East Germany was the wealthiest communist country (not that that’s saying much tbqhwyf) and Moscow didn’t want people realizing how shit Russia was in comparison to their conquered vassal. East Germany did take a few Southeast Asians, some Africans and some Arabs from communist allied countries, although much like the krauts today, they had problems with them so that had largely stopped by the late 1980s.
Poor Strasserists. The Night of Long Knives was not kind to them.
Though I would note that they weren't really pro-socialist/communist, either. They were anti-capitalist, violently so, and also anti-communist, also violently so.
Truly, the Strasserists were the ideal radical centrists.
imagine unironically making fun of communists when we know that in order to stop global warming a lotta people gotta die. we need another communist regime.
People who live in first world countries and are for open boarders are a special kind of stupid. I'm not against immigration but there obviously has to be some control and limit.
just as most semi-reasonable libertarians want the goverment to be as small as practically possible != you want to completely abolish it
simularly, when someone is for open borders, they usually want them to be as free as pragmatically possible, which typically translates into no physical checks at the border short of some national emergency while customs and immigration agencies have access within the country to check people, within reason
schengen agreement is considered to be an open border agreement, Czechia (eastern hellhole where i live) has no physical borders because all countries that surround it are in schengen and it's de facto an open border country
You stupid mouthbreather. EU doesn't have open borders. They just allow travel in their organization. Open borders would mean allowing everyone in from anywhere. Talk big when your open borders is attached to a third world country.
A person in that thread said the Mediterranean refugee crisis was the result of global warming... haha.
I'd love to have open borders with the requirement that they have to paddle on a thin piece of bark across the Atlantic, lol.
Any reasonable person with a functional brain could imagine something good happening under all of these scenarios. Family reunifications are the obvious commonality.
Well ofc if you want to take the most autistic interpretation of what I said possible you could argue that maybe families would be reunifed shortly before getting gunned down by terrorists and criminals.
If Americans stopped flooding Mexico with illegal cash and firearms because of their insane desire for illicit drugs, most of the border issues go away overnight.
But getting Americans to stop taking drugs is about as easy as getting them to think critically or to lose weight.
idk, why do people call it "free trade" and still think that private entities shouldn't be able to buy chemical weapons on an open international market?
Maybe because it's a nice concise title that describes one's positions on the policy margins that are actually relevant. Hmm.
When you say "people", do you mean "at least two people in the country"? Because yeah that's probably true, trivially. But if you mean "most people who would claim to support 'open borders'", then no.
Right, I'm not saying I even agree with the "Abolish ICE" sloganeering but all people really mean by it is that there should be less-aggressive enforcement of immigration laws on margins that ICE has become infamously synonymous with, not that we should literally have open borders and no enforcement of anything.
Abolishing ICE does not mean that you have no more enforcement of immigration laws. It just means that it wouldn't be done by a particular bureaucratic organization that has acquired a particular reputation.
Would you say people who want Trump to be impeached don't want the US Government to have a functioning executive branch?
then what the fuck do you mean by open borders lol. western countries already allow non-criminals free passage for tourism, and there's a legal albeit slow immigration process.
if by "open borders" you mean "lessen the restrictions on legal immigration" then you're brainfuck retarded at picking words.
if by "open borders" you mean "lessen the restrictions on legal immigration" then you're brainfuck retarded at picking words.
All this angry justification of why you shouldn't have to fire off some neurons and understand what people who use a term actually mean. "What do you mean you're pro-life if you support the invasion of Iraq, hurr durr."
As soon as you stop letting certain people pass through, you don't have an "open border" because you would need some way to enforce it. The stuff like in the schengen agreement requires non EU citizens to go get a visa anyway. It is more open than other borders, but if you want a border you will need some way to enforce your policy.
You have free speech as long as you dont try to cause harm (incite riots, shout fire in crowded theatre). The difference between that and open borders is that if you have rules, you dont have de jure open borders. If these rules arent enforced, it is de facto open border. American free speech is de jure, but into reality it is de facto due to certain social barriers and rules (you cant record film/talk loudly in a courtroom).
Exceptions like how you cannot use your free speech to harm some else's right to a fair trial or get people killed by your mischief. I admit that free speech doesn't let you get away with assholery.
Aside from that, you can say whatever you want. If you want a simple litmus test to see if your freedom is really free, open your window and shout "DUDE BUSSY LMAO!" repeatedly. If you don't respond back in 1 hour, I will assume the speech suppression task force gunned you down. That is probably the most freedom you can need.
Congrats on evading the Speech Suppression Death Squads.
