Seabass wrote:Millions, perhaps billions of people leaving poor countries and immigrating to rich countries... how would that not be totally disruptive and destabilizing?

willhud9 wrote:

Seabass wrote:Millions, perhaps billions of people leaving poor countries and immigrating to rich countries... how would that not be totally disruptive and destabilizing?

Because you wouldn't have unfettered, unregulated access, but you also wouldn't have insane restrictions which makes immigration only possible for the super rich.

Take me for example, I have a trade skill. Its use is subjective, but the pet industry is a growing market. I could groom dogs anywhere. So say I wanted to move to Germany, or the UK. Why shouldn't I be able to? But currently the cost to do so legally is ridiculous and well beyond my lower middle class means. The legal fees alone are mind-numbingly high, but the cost for citizenship is, well, anti-immigration. It promotes nationalism.

Finally, to note, all estimates about millions, perhaps, billions of people leaving poor countries would occur over a span of years, not all at once. That kind of steady immigration wouldn't cripple an economy, but help boost it as more workers learn a trade/gain an education over that span of time.

I definitely think there are a lot of misconceptions about open borders from many progressives and democrats.

felltoearth wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Seabass wrote:Millions, perhaps billions of people leaving poor countries and immigrating to rich countries... how would that not be totally disruptive and destabilizing?

Because you wouldn't have unfettered, unregulated access, but you also wouldn't have insane restrictions which makes immigration only possible for the super rich.

Take me for example, I have a trade skill. Its use is subjective, but the pet industry is a growing market. I could groom dogs anywhere. So say I wanted to move to Germany, or the UK. Why shouldn't I be able to? But currently the cost to do so legally is ridiculous and well beyond my lower middle class means. The legal fees alone are mind-numbingly high, but the cost for citizenship is, well, anti-immigration. It promotes nationalism.

Finally, to note, all estimates about millions, perhaps, billions of people leaving poor countries would occur over a span of years, not all at once. That kind of steady immigration wouldn't cripple an economy, but help boost it as more workers learn a trade/gain an education over that span of time.

I definitely think there are a lot of misconceptions about open borders from many progressives and democrats.

If your skill is in demand usually you can find a company to sponsor your immigration to that country. You could do research and contact some salons but you will have to do your homework and build relationships. Alternatively, if you work for a multinational company they might be willing to pay for your relocation.

Also I don’t think lowering the bar to immigration and citizenship is necessarily what the concept of open boarders is. Maybe you can expand on what you think it means.

felltoearth wrote:That all seems reasonable. I’m not sure about the US but Canadian immigration is fairly progressive on the humanitarian side of things. For example, many Haitian refugees found their way to French speaking areas of Canada during their crisis, and the same with the Somali people.
Like an ecology though, as mentioned, an economy has a limited carrying capacity and unfettered and unplanned access would be disastrous. While I hate the term, an “ecomonic migrant” such as yourself should be vetted to some for their prospective contributions to the nation and culture they wish to join. See Carpetbagger.

willhud9 wrote:
Economies are flexible constructs. Increasing a workforce incrementally can lead to a higher GDP. Obviously bombarding the workforce can cripple the GDP but no one is saying to just let millions in all at once.

An open border is a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control. A border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls or intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto).

willhud9 wrote:
The reality is the Americas should not be closed borders. More specifically Mexico, Canada, and the US should have open borders between themselves, much like nations within the EU. I know that sort of national cooperation is leagues away from a reality, but its not even being discussed when the issue of immigration is brought up.

Willie71 wrote:Trade deals should allow labour to move as freely as capital. That doesn’t happen though.

willhud9 wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-i-dont-support-open-borders/ar-BBVJajW?ocid=spartanntp

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said Sunday he does not support open borders.
Sanders, independent senator from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, told an audience member at a campaign stop in Oskaloosa, Iowa, that he was mistaken in suggesting Sanders supports open borders.
“I’m afraid you may be getting your information wrong. That’s not my view,” Sanders said after the attendee asked the candidate how he would fund a social safety net if the United States had an open-borders immigration policy.
“What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” Sanders said. "If you open the borders, my god, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it. So that is not my position.”

What are some of your opinions on this matter?

The idea that open borders is exclusively a right wing idea to me seems nonsense. Could it be exploited by the right? Sure, just as the wave of xenophobia is exploited by the right in our current immigration status. But ultimately the freedom of movement for all peoples, rich and poor, should be a universal right. If we as a society seek to be humane, dividing peoples up by accidents of where they were born is trading one form of elitism for another.

Maybe I am ideological, but in the case of the US-Mexico, the border is being acted upon as if it is a warzone. Perimeters are guarded by ICE officials who act with impunity and violate basic decencies of those they perceive as "illegal" or unwanted. Whenever I hear Democrats shy away from the idea of open borders I always consider them to be a) misinformed as to what open borders can mean or b) hypocritical to the foundation of humanitarian thought. They preach access to healthcare for all, but I guess only to citizens. They preach social safety nets for poor people, but only those with the luck to be born in the US, all other poor people be pitied but not helped.

Seabass wrote::scratch:

willhud9 wrote:I just don’t get it.

“Would you be willing to pay the tax you propose?”

Sanders: doesn’t answer what is an easy question.

Not only that but I just sense any charisma from the guy. I want a well articulated, smooth talking President. Not George W Bush, not Donald Trump. Someone with some eloquence who can defend his/her position without rambling or stumbling.