NationStates

You can keep statists out of you have closed borders.

There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

Free Movement and Free Markets

Risottia wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote: under capitalism, I think it is extremely unethical and unwise to support open borders

Under capitalism, since the current state of capitalism doesn't like borders, borders are open, whether you like it or not.
Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

South Callahen wrote:Free Movement and Free Markets

Those are two things yes.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Under capitalism, since the current state of capitalism doesn't like borders, borders are open, whether you like it or not.
Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

Best communism.

Vovodoco wrote:There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

I think LOOSE or MODERATE would be the most intelligent decisions for this.

Valgora wrote:

Vovodoco wrote:There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

I think LOOSE or MODERATE would be the most intelligent decisions for this.

*boooom*

Vovodoco wrote:There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

When most people in my camp speak of Open Borders they mostly speak of the Loose definition, yeah. There are still checkpoints and designated entrance, where they simply take a look at your records and unless you're wanted for crime or terrorism you get in.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Under capitalism, since the current state of capitalism doesn't like borders, borders are open, whether you like it or not.
Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

It's more like you're what Italian communists like Riso and younger me used to call a "Rossobruno".

If anything, Riso isn't letting the original notions of Marxist internationalism get overrun by Blut und Boden cloaking itself under a red flag.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:We are all most on that first step.

There's 2 issues...

Opponents cite issues such as funding voter turnout, and undemocratic UN member nations as reasons for abandoning the project altogether.

Specifically the undemocratic ones, but even then some democratic ones too. No nation likes giving up power, and it'll just be talked about and speculated.

It could still happen.

Voter turnout wouldn't be a problem if you just give the PM of the proposed Parliament a cool title, or do forced democracy like Brazil.

The undemocratic ones could be talked into it if it was like how the UK does the Queen and parliament.

Agritum wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

It's more like you're what Italian communists like Riso and younger me used to call a "Rossobruno".

I'm learning a lot of Italian tonight, unfortunately.

If anything, Riso isn't letting the original notions of Marxist internationalism get overrun by Blut und Boden cloaking itself under a red flag.

Blood and Soil is based upon ethnicity and race, something which I've stated, both here and elsewhere, that I hold in very little regard. It's depressing that some warped idea of internationalism is all that Italy's ex and post communists have left of the old stuff. But you seem to have taken to the casual disdain for working people and kneejerk accusations of racism very quickly. Alas poor Berlinguer.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:There's 2 issues...

Specifically the undemocratic ones, but even then some democratic ones too. No nation likes giving up power, and it'll just be talked about and speculated.

It could still happen.

Voter turnout wouldn't be a problem if you just give the PM of the proposed Parliament a cool title, or do forced democracy like Brazil.

The undemocratic ones could be talked into it if it was like how the UK does the Queen and parliament.

Could happen, and could fail, so that's the major issue many national leaders fear.

Agritum wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

It's more like you're what Italian communists like Riso and younger me used to call a "Rossobruno".

If anything, Riso isn't letting the original notions of Marxist internationalism get overrun by Blut und Boden cloaking itself under a red flag.

Did I just walk into a showing of Tankies vs Revisionists 2: Fascistic Boogaloo?

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Agritum wrote:It's more like you're what Italian communists like Riso and younger me used to call a "Rossobruno".

If anything, Riso isn't letting the original notions of Marxist internationalism get overrun by Blut und Boden cloaking itself under a red flag.

Did I just walk into a showing of Tankies vs Revisionists 2: Fascistic Boogaloo?

Episode I a New Sansepolcrism

Episode II The Natsynds Strike Back

Episode III The Last Sorelian

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Agritum wrote:It's more like you're what Italian communists like Riso and younger me used to call a "Rossobruno".

If anything, Riso isn't letting the original notions of Marxist internationalism get overrun by Blut und Boden cloaking itself under a red flag.

Did I just walk into a showing of Tankies vs Revisionists 2: Fascistic Boogaloo?

