Open Borders? Convince Me

[Bakery Hill]

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.

[Herador]

If every country in the world simultaneously agreed to allow free movement between them and every human super double promised to not cause trouble in another country, I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately, neither of those things are gonna happen.

The idea that we can all be one race connected in universal brotherhood is attractive, but we aren't there yet and it's in most countries best interests that they are able to say who can enter, when they can enter, and why they can enter. Obviously, there are bad reasons for each of those things, but there are good reasons too.

As for the economics? I don't think it's irrational for anyone, left or right, to want those they relate to as fellow citizens to have jobs before someone they don't feel close to at all. How much sense that makes is up to the individual I guess, but I get it. I mean, humans are tribal by nature, right?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Question is too narrow. Open borders between two nations with similar culture/socio economic conditions/laws is a great thing. Open borders fails miserably otherwise. Crime, terrorism, cheap exploitative labor, and a myriad of other problems make it totally unviable.

[Trumptonium]

I think my name and signature alone easily give the answer to this question.

I don't even support open borders between two near-identical countries, such as Austria and Germany. I am definitely more inclined towards relatively free movement between such countries, but never open borders between anyone. The idea of an administration-void movement of peoples is repulsive. I think immigration should either be on a collective level in that immigration between two bilateral countries is decided on their social/cultural compatibility and economic parity, or on an individual level, in which case the immigrant's own potential contribution to the economy is evaluated as well as their integrational capability.

[Albrenia]

Totally open borders to let everyone in? Nah.

Closed and cold-hearted walls? Nah.

A happy medium would be nice. One where immigrants aren't treated as savages, where both economic benefit and compassion are goals, but most importantly within reason.

[Baltenstein]

Sounds as good an idea as abolishing doors and locks.
So, not a good idea and all.

[MERIZoC]

First and foremost neoliberal capitalists campaign for open borders because it can drive down the cost of wages.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Improved werpland]

Not unless the countries in question get something like a Schengen Agreement. Otherwise only refugees should be able to move through borders freely.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The problem with open borders isn't that there are immigrants, but that there are too many at too fast a rate. We have seen in the European countries that so many immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere accumulate, that, in some parts of some countries, the natives are now no longer in the majority, the immigrant communities become so vast, that assimilation is impossible because they no longer need to become like the natives to do well in society. We should absolutely take in immigrants, but, as Will Durant said with regard to Rome, we must "occasionally close [...] gates to allow assimilation to catch up with infiltration."

[Bakery Hill]

First and foremost neoliberal capitalists campaign for open borders because it can drive down the cost of wages.

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.

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.

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.

[Phoenicaea]

As not a fellow leftist, I would feel ungentle seek to convince. So I ll go in peace

[Bakery Hill]

The problem with open borders isn't that there are immigrants, but that there are too many at too fast a rate. We have seen in the European countries that so many immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere accumulate, that, in some parts of some countries, the natives are now no longer in the majority, the immigrant communities become so vast, that assimilation is impossible because they no longer need to become like the natives to do well in society. We should absolutely take in immigrants, but, as Will Durant said with regard to Rome, we must "occasionally close [...] gates to allow assimilation to catch up with infiltration."

I don't particularly care about preserving an ethnicity or "race", but making sure we don't have fractured communities that see each other as enemies is vitally important. A moderate and reasonable approach based upon realism, like Sahra Wagenknecht in Die Linke, is what is needed.

[Bakery Hill]

As not a fellow leftist, I would feel ungentle seek to convince. So I ll go in peace

Salaam aleikum.

[Phoenicaea]

As not a fellow leftist, I would feel ungentle seek to convince. So I ll go in peace

Salaam aleikum.

Aleikum salaam.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

With a world democratic government, the standard of living is extremely high , crime practically non existent, and diseases are nearly fully wiped out?

Yes.


Right now? No.

Would a wall be any better? No.

[Holy Tedalonia]

With a world democratic government, the standard of living is extremely high , crime practically non existent, and diseases are nearly fully wiped out?

Yes.


Right now? No.

Would a wall be any better? No.

The democratic wet dream... sadly it won't ever happen...

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

With a world democratic government, the standard of living is extremely high , crime practically non existent, and diseases are nearly fully wiped out?