It is freer speech than anything else at the time. You could shit talk the head of state without compromising the state of your head.
wasn't it AOC and few others and their talking point that they want to return ICE to state of where it was before 2001 (because bunch of technicalities that separated it from some other federal agency)?
whatever, it's a just bunch of meaningless platitudes from solid blue district democrats that can't lose without ever explaining what they mean, which is... just normal politics?
I am not going to track down every politician that said it. Yeah of course it is people that would never lose an election because no sane person in a swing area says abolish immigration agencies as a slogan.
Yes it is politics. I agree with you. My point was that this absolutely is included in the Democratic message. This isn't some random freaks on Twitter saying OpEn tHe BoRdErS. These are actual people with power and influence posting that message.
in 2018 election the vast majority of democrats focused almost exclusively on healthcare and if they said something about immigration, it was just something about DACA and some sensible immigration policy, they are careful and rather than saying exactly what they want they call out the GOP over the many immigration blunders they had since Trump took office
these people "with power" are at worst few solid blue state dozen congressman and they can't do shit legislatively, just as few solid red state GOP congressman who want to criminalize homosexuality doesn't mean the GOP is going to do shit about because of the backlash it would get for a minimal electoral gain
I agree with you on that point, but politicians are still powerful people even if they don't really control an entire party. I put more weight to it compared to say a random poster on Twitter. You are misunderstanding my prior statement.
Open borders are directly linked to increased slumification.
It doesn't work, you just end up with a large group of people in abject poverty, way beyond the capabilitids of your nation to handle, even if you have 10% of your population trying to work through them.
It is a one way trio to turning any country into either a shithole, or creating a class of undesirables who have no rights because no one knows they exist.
Poverty is almost always defined in a relative sense. Even if people go from being "poor in Haiti" to "poor in America" that represents a vast improvement in quality of life and only an idiot would dismiss that.
There are some idiots out there who want to portray America as being worse at the low-end than shithole countries in an absolute sense but that is a small minority of the people who think that "America has a poverty problem".
Yes I completely agree that being poor in America is not bad at all relative to the living standards of the rest of the world. That doesn't change the fact that importing unskilled labor directly harms the very people liberals pretend to care about.
Narrowly, I'm saying that liberals can generally care about poor people while also supporting some individual policies that might harm them, because they can care about many things and make tradeoffs between them without being hypocrites.
More broadly, not having near open borders is a failure to serve the US people. When some policy expands the economic pie (like the free movement of labor) and you want to make sure it helps everyone, the solution is to institute the policy and redistribute the gains (eg. more progressive taxation) not to avoid the pie expansion.
Importing unskilled labor does not expand the economic pie. It reduces the size of slices of the existing pie. Demand for unskilled labor is plummeting year by year, otherwise we wouldn't need a minimum wage.
If we actually lived in a free market economy I would be less opposed to open borders. Wages for unskilled workers would rise and fall with supply, encouraging immigration in and out of the country. But when the price of unskilled labor is artificially inflated through government policies, and when you can literally get paid by the government to do nothing, then the incentive mechanism totally breaks down. The actual price for unskilled labor should be much lower than the $15 dollar minimum wage that is being enacted all over the country so if we had open borders we would be incentivizing much more unskilled migration than we need.
Importing unskilled labor does not expand the economic pie. It reduces the size of slices of the existing pie.
These are not incompatible.
But when the price of unskilled labor is artificially inflated through government policies, and when you can literally get paid by the government to do nothing, then the incentive mechanism totally breaks down
I don't get what you mean. If you're saying that unskilled workers are on net using more government resources than they contribute, then yet that would be a problem but my understanding of the literature is that this is simply not the case.
Obviously yes it's a problem if people are just migrating and picking up welfare checks, but that's a lot less common than people think.
I am saying that the wage is the mechanism that brings a labor market into economic equilibrium, just like prices do with other goods. It is the price of labor.
If you artificially inflate the price of unskilled labor, you incentivize more unskilled immigration than is necessary. If we didn't have a minimum wage, then as unskilled migrants entered the country the wage would decline until it reached a point that migrants were no longer incentivized to enter the country. Instead we artificially peg the wage higher than it naturally would be, which floods the labor market and eventually will lead to unemployment and reduced bargaining power for unskilled workers.
Cesar Chavez, a union leader that most liberals love, was violently anti immigration for these reasons.
"on net" improvement doesn't change that they are getting fucked economically here. Politicians are meant to represent their constituents first and foremost. If you want to represent the whole world and refugees, go run for Congress in the New World Order.
If you want to represent the whole world and refugees, go run for Congress in the New World Order.
