have been open), whereas the US and Mexico would probably keep a Moderate or Tight border.

If I were Canada I would be concerned.

[Jello Biafra]

Then what kind of immigration policy are you advocating for? If you have a country that people want to come to, they will come. If they can't come legally, they will come illegally.

What I'm saying is that it's much harder if you're on an island. In Australia we don't tend to get millions of undocumented migrants a year. Even at the peak of our own "crisis" we got a top of a few thousand.

And yet, it's mandatory for illegal immigrants to be detained in Australia.

The remittance economy really seems like an extension of imperialism. I have friends who do this. They get paid shit wages and live in shit conditions working for bosses who treat them like shit, it warps and destroys family, union strength plummets, local workers go on the dole. Is this something socialists should support?

Union strength plummets with illegal immigration because illegal workers can't be unionized. Legal workers can be. Once that happens, bosses can't get away with treating immigrant workers like shit.

[Bakery Hill]

What I'm saying is that it's much harder if you're on an island. In Australia we don't tend to get millions of undocumented migrants a year. Even at the peak of our own "crisis" we got a top of a few thousand.

And yet, it's mandatory for illegal immigrants to be detained in Australia.

Yes, and that's largely for domestic political reasons. All my other points still stand.

The remittance economy really seems like an extension of imperialism. I have friends who do this. They get paid shit wages and live in shit conditions working for bosses who treat them like shit, it warps and destroys family, union strength plummets, local workers go on the dole. Is this something socialists should support?

Union strength plummets with illegal immigration because illegal workers can't be unionized. Legal workers can be. Once that happens, bosses can't get away with treating immigrant workers like shit.

I feel like you're not listening to what I've been saying, and just repeating your own narrative at me. I am not talking about illegal immigration. I am not necessarily talking about America.

[Aethrys]

Poaching skilled individuals from third world nations happens with restricted borders as well. Canada in particular takes care to primarily accept the elites of other nations while allowing some refugees as a PR move, though they're hardly alone in this. Open borders would just mean that the people between those two classes will swarm out of impoverished nations and compete for the dwindling number of jobs that haven't been lost to automation.

[Liriena]

Yes on open borders, but with the caveat that it would need to be implemented in combination with a significant change in the global economic and political paradigm. Economically and politically vulnerable regions like Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc., would most likely get the short end of the stick if open borders came to be in this exact same paradigm.

[Neutraligon]

I have an issue with open borders, for 1 thing that is important that states protect their citizens from the threat of highly contagious diseases.

[Kramania]

Open borders has no merit and is foolish.

[Rasgulla]

Think about the small businesses though, they'll actually have to pay legal wages because there's no exploitable overseas workers coming in anymore

[Jello Biafra]

And yet, it's mandatory for illegal immigrants to be detained in Australia.

Yes, and that's largely for domestic political reasons. All my other points still stand.

Again, what type of immigration policy do you advocate, if not open borders?

Union strength plummets with illegal immigration because illegal workers can't be unionized. Legal workers can be. Once that happens, bosses can't get away with treating immigrant workers like shit.

I am not talking about illegal immigration.

If you don't have open borders you are talking about illegal immigration, whether to intend to be or not.

I am not necessarily talking about America.

Which countries are there where an immigrant's legal status doesn't affect a union's ability to organize them?

[The of Japan]

Yes, and that's largely for domestic political reasons. All my other points still stand.

Again, what type of immigration policy do you advocate, if not open borders?

I am not talking about illegal immigration.

If you don't have open borders you are talking about illegal immigration, whether to intend to be or not.

I am not necessarily talking about America.

Which countries are there where an immigrant's legal status doesn't affect a union's ability to organize them?

completely open borders is a bad idea in this day and age.

[Jello Biafra]

completely open borders is a bad idea in this day and age.

Why is that? Keep in mind that open borders doesn't mean unmanaged borders.

[The of Japan]

completely open borders is a bad idea in this day and age.

Why is that? Keep in mind that open borders doesn't mean unmanaged borders.

open borders mean open fucking borders, no security or anything. you are talking about lightly secured borders.

[Trumptonium]

If you don't have open borders you are talking about illegal immigration, whether to intend to be or not.

dichotomy 101

[Liberalter]

Neoliberals push for open borders because it's economically the best option. And I agree.

[Nulla Bellum]

Why does the open border question have to be framed as a one way street? By that I mean why not move to a nation that is better for you if you can? People move in, people move out. Equilibrium achieved.

[Great Indoriaska]

Open Borders would be risky, yet there is a reason why Germany, Sweden, and some other European Countries open their borders, first the use of immigrant as a workforce, second adding more population for decreasingly European low birth rate, third for most immigrants are useful as a cheap labor with low paid salary, and most of all most of Europeans want to work less but paid more with the immigrant do the hard labor and low payment, of course they just can rely on welfare for their living but sometimes not all immigrants want to work as a hard labor only sometimes they want to get paid as high just like the Natives did. Well that's my opinion tho but you can add more.

[Jello Biafra]

Why is that? Keep in mind that open borders doesn't mean unmanaged borders.

open borders mean open fucking borders, no security or anything. you are talking about lightly secured borders.

No. The Schengen Agreement, for instance, created open borders but not borders without any security whatsoever.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What about open borders? I probably should've asked what the actual question was before voting yes, but I assume it was whether or not open borders are a good thing?

As for countries losing workers, same happens to the first world with regard to Japan. Anyone who can get into Japan will, bleeding the western world of talent. But everybody knows it's the western world's fault for not being as interesting as Japan. Why can't we accept the same on the other end of the spectrum, between western countries and third world countries?