If it's revisionism then it's the revision I used to do in high school: not reading the books and doing something else.

Risottia wrote:Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

Yes you can.

I'm not a modern leftist, but if I could convince you. According to economist Bryan Caplan, world gdp would effectively double if every country had open borders. This means double the current living standard of every individual.

Vovodoco wrote:There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

Canada, a country which is 21% composed of immigrants (the highest in the Western world except for city-states and AU/CH) and is fifth in the Western world for yearly migration per 1000 inhabitations (LUX>CH>NO>AU) and is SIXTH in the entire world for total immigration in the last 5 years is "TIGHT"? Once you remove the anomalies of Oman for temporary economic migration and Lebanon and Turkey for Syrian asylum seekers, then Canada is actually the 3rd country in the world for net migration, after the US and Germany.

Holy crap you must be very very left on the political compass to think that a country which has let in twice the amount of immigrants in a five-year period as the United Kingdom while having half of it's population is in fact "tightly controlled."

To me Canada is "loose", but I would concede it to be moderate if I had enough evidence that other countries had a more liberal system in place than that. There are several layers of countries with more difficult migration rules to satisfy than Canada. If you can't satisfy Canada's migration requirements you are frankly an economically useless humanoid, since the most random tribesman from Rwanda can get in.

If you want "tight", try Japan, Belarus, Israel if you're not Jewish or Liechtenstein/Poland if you're not European.

I view open borders as a long-term inevitability, not a desirable trait or goal for society to aspire to in the present, along with things such as communism - I believe communism to be a future inevitability of socialism and anarchism, the logical conclusion of these schools of thought.

In the future, as resources dwindle and frustration with the political centre-right mainstream and disillusionment with the far-right resurgence grows, a left-centre or socialist model will probably propagate around the world. This will go from majority social-democrat to majority democrat-socialist to "socialist society" and eventually into communism.

By this stage, the need for nationstates as we understand them today will be gone. The economic models that encourage protectionism for any reason will have been long abandoned.
This is, of course, an incredibly optimistic view of the future. I seem to have hit the upswing as my "off day" is coming to a close.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Under capitalism, since the current state of capitalism doesn't like borders, borders are open, whether you like it or not.
Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

I sometimes wonder Risottia, is 80% of your "communism" just shrugging and accepting capitalism? Is this what's left of the PCI now?

I sometimes wonder BH, is 99% of your "communism" or whatever it is just shrugging and substituting the materialistic analysis of reality with some luddist, idealistic populism and poorly-devised ad-hominems?

Trumptonium wrote:

Vovodoco wrote:There should be 5 major viewpoints on border control not just open and closed. Open sounds like no lack of security, and closed sounds psychotically more protectionist than most people who believe in restricted access mean too.

OPEN- No border regulation.
LOOSE- Easy vetting, essentially an innocent until proven guilty approach
MODERATE- Equally opened as closed, moderate beuracracy
TIGHT- Tough vetting process, think Canada, who only allows people in if they can prove they will be of economic value.
CLOSED- No immigrants, think North Korea.

I think LOOSE immigration is the most intelligent. You don't deny your country a quality workforce, you get to "keep out them damn terrorist *spits into spatoon*", and most employers say they are better workers than natives.

Canada, a country which is 21% composed of immigrants (the highest in the Western world except for city-states and AU/CH) and is fifth in the Western world for yearly migration per 1000 inhabitations (LUX>CH>NO>AU) and is SIXTH in the entire world for total immigration in the last 5 years is "TIGHT"? Once you remove the anomalies of Oman for temporary economic migration and Lebanon and Turkey for Syrian asylum seekers, then Canada is actually the 3rd country in the world for net migration, after the US and Germany.

Holy crap you must be very very left on the political compass to think that a country which has let in twice the amount of immigrants in a five-year period as the United Kingdom while having half of it's population is in fact "tightly controlled."

How does that make this person "very very left"?