Or run for congress in America on universalistic liberal principles and hope you don't lose because your voterbase is full of degenerate selfish fucks.
All of those mentions are improvements for the people that live in your country. If you want to give everything away to the entire world, volunteer all your belongings until you are equal to the poorest of the poor in this world.
All of those mentions are improvements for the people that live in your country.
If they can't vote they aren't exactly constituents, are they?
If you want to give everything away to the entire world, volunteer all your belongings until you are equal to the poorest of the poor in this world.
Uhh so have you given away all your belongings until you are equal to the poorest of the poor in this country, since that's apparently what matters to you?
If they can't vote they aren't exactly constituents, are they?
Are you a brainlet that thinks voters and the people you represent are one in the same? Children have laws passed on their behalf and they will literally never ever vote as children.
I also don't need to give everything I own away because I don't advocate for policies that have the government do that on state level.
No you can't, you can't have a social safety net in first world with open borders to third world unless you want to let standard of living very quickly.
Most of the customers who come into my business that want open borders all tend to be rich as fuck mayos. They can never answer when I ask where do we house them when we can't house the tons of people on the streets who want help.
Because open borders strengthens the economy. The only people who get hurt by mass immigration are high school dropouts. Everyone else benefits from cheap labor.
There are plenty of jobs to go around. Right now we're at nearly full employment. The economy isn't a zero sum game, as it expa da more jobs are created.
Illegal immigrants actually commit less crime than the native born. When you open up the borders human trafficking becomes a non issue. Why would you hire some sketchy criminal to sneak you over the border when you can just walk through a border checkpoint legally?
You really think these fuckers don't have the contacts or know someone who knows a guy who sells fake ID's, SS and Birth Certificates? It isn't hard at all to find that shit especially in circles of illegal minorities. They look out for each other and tell each other this shit.
the real tankies in history were pragmatic, stalinist flair countries work and are stable, even if most citizens are barely anything more than slaves of the state
that's why virtually all people from the romantic "intelectual" revolutionary guard were death or killed by the time the great purges ended - if they weren't it's because they either escaped, often killed later, or served life sentence in the gulag system, also often killed later
What utter brainletism. Burgerstan has more than enough Lebensraum. Poor countries, OTOH, tend to either be overcrowded, or else have a deceptively low population density because 90% of their territory is useless desert.
Poor countries, OTOH, tend to either be overcrowded, or else have a deceptively low population density because 90% of their territory is useless desert.
The one example that comes to my mind is Egypt. Generally overcrowded is India. You want to move half a billion of people halfway across the world to the US in a short timeframe?
Yeah, go like an hour south of Cairo, stand in the desert on the west side of the Nile, and look east. You effectively are standing on the eastern side of Egypt and looking all the way to its weternmost border.
You want to move half a billion of people halfway across the world to the US in a short timeframe?
No, of course I don't. I just don't have any special affection for America as a whole, either.
What's funny is whenever asked, people who think like you never give an answer on what an appropriate number would be. There is never a limit too high with immigration, but as soon as someone talks of reducing it, it's met with 'xenophobia' and 'racism'.
Give me a number the US should take in, and I'll use your exact argument to tell you why those numbers are too low.
How many people have fatal ODs every year? I’d import one upwardly-mobile, motivated, basically educated person from Nigeria to replace each mayo who ends his pointless life wallowing in a pile fentanyl every year.
Poor countries, OTOH, tend to either be overcrowded,
Maybe they ahould stop breeding then. It's not our responsibility to take them in, just because they can’t stop fucking and don't know how a condom works...
Maybe KiAfugees like you should stop shitting up our beautiful subreddit.
And look, I sympathize with wanting fewer immigrants in Europe. Europe has a wonderful culture that merits preservation. America, OTOH, has no culture whatsoever.
Open borders, with free healthcare and welfare are not a position to take without virtually unlimited resources
Since moving into a piece of land doesn't automatically make group of people adopt the ideals of the area, views that could be considered harmful may be imported.
First worlders might laugh or cringe at a witchdoctor in Africa saying that raping virgins will cure AIDS, but moving to a new place doesn't magically cure someone of those ideas. If you move enough at once, they'll never have to change their view either, surrounded by like minds
Simply shifting people into places, without thinking about how they might contribute to the welfare of the group they are supposed to be joining, can lead to people who don't even care about the area beyond their own groups affiliation, forming in almost subnational enclaves
These enclaves care more about benefiting their own group than their host group, and look for what they can get from that group in a parasitic action on the body of collective workers from that region
This is exactly why the UK isn't offering to take Asia Bibi despite all the people clamoring for it. I would imagine quite a few muslims in the UK would riot all the same or attempt to kill her.