Yes.


Right now? No.

Would a wall be any better? No.

The democratic wet dream... sadly it won't ever happen...

We are all most on that first step.

[Arkinesia]

First we gotta define what you mean by open borders, because that's really more of a catch-all term—there are multiple ways of defining open borders, believe it or not.

Here's how I define it—visas would be provided on a shall-issue basis. No quotas, just that visa seekers must meet the basic requirements for obtaining a visa. Visitors (tourists) would be permitted to obtain visa upon arrival. And a lower cost of applying for a visa, rather than the very high rates we see now (not to mention reducing the capriciousness of how the prices are calculated).

I don't think it's possible to logically justify a completely no-visa scenario, but it's also illogical to defend the existent system you see in countries like the US and Canada.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The democratic wet dream... sadly it won't ever happen...

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.

[Dubcek Svovovovo]

The problem with open borders isn't that there are immigrants, but that there are too many at too fast a rate. We have seen in the European countries that so many immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere accumulate, that, in some parts of some countries, the natives are now no longer in the majority, the immigrant communities become so vast, that assimilation is impossible because they no longer need to become like the natives to do well in society. We should absolutely take in immigrants, but, as Will Durant said with regard to Rome, we must "occasionally close [...] gates to allow assimilation to catch up with infiltration."

I don't particularly care about preserving an ethnicity or "race", but making sure we don't have fractured communities that see each other as enemies is vitally important. A moderate and reasonable approach based upon realism, like Sahra Wagenknecht in Die Linke, is what is needed.

Unfortunately she wasn't able to assimilate all of the food on her face.

[Luziyca]

Honestly, I'd prefer a moderate approach between closing all the gates and not letting anyone in or out for any reason, and throwing the gates open to the world and not restrict anyone going in. One that addresses security concerns, but at the same time not denying refugees and those wishing to make our country the right to come into the country.

[Bakery Hill]

I don't particularly care about preserving an ethnicity or "race", but making sure we don't have fractured communities that see each other as enemies is vitally important. A moderate and reasonable approach based upon realism, like Sahra Wagenknecht in Die Linke, is what is needed.

Unfortunately she wasn't able to assimilate all of the food on her face.

Good praxis folx, top anarchism. That'll show the fascists.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I consider myself left-wing in the broad sense (some may disagree) and I'm certainly not in favour...

If a company can bring over a fully-trained worker from abroad on low wages they have no incentive to train up people from the domestic population. In such a way, it helps to establish and maintain the low-skilled as an underclass who are prone to long-term idleness, depression, hopelessness and criminality.

It is also bad for the social cohesion when a large number of people from a particular part of the world arrive and self-segregate. Multiculturalism is degenerate in the truest sense of the world - failing to intervene to demand integration and accepting separate "quarters" in towns and cities is foundationally averse to a healthy mixed community. There are many even at second and third generation whose families didn't integrate, they primarily don't speak English in the home, they go to schools specifically for their religious group or ethnic group or are homeschooled, come out with a poor command of English, and grow up to work only within their community, before marrying someone arranged for them within that community, having children and starting the process again. It's no wonder they come to define themselves against the wider community rather than with it.

In the extreme form, this can make people easily won-over by terrorist rhetoric, but more widely there's not much "buy-in" to wider society and to values such as respecting women and LGBT people, posing risks of violence against members of the host society who they feel aren't acting "correctly" by their standards. Our system is broken, and accepting more people from such areas before we fix it and begin to address the integration problem is just pouring fuel on the fire.

In terms of a healthy economy that provides for all natives and a healthy society that offers a safe and stable environment, particularly for vulnerable members of the indigenous population, open borders are a terrible idea.

The duty of politicians should be to the national community - to build a healthy, balanced and cohesive society and national economy, not charity to refugees, the enrichment of economic migrants and taking opportunities away from the domestic working class in order to put more money in the pockets of bosses.

[Risottia]

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.

[Dumb Ideologies]

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.

For some reason this post gave me the image of Donald Trump singing "I'll Make a Man Out of You" from Mulan. Which I now can't get out of my head :/

He's the sort to get down to business to defeat the Hun, I guess...