Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JosephM

Open Borders?

Recommended Posts

Just curious. There have been a number of people in the US that seem to advocate "open borders". I don't know exactly what they mean by that but i would like to understand their thinking on what seems like a radical move to me. Anyone here that is in favor of such or understands the thinking on such a concept to explain? 

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ... the US should have open borders ... to let poor Americans out of the madness they have recently elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom,

Most here in my community support the elected president. We don't place much weight on what the main stream media reports. It seems too much of the news is policticly motivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again, some of us prefer the media and trust the DOJ and FBI as opposed to the stream of lies coming from the Trumpster. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JosephM said:

Rom,

Most here in my community support the elected president. We don't place much weight on what the main stream media reports. It seems too much of the news is policticly motivated.

If your community does not want "politically motivated" then I would suggest avoid politicians. 

Of course it, the news, is politically motivated ... that's what politics is about ... motivating people politically.  Rupert Murdoch!

But to your point on open borders. If a nation is xenophobic and does not want a whole bunch of foreigners coming, then a logical process might be helping out the foreigners in their home countries to make their lives more tolerable in their homelands. I remember having my Ford Escort being assembled in Mexico and people complaining why was it not assembled in Canada or the USA. By all means we can send aid, but for god's sake lets not send them a job?

Of course the US and no doubt other countries are quite willing to bring in rich and educated from impoverished countries. I have mixed feelings when countries like Canada bring doctors from third world countries and then send in aid to these countries. Of course there has been a big sucking sound here in Canada as the US has taken up health professions from here.  This of course is diminished as Trump's USA has become less desirable.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom,

Do you think helping foreigners should be the charter of the government or left to the individual? And Why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful with the word "should", Joseph. 

Assuming the universe is not set in concrete and cause and effect hold sway: then every action will have a consequence, and of course there will likely be unintended consequences. So any model we choose will be wrong, but hopefully some will be useful. 

So if we act solely in our immediate self interest (as the US as appeared to have done by electing Trump) this will have consequences. If we take a longer term look to our self interest, eg having steady partners (military and trade)  on our ever increasingly global borders, then I don't see isolationism being a benefit to any nation.

Specifically a charter? I don't know. Left to the individual? To be effective there is likely an effective size for an organization to accomplish this supposed altruism. That would likely depend on luck as much as anything. I suspect you are asking "should" all individuals be required to contribute to the nation's security? I'll let you answer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, romansh said:

(snip)

So if we act solely in our immediate self interest (as the US as appeared to have done by electing Trump) this will have consequences. If we take a longer term look to our self interest, eg having steady partners (military and trade)  on our ever increasingly global borders, then I don't see isolationism being a benefit to any nation.

Specifically a charter? I don't know. Left to the individual? To be effective there is likely an effective size for an organization to accomplish this supposed altruism. That would likely depend on luck as much as anything. I suspect you are asking "should" all individuals be required to contribute to the nation's security? I'll let you answer that.

I personally don't see controls on our borders and immigration checks and limits as isolationism. I view it as being wise at this time. Perhaps you are stretching it a bit with the word isolationism?

On the second statement i was looking for your answer not mine. We could always remove the word "should" if it pleases you and ask what you are in favor of and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JosephM said:

I personally don't see controls on our borders and immigration checks and limits as isolationism. I view it as being wise at this time. Perhaps you are stretching it a bit with the word isolationism?

On the second statement i was looking for your answer not mine. We could always remove the word "should" if it pleases you and ask what you are in favor of and why?

Here you are switching gears Joseph. You asked whether::

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 12:26 PM, JosephM said:

helping foreigners should be the charter of the government

Charter? Perhaps not. But I think it would make sense to be part of the plan. 

But the US is taking an isolationist role. Take a look at the uncertainty around tariffs on aluminium and steel with its partners -  never mind the opposition - China. The rhetoric around securing borders was and continues to be based of fear mongering and lies in general. This was design to appeal to isolationists. 

While helping out the less fortunate is part of the Christian ideology. Have we missed the meaning of the Good Samaritan parable? While I don't recommend this as a simple dogma, it does make sense. Ultimately we'll find a large disparity is unsustainable. If the US truly cannot accommodate more refugees, then fair enough, tighten up the borders. but show the working.  Trump thinks you can afford the wall, but not refugees. If I were a US citizen I would be asking for that particular analysis. But no we get fear mongering. 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom,

Thanks for your answer. I guess we can't please everyone but it is interesting to see how foreigners think about it or see it and what their understanding is from the news they read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants are exploited as cheap labor for big ag and construction industries who work them into an early grave, and also in human trafficking.  Undocumented means they are gray market labor, and that when they go missing nobody knows they were even here.