I'm disagreeing with the statement "if you are against open borders you are consigning millions of people in the third world to death consequence of impending climate doom", i dont think this is foundational to socialism?
I'm amazed at how fucking stupid Chapo, communists and anarchists are. They are "pro union", while also extremely anti immigration enforcement in any way.
You can't have unions and also have open borders.
Anarchists are a truly special kind of dumbass.
Some really good analyses there, the second comment about climate change is really spot on. Want to stop people from coming into your country? Don't starve and deprive them of opportunities in their home countries.
Anarchism is perfectly coherent if you understand it properly.
everyone sucks and forcing people to do anything is a crime.
Making the only solution the collective suicide of the huamn race.
You can't change social views enduringly without changing material conditions for fucks sakes!
Holy shit, even most liberals have a more materialist analysis i.e. Obama pointed out the root of Islamist terrorism is poor economic conditions in the middle east.
You probably think that to address it you just "change their social views" by fiat.
Which leads to magnificent places, i.e. once you fail spectacularly at "changing the social views" of people who's circumstance leads them to have said views, you're gonna think they're just "bad people" and golly gee, that's the "clash of civilizations" conclusion.
Combined with all the material incentivies of the localism anarchists love so much, all you're left with is tribalism and decay.
Anarchism is a death cult, get out of it.
The absolute tardery of Chapo subreddit being overrun by identity politics when the hosts of the podcast only give a shit about class politics. Alright MDE boys the chapo podcast and Dirtbag Left thinks you unite workers through talking to them as a class of people while the Chapo sub is full-on "if we focus our politics on bringing up those who are marginalized, so that POC are equally represented in every labor force and we teach niceness, everything will change in society!". I know! Dumb and gay!
173 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-11-21
Jews did this
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 wewladin 2018-11-21
S E N T I E N T
1 cimarafa 2018-11-21
Chapo hates Israel tho
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-11-21
I thought Nazis weren't socialists tho...
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-21
Remember all those Marxist Leninist states with all those open borders?
1 Baconlightning 2018-11-21
Communist borders are meant so you can’t leave.
1 badukbingepurge 2018-11-21
Who would want to go let some Commie make you queue for a day in a bread line?
1 itsrattlesnake 2018-11-21
Bernie Sanders on his honeymoon, for one.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
Those are closed the other way round.
1 spookyguy109 2018-11-21
They were closed both ways. Look up East Germany's immigration policy, it makes Daddy look like George Soros.
1 cimarafa 2018-11-21
East Germany was the wealthiest communist country (not that that’s saying much tbqhwyf) and Moscow didn’t want people realizing how shit Russia was in comparison to their conquered vassal. East Germany did take a few Southeast Asians, some Africans and some Arabs from communist allied countries, although much like the krauts today, they had problems with them so that had largely stopped by the late 1980s.
1 Zizac 2018-11-21
their borders were 100% open, comerad!
but only for foreign aid from free market countries
1 error404brain 2018-11-21
Ironically, immigrating to USSR was pretty easy. It was emigrating that was hard.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-11-21
Bernie had his honeymoon there
1 NukaColaCel 2018-11-21
The NazBol Strasserists actually were. Then they were all murdered.
1 e-guy 2018-11-21
Poor Strasserists. The Night of Long Knives was not kind to them.
Though I would note that they weren't really pro-socialist/communist, either. They were anti-capitalist, violently so, and also anti-communist, also violently so.
Truly, the Strasserists were the ideal radical centrists.
1 itsedgyoutside 2018-11-21
That's we want you to thing zionista.
Prolecels, rise up!
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-11-21
👍👍👍
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-11-21
But moving here would make it regress to 3rd world country and thus reduce CO2 emissions.
Checkmate.
1 RandolphCox 2018-11-21
imagine unironically making fun of communists when we know that in order to stop global warming a lotta people gotta die. we need another communist regime.
1 Fletch71011 2018-11-21
TIL the commies are the real radical centrists after all.
1 Caucasoid_Supreme 2018-11-21
Canada is taxing carbon output yet they want to triple their population through immigration. Ridiculous.
1 mrlala12321 2018-11-21
People who live in first world countries and are for open boarders are a special kind of stupid. I'm not against immigration but there obviously has to be some control and limit.