They've clearly just skimmed the wiki article on "immigration in Canada" or watched an episode of "Border Force" and heard of Canada's prerequisite that a would-be immigrant has wealth of $10,000 or some such, in order to demonstrate they can support themselves once they enter the country until they are able to seek gainful employment - that they will not immediately contribute to homelessness or try and seek government support for which they are ineligible.
The poster is probably just grossly misinformed as to the nature of Canadian immigration policy.

Note also that Canada has a relatively small population, so immigration figures as a percentage of overall population will be skewed much more than in the UK, other large European countries or, of course, the US.

Trumptonium wrote:

Risottia wrote:Also, you cannot reasonably maintain a fortified border - even the Great Wall of China eventually proved to be useless.

Yes you can.

It's such a pointless waste of resources.

Sure it's "more secure" than a less nativist approach, but the better course of action would be to adopt an alternate worldview, consider why people are trying to illegally enter your country in such droves that you think a militarised, defended, literally walled border is a sensible response and consider espousing an economic ideology that doesn't encourage wealthy corporations to exploit poorer nations?
Just maybe?

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:
Canada, a country which is 21% composed of immigrants (the highest in the Western world except for city-states and AU/CH) and is fifth in the Western world for yearly migration per 1000 inhabitations (LUX>CH>NO>AU) and is SIXTH in the entire world for total immigration in the last 5 years is "TIGHT"? Once you remove the anomalies of Oman for temporary economic migration and Lebanon and Turkey for Syrian asylum seekers, then Canada is actually the 3rd country in the world for net migration, after the US and Germany.

Holy crap you must be very very left on the political compass to think that a country which has let in twice the amount of immigrants in a five-year period as the United Kingdom while having half of it's population is in fact "tightly controlled."

How does that make this person "very very left"?

They've clearly just skimmed the wiki article on "immigration in Canada" or watched an episode of "Border Force" and heard of Canada's prerequisite that a would-be immigrant has wealth of $10,000 or some such, in order to demonstrate they can support themselves once they enter the country until they are able to seek gainful employment - that they will not immediately contribute to homelessness or try and seek government support for which they are ineligible.
The poster is probably just grossly misinformed as to the nature of Canadian immigration policy.

Note also that Canada has a relatively small population, so immigration figures as a percentage of overall population will be skewed much more than in the UK, other large European countries or, of course, the US.

A population size makes no difference to the fact that Canada is the third largest immigrant destination by raw number - 1.1 million. Indeed, to the contrary, a smaller population means it is being diluted much faster.

It makes them very very left because, whether they are or are not informed about Canadian immigration policy, they believe that "tight control" is based merely on satisfying a persons' net economical benefit to the country.

Bakery Hill wrote:

MERIZoC wrote:Which is why you want to implement protections and strong labour standards as well. Capitalists love the current system because the combination of undocumented labour and weak wage standards mean they can get away with paying workers a lot less. If you let anyone live and work here legally, you won't have immigrants taking 2 dollar an hour jobs, you have them doing 15 dollar an hour jobs like everyone else, after you set a good minimum wage.

Even in a country with relatively strong labour standards like the UK or Australia this doesn't work. Just because you set laws doesn't mean they're followed, only good unions can assure that. That's why labour hire companies fly in people from abroad with no connection and sometimes no union heritage/experience, to bust them. The only real way around this that I can think of is a closed shop model, which under capitalism would basically de facto end open borders anyway.

You think scabs can't exist without foreign workers?

But I mean in the end open borders is about abolishing the state which means abolishing capitalism

Which is not going to happen in the near future, to be generous. To talk about open borders at this stage of the struggle is ridiculous. It's really giving neoliberalism a leg up and shooting ourselves in the foot at the same time.

Open borders are also not going to happen in the near future. We are speaking from a normative standpoint here.

Sounds like you're arguing against the entire concept of skilled labour visas which is a weird thing to be against, and is rather unconnected to open borders.

I'd disagree on both counts, for the reasons outlined.

That's not really clear.