Let this be a lesson to each country to invest in providing something that will make skilled people want to live there.

EDIT: And on the union point, obviously someone from a different country isn't likely to be in the same union, so that's just not practical. Frankly, I'd rather we had more focus on regulation and less on unions. Seems like it would double as a safeguard against union groupthink as well. But freedom of association means people are free to form unions, and they have the right to not give a shit about anyone outside a union if they so choose not to.

[The of Japan]

open borders mean open fucking borders, no security or anything. you are talking about lightly secured borders.

No. The Schengen Agreement, for instance, created open borders but not borders without any security whatsoever.

extremely lax, but not totally open.

[Bakery Hill]

Yes, and that's largely for domestic political reasons. All my other points still stand.

Again, what type of immigration policy do you advocate, if not open borders?

I am not talking about illegal immigration.

If you don't have open borders you are talking about illegal immigration, whether to intend to be or not.

I am not necessarily talking about America.

Which countries are there where an immigrant's legal status doesn't affect a union's ability to organize them?

This is largely my fault for framing the issue in a binary way. I'm in favour of immigration that priotises humanitarian, family and community concerns over the interests of the capitalist class.

[Bakery Hill]

Neoliberals push for open borders because it's economically the best option. And I agree.

You're cute. Keep doing you.

[The Widening Gyre]

I'm fairly isolated on the far left at least, when I say that I don't particularly like the idea of open borders.

My concerns for this are predominately economic. First and foremost neoliberal capitalists campaign for open borders because it can drive down the cost of wages. Beyond this, the poaching professionals from often chronically underdeveloped countries means countries like my own do not have to spend money on educating its youth, while their host countries lose valuable and often vital skilled workers. It's for this reason that open borders is extremely unpopular amongst poorer people, including first and second migrants and people from ethnic minorities.

There are other concerns apart from the economics, which encompass national identity and internationalism vs localism. Is it fundamentally wrong for a country to control who enters it? Is it fundamentally wrong for someone like Jeremy Corbyn to suggest that local jobs be advertised locally before outsourcing to labour hire companies that bring in exploited non-union labour from Eastern Europe? Many of the left think this is wrong and have lambasted people like Corbyn for playing to racist sentiments.

Would the situation be different in a socialist system? I think it would be. But under capitalism, I think it is extremely unethical and unwise to support open borders. All this said I understand my views are in a minority here amongst my peers, please try and convince me otherwise.

Edit: This is specifically targeted towards fellow leftists.

I won't try to defend open borders under late capitalism mostly because I don't think there is any one correct answer to the question. Both sets of immigration policies distort labour and capital relations in different ways - with systems that have fewer restrictions on immigration it becomes easier for states to bring in cheap labour, as you said, but those workers can often gain a path to citizenship and can pay their way back with taxes and integrating into their adopted country or by sending money back to help build up their old one. On the other hand, countries with more stringent immigration laws may be able to keep wages up, but that may just shift corporations' investment towards employing labour in even more exploitative regimes than their home countries. I don't think we as leftists can really support either, and the best answer is simply that capitalism and the state should be destroyed before we can really approach the problem constructively.

[Donut section]

I'm fairly isolated on the far left at least, when I say that I don't particularly like the idea of open borders.

My concerns for this are predominately economic. First and foremost neoliberal capitalists campaign for open borders because it can drive down the cost of wages. Beyond this, the poaching professionals from often chronically underdeveloped countries means countries like my own do not have to spend money on educating its youth, while their host countries lose valuable and often vital skilled workers. It's for this reason that open borders is extremely unpopular amongst poorer people, including first and second migrants and people from ethnic minorities.

There are other concerns apart from the economics, which encompass national identity and internationalism vs localism. Is it fundamentally wrong for a country to control who enters it? Is it fundamentally wrong for someone like Jeremy Corbyn to suggest that local jobs be advertised locally before outsourcing to labour hire companies that bring in exploited non-union labour from Eastern Europe? Many of the left think this is wrong and have lambasted people like Corbyn for playing to racist sentiments.

Would the situation be different in a socialist system? I think it would be. But under capitalism, I think it is extremely unethical and unwise to support open borders. All this said I understand my views are in a minority here amongst my peers, please try and convince me otherwise.

Edit: This is specifically targeted towards fellow leftists.

I won't try to defend open borders under late capitalism mostly because I don't think there is any one correct answer to the question. Both sets of immigration policies distort labour and capital relations in different ways - with systems that have fewer restrictions on immigration it becomes easier for states to bring in cheap labour, as you said, but those workers can often gain a path to citizenship and can pay their way back with taxes and integrating into their adopted country or by sending money back to help build up their old one. On the other hand, countries with more stringent immigration laws may be able to keep wages up, but that may just shift corporations' investment towards employing labour in even more exploitative regimes than their home countries. I don't think we as leftists can really support either, and the best answer is simply that capitalism and the state should be destroyed before we can really approach the problem constructively.

Yeah. Don't do drugs kids.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Again, what type of immigration policy do you advocate, if not open borders?


If you don't have open borders you are talking about illegal immigration, whether to intend to be or not.


Which countries are there where an immigrant's legal status doesn't affect a union's ability to organize them?

This is largely my fault for framing the issue in a binary way. I'm in favour of immigration that priotises humanitarian, family and community concerns over the interests of the capitalist class.

Personally, I'm cool with things that benefit some upper class people as long as it's in a way that doesn't actively harm the lower classes. Technological advancement comes to mind. (With the exception of automation in the workforce, which could be addressed with severance pay.)

However, once the scum of the Earth get their foot in the door of the upper class, a correlation between "benefits the upper class" and "harms the lower classes" tends to establish itself.