1 istural 2018-11-21
Great pawns though for corporations that rely on low skill labor.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
open borders != everyone can come in and do whatever the fuck they want
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
Then why call it open borders? It's a nice ideal if the whole world had caught up in development, but not right now.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
just as most semi-reasonable libertarians want the goverment to be as small as practically possible != you want to completely abolish it
simularly, when someone is for open borders, they usually want them to be as free as pragmatically possible, which typically translates into no physical checks at the border short of some national emergency while customs and immigration agencies have access within the country to check people, within reason
schengen agreement is considered to be an open border agreement, Czechia (eastern hellhole where i live) has no physical borders because all countries that surround it are in schengen and it's de facto an open border country
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
lmao
Can you imagine anything good happening from opening the Israel-Palestine border? The North-South Korea border? The US-Mexico border?
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
just because your country has open borders doesn't mean all other countries have them too lol
Czechia and most city states have open borders because they are within a group of countries that are not
it depends entirely on the situation, sometimes open border for a country are appropriate and sometimes not
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
Why doesn't the group have open borders with nations outside the EU? Because they know how catastrophic that would be.
1 YASSS_QUEEEN 2018-11-21
You mean diverse!
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
You stupid mouthbreather. EU doesn't have open borders. They just allow travel in their organization. Open borders would mean allowing everyone in from anywhere. Talk big when your open borders is attached to a third world country.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
i didn't say EU has open borders lol, just that some countries within EU do
(maybe try to learn reading you stupid mouthbreather 😂😂😂)
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
In that case it is like bragging that Wyoming has open borders. No one cares and it isn't relevant.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
except Wyoming is not a nation state
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Except it is still effectively the same result. Belonging to EU forfeits some of your sovereignty. It just isn't fully fleshed out federalization.
1 YASSS_QUEEEN 2018-11-21
A person in that thread said the Mediterranean refugee crisis was the result of global warming... haha. I'd love to have open borders with the requirement that they have to paddle on a thin piece of bark across the Atlantic, lol.
1 YASSS_QUEEEN 2018-11-21
Thinking the entirety of Europe has open borders 🤦♂️
Travel to Germany without a passport, please. Please do it.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
"Anything good happening" is a pretty easy bar to clear in all of these circumstances.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
I mean, some people think lots of dead people and caravans full of drug cartel members are good things.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Any reasonable person with a functional brain could imagine something good happening under all of these scenarios. Family reunifications are the obvious commonality.
Perhaps you want to shift the goalposts here?
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
Well ofc if you want to take the most autistic interpretation of what I said possible you could argue that maybe families would be reunifed shortly before getting gunned down by terrorists and criminals.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Yeah totally, maybe we should put the Berlin Wall back up while we're at it and bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
It would help bring rent under control if outsiders weren't artificially inflating the demand.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
You could also set off nukes in populous metropolitan areas to achieve similar effects.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
You don't wanna kill people of your own culture tho. They pay taxes and fight for your army. Getting rid of them is just plain retarded.
1 trilateral1 2018-11-21
That wall was for preventing the comrades from leaving the soviet union. Very different from a wall to keep unwanted elements outside.
1 JustStopDude 2018-11-21
If Americans stopped flooding Mexico with illegal cash and firearms because of their insane desire for illicit drugs, most of the border issues go away overnight.
But getting Americans to stop taking drugs is about as easy as getting them to think critically or to lose weight.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
True true. Neither group should have the right to flood the other's border.
1 lannister_stark 2018-11-21
Just think believing this unironically.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
idk, why do people call it "free trade" and still think that private entities shouldn't be able to buy chemical weapons on an open international market?
Maybe because it's a nice concise title that describes one's positions on the policy margins that are actually relevant. Hmm.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-21
Free trade is also a stupid idea, but it refers to tariffs while you're talking about controlled substances.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Just as much as "open borders" refers to doing some sort of background checks and filtering of undesirables.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
No it doesn't, because people literally lobby to abolish immigration enforcement.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
When you say "people", do you mean "at least two people in the country"? Because yeah that's probably true, trivially. But if you mean "most people who would claim to support 'open borders'", then no.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
What the fuck do you think ICE does?
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Maybe this is all before you were born but ICE was founded in 2002, and there was in fact immigration enforcement prior to this time.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Changing the organization name doesn't change shit
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Stuff was reorganized after 9-11 and DHS was created. There was INS long before that that did the same shit.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Right, I'm not saying I even agree with the "Abolish ICE" sloganeering but all people really mean by it is that there should be less-aggressive enforcement of immigration laws on margins that ICE has become infamously synonymous with, not that we should literally have open borders and no enforcement of anything.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Dude, people don't get to say abolish ICE and then call everyone dumb for taking them on their word.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Abolishing ICE does not mean that you have no more enforcement of immigration laws. It just means that it wouldn't be done by a particular bureaucratic organization that has acquired a particular reputation.