I have/am involved with Associated Catholic Charities and have seen thousands of Haitian, Vietnamese, Hmong and Cuban refugees legally immigrated to the US.  Legal immigrants not only avoid the wage slavery (and often literal slavery) of the illegal immigrants, but communites are held together as well.

Look behind every 1000 illegal immigrants and you will find a rich white man who profits off their fear and poverty.  This is why politicians of all stripes never make any actual impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Burl said:

Illegal immigrants are exploited as cheap labor 

This reminds of a time in the eighties at a moderately swank hotel in Swaziland. My Dad and I got talking to a waiter serving drinks. His wish was to get into apartheid South Africa. When asked why, his answer was at least the South Africans would pay him. Foreign labour particularly in the mines did cause some strife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for open borders because I don't want my comfortable lifestyle to deteriorate.  We've got it too good in this country to share uncontrollably with others who were unfortunate enough to be born in a crap country.  Politicians and others may pretend that we care so much for these less privileged people that we will block them because we don't want them exploited, but that could be overcome if we simply changed the rules so they couldn't be exploited, so that's not really an argument in my opinion.

I think the harsh reality is we have got it pretty good and we feel it will be ruined if we 'open the gates' so to speak.  I think there is some credibility in that, particularly if numbers were unlimited.  So perhaps our only choice is to be flooded and risk deterioration, or say 'too bad' to those less lucky - you have to stay in your crap country.

Of course we can ease our conscience a little if we provide aid to these other countries and try to help them improve their lot in life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

I think a middle of the road approach is fine. Limit numbers and do background checks. I also would require a minimal learning of the language of our land for permanent citizenship.  I don't think we are advocating isolationism here as many say as we benefit from immigration but I think open borders would be a disaster and is not what the majority here want and for much of the reason you mentioned. Many California residents want open borders but I still don't understand the reasoning unless it is their immigration now citizen population doing the talking along with some who just don't mind or see any problems with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the middle of the road approach is pragmatic Joseph, I genuinely do. 

But I can't imagine staring into the eyes of a little child and saying "sorry, it's just not pragmatic for us to let you escape your war-torn country, your poverty, or your corrupt government oppressing you.  Look, we were lucky enough to be born here, you weren't".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think the middle of the road approach is pragmatic Joseph, I genuinely do. 

But I can't imagine staring into the eyes of a little child and saying "sorry, it's just not pragmatic for us to let you escape your war-torn country, your poverty, or your corrupt government oppressing you.  Look, we were lucky enough to be born here, you weren't".

 

 

Neither can I imagine saying that. Perhaps nothing needs to be said. You do what you can , is sensible and leave it at that . Or else you take the other approach with open borders and allow things to deteriorate where perhaps we all fall and are able to do nothing for ourselves or others?

Joseph

P S.     A word that comes to my mind is 'overload'. It can be dangerous. It seems to me, Sometimes the best intentions give the appearance of compassion but are lacking in sensibility and are doomed for failure to accomplish that which they suppose.

Edited by JosephM
Added ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JosephM said:

Neither can I imagine saying that.

But that is the reality of what we are saying, every day.  It's just not personal to us because it's conveniently not in our face.  I, like you, accept the status quo, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are being compassionate - we're not.  The reality is we try to salve our guilt with rationales and excuses.  And we do a pretty good job of blocking out our feelings or being concerned about theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While open borders might not be pragmatic, are ostensibly Christian countries going to give up on the concept of being good Samaritans?

If not then what? 50 G$ on a wall? Could that money be spent a little more pragmatically? And if so how? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:11 PM, JosephM said:

but it is interesting to see how foreigners think about it or see it and what their understanding is from the news they read.

This is not just about the US Joseph ... and to be clear it is Americans who are foreigners ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 4, 2018 at 12:21 PM, romansh said:

This is not just about the US Joseph ... and to be clear it is Americans who are foreigners ... 

Rom,

I guess you are entitled to have your own private definition of foreigners. I used this one.....

Foreigner - noun - a person born in or coming from a country other than their own.

None of my living relatives in the US nor the majority of people I am acquainted with fit that definition and consider themselves American not foreigners.

Perhaps, you are not being as clear as you suppose in your statement.  Yes, open borders are not just about the US but the context of my question was. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that the OP is open to some interpretation ... if that is what you mean. Some Americans being open to open borders, could have been a generalist border. 

But you have to admit foreigners is a dualistic concept ... in spades. 

My ancestors left Africa a long time ago. And yours? 

😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×