Would you say people who want Trump to be impeached don't want the US Government to have a functioning executive branch?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Uh, Trump is the POTUS. I would say they want Trump removed, not the entire position abolished. Don't compare a person with an organization.
1 escebar_ortez 2018-11-21
then what the fuck do you mean by open borders lol. western countries already allow non-criminals free passage for tourism, and there's a legal albeit slow immigration process.
if by "open borders" you mean "lessen the restrictions on legal immigration" then you're brainfuck retarded at picking words.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
All this angry justification of why you shouldn't have to fire off some neurons and understand what people who use a term actually mean. "What do you mean you're pro-life if you support the invasion of Iraq, hurr durr."
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
Then you dont have open borders. You have a sensible immigration practise.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
look at the definition of open borders, few restrictions doesn't mean no restrictions
schengen agreement for example is an open border agreement
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
No it isn't open borders. It is open borders with a select few countries.
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
As soon as you stop letting certain people pass through, you don't have an "open border" because you would need some way to enforce it. The stuff like in the schengen agreement requires non EU citizens to go get a visa anyway. It is more open than other borders, but if you want a border you will need some way to enforce your policy.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
than what's the difference between open borders and no borders? because it seems like you are describing the latter not the former
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
If you have """open""" borders then you must have a way to enforce the policy or else you effectively have no borders.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Do you have free speech? Or just "sensible speech practices"?
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
You have free speech as long as you dont try to cause harm (incite riots, shout fire in crowded theatre). The difference between that and open borders is that if you have rules, you dont have de jure open borders. If these rules arent enforced, it is de facto open border. American free speech is de jure, but into reality it is de facto due to certain social barriers and rules (you cant record film/talk loudly in a courtroom).
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Uhh no it isn't because of the exceptions you outlined.
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
Exceptions like how you cannot use your free speech to harm some else's right to a fair trial or get people killed by your mischief. I admit that free speech doesn't let you get away with assholery.
Aside from that, you can say whatever you want. If you want a simple litmus test to see if your freedom is really free, open your window and shout "DUDE BUSSY LMAO!" repeatedly. If you don't respond back in 1 hour, I will assume the speech suppression task force gunned you down. That is probably the most freedom you can need.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
So lol why is it called free speech then amirite.
1 voodoo_onion 2018-11-21
Its called free speech cause you dont have to pay to talk. Fuckin chode.
1 Gtyyler 2018-11-21
Congrats on evading the Speech Suppression Death Squads.
It is freer speech than anything else at the time. You could shit talk the head of state without compromising the state of your head.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
That is literally what open borders means.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
not necessarily, unless you use some #MAGA dictionary
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Lol, there were Democratic politicians that lobbied for the abolishing of immigration enforcement.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
wasn't it AOC and few others and their talking point that they want to return ICE to state of where it was before 2001 (because bunch of technicalities that separated it from some other federal agency)?
whatever, it's a just bunch of meaningless platitudes from solid blue district democrats that can't lose without ever explaining what they mean, which is... just normal politics?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
I am not going to track down every politician that said it. Yeah of course it is people that would never lose an election because no sane person in a swing area says abolish immigration agencies as a slogan.
Yes it is politics. I agree with you. My point was that this absolutely is included in the Democratic message. This isn't some random freaks on Twitter saying OpEn tHe BoRdErS. These are actual people with power and influence posting that message.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
in 2018 election the vast majority of democrats focused almost exclusively on healthcare and if they said something about immigration, it was just something about DACA and some sensible immigration policy, they are careful and rather than saying exactly what they want they call out the GOP over the many immigration blunders they had since Trump took office
these people "with power" are at worst few solid blue state dozen congressman and they can't do shit legislatively, just as few solid red state GOP congressman who want to criminalize homosexuality doesn't mean the GOP is going to do shit about because of the backlash it would get for a minimal electoral gain
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
I agree with you on that point, but politicians are still powerful people even if they don't really control an entire party. I put more weight to it compared to say a random poster on Twitter. You are misunderstanding my prior statement.
1 siempreloco31 2018-11-21
Why shouldn't the labor market be free?
1 throwaway-familyhelp 2018-11-21
Because you end up with things like child labor?
1 siempreloco31 2018-11-21
What's wrong with that?
1 MayoIsSpicy 2018-11-21
We need their little hands for fixing things
1 brd4eva 2018-11-21
Because workers profit from an unfree labour market.
1 RollBread 2018-11-21
Open borders are directly linked to increased slumification.
It doesn't work, you just end up with a large group of people in abject poverty, way beyond the capabilitids of your nation to handle, even if you have 10% of your population trying to work through them.
It is a one way trio to turning any country into either a shithole, or creating a class of undesirables who have no rights because no one knows they exist.
1 OniitanKilledMe 2018-11-21
Then they get pissy and cry racism when people who have money all move away to get away from the crime and trashiness
1 timsboss 2018-11-21
The control and limit is eliminating the welfare state.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-11-21
UNLIMITED SQUATAMOLINS
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
I will never understand how people can say America has a poverty problem yet want to import more poverty.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Because they're not indifferent to poverty outside of America?
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
So if America cannot take care of it's own poor, how will it take care of the rest of the world's poor?
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Poverty is almost always defined in a relative sense. Even if people go from being "poor in Haiti" to "poor in America" that represents a vast improvement in quality of life and only an idiot would dismiss that.
There are some idiots out there who want to portray America as being worse at the low-end than shithole countries in an absolute sense but that is a small minority of the people who think that "America has a poverty problem".
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
Yes I completely agree that being poor in America is not bad at all relative to the living standards of the rest of the world. That doesn't change the fact that importing unskilled labor directly harms the very people liberals pretend to care about.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Alice can care about Bob without doing all sorts of shitty things to others for Bob's benefit.
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
Can you elaborate. I understand this is a metaphor but I don't get it.
Are you saying that America is doing shitty things by putting its citizens before immigrants?
It does not make you a nationalist if you believe the role of the US government is to serve the US people. It makes you a rationale adult.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Narrowly, I'm saying that liberals can generally care about poor people while also supporting some individual policies that might harm them, because they can care about many things and make tradeoffs between them without being hypocrites.
More broadly, not having near open borders is a failure to serve the US people. When some policy expands the economic pie (like the free movement of labor) and you want to make sure it helps everyone, the solution is to institute the policy and redistribute the gains (eg. more progressive taxation) not to avoid the pie expansion.
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
Importing unskilled labor does not expand the economic pie. It reduces the size of slices of the existing pie. Demand for unskilled labor is plummeting year by year, otherwise we wouldn't need a minimum wage.
If we actually lived in a free market economy I would be less opposed to open borders. Wages for unskilled workers would rise and fall with supply, encouraging immigration in and out of the country. But when the price of unskilled labor is artificially inflated through government policies, and when you can literally get paid by the government to do nothing, then the incentive mechanism totally breaks down. The actual price for unskilled labor should be much lower than the $15 dollar minimum wage that is being enacted all over the country so if we had open borders we would be incentivizing much more unskilled migration than we need.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
These are not incompatible.
I don't get what you mean. If you're saying that unskilled workers are on net using more government resources than they contribute, then yet that would be a problem but my understanding of the literature is that this is simply not the case.
Obviously yes it's a problem if people are just migrating and picking up welfare checks, but that's a lot less common than people think.
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
I am saying that the wage is the mechanism that brings a labor market into economic equilibrium, just like prices do with other goods. It is the price of labor.
If you artificially inflate the price of unskilled labor, you incentivize more unskilled immigration than is necessary. If we didn't have a minimum wage, then as unskilled migrants entered the country the wage would decline until it reached a point that migrants were no longer incentivized to enter the country. Instead we artificially peg the wage higher than it naturally would be, which floods the labor market and eventually will lead to unemployment and reduced bargaining power for unskilled workers.
Cesar Chavez, a union leader that most liberals love, was violently anti immigration for these reasons.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
"on net" improvement doesn't change that they are getting fucked economically here. Politicians are meant to represent their constituents first and foremost. If you want to represent the whole world and refugees, go run for Congress in the New World Order.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Or run for congress in America on universalistic liberal principles and hope you don't lose because your voterbase is full of degenerate selfish fucks.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
All of those mentions are improvements for the people that live in your country. If you want to give everything away to the entire world, volunteer all your belongings until you are equal to the poorest of the poor in this world.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
If they can't vote they aren't exactly constituents, are they?
Uhh so have you given away all your belongings until you are equal to the poorest of the poor in this country, since that's apparently what matters to you?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
Are you a brainlet that thinks voters and the people you represent are one in the same? Children have laws passed on their behalf and they will literally never ever vote as children.
I also don't need to give everything I own away because I don't advocate for policies that have the government do that on state level.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Okay, and so have foreigners then. Why do you think it's not legal in America to go fuck a bunch of child prostitutes in Thailand or something?
One can easily embrace cosmopolitan liberalism without some sort of totalitarian Rawlsian welfare system.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-11-21
No you can't, you can't have a social safety net in first world with open borders to third world unless you want to let standard of living very quickly.
1 LedinToke 2018-11-21
i think the difference is he doesn't pretend to care
1 throwittomebro 2018-11-21
I just don't understand why I should care about the poor in Haiti to begin with? Does the US government exist for the benefit of Haitians?
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
As you should be.
1 HeftyHovercraft 2018-11-21
Sure, at least you should admit it. The liberals manage to play both sides excellently.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
If they were "excellent' at anything they'd win more often.
1 badukbingepurge 2018-11-21
This is true. Their "opponents" are such a scene of venal, banal incompetence it's hard to imagine losing, yet they do the incredible every two years.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
Because I'm actively hostile to the Fentanylese, and I want to hasten their extinction.
1 Van-Diemen 2018-11-21
Yes, and migration is the absolute worst way to fix global poverty.
1 mtg_liebestod 2018-11-21
Free trade is a great way to fix global poverty. Both regarding goods and labor.
1 chumthescrubber 2018-11-21
They want even more people to be homeless
1 OniitanKilledMe 2018-11-21
Most of the customers who come into my business that want open borders all tend to be rich as fuck mayos. They can never answer when I ask where do we house them when we can't house the tons of people on the streets who want help.
1 timsboss 2018-11-21
Because open borders strengthens the economy. The only people who get hurt by mass immigration are high school dropouts. Everyone else benefits from cheap labor.
1 RememberTheAyLmao 2018-11-21
Which world are you living in? There are heaps of people with high school and even college degrees who are competing for minimum wage positions, too.
1 timsboss 2018-11-21
There are plenty of jobs to go around. Right now we're at nearly full employment. The economy isn't a zero sum game, as it expa da more jobs are created.
1 Caucasoid_Supreme 2018-11-21
Everybody benefits from hugely increased crime and human trafficking?
1 timsboss 2018-11-21
Illegal immigrants actually commit less crime than the native born. When you open up the borders human trafficking becomes a non issue. Why would you hire some sketchy criminal to sneak you over the border when you can just walk through a border checkpoint legally?
1 OniitanKilledMe 2018-11-21
Da fuck? these people are gonna be leeching more than they end up contributing before they fuck off and disappear to do under the table work
1 timsboss 2018-11-21
Leech off what? Illegal immigrants have very limited access to welfare programs. I'm all for limiting that access even further.
1 OniitanKilledMe 2018-11-21
You really think these fuckers don't have the contacts or know someone who knows a guy who sells fake ID's, SS and Birth Certificates? It isn't hard at all to find that shit especially in circles of illegal minorities. They look out for each other and tell each other this shit.
1 CherryKirsche 2018-11-21
Why does every left wing place on the internet automatically fall victim to purity wars until only the least pragmatic tankies are left?
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-21
the real tankies in history were pragmatic, stalinist flair countries work and are stable, even if most citizens are barely anything more than slaves of the state
that's why virtually all people from the romantic "intelectual" revolutionary guard were death or killed by the time the great purges ended - if they weren't it's because they either escaped, often killed later, or served life sentence in the gulag system, also often killed later
1 ffbtaw 2018-11-21
No centralized hierarchical structure to prevent it from occurring.
1 Skyright 2018-11-21
Not even a leftist but open borders are 👍👍👍
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
It really is better to bootlick in Heaven, than go to Hell and then not even wear boots because you're pathologically afraid of hierarchies.
1 Sojir 2018-11-21
Well of course who is the enemy? Spencer? Trump?Bannon? Nah cumrade, they can all wait, we have to deal with Nagle first.
Chapo is woke on the Iberian foid question
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-11-21
"Let's not fix broken countries and let's squeeze everyone into a small part of the world."
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
What utter brainletism. Burgerstan has more than enough Lebensraum. Poor countries, OTOH, tend to either be overcrowded, or else have a deceptively low population density because 90% of their territory is useless desert.
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-11-21
The one example that comes to my mind is Egypt. Generally overcrowded is India. You want to move half a billion of people halfway across the world to the US in a short timeframe?
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
Yeah, go like an hour south of Cairo, stand in the desert on the west side of the Nile, and look east. You effectively are standing on the eastern side of Egypt and looking all the way to its weternmost border.
No, of course I don't. I just don't have any special affection for America as a whole, either.
1 FmW-41 2018-11-21
What's funny is whenever asked, people who think like you never give an answer on what an appropriate number would be. There is never a limit too high with immigration, but as soon as someone talks of reducing it, it's met with 'xenophobia' and 'racism'.
Give me a number the US should take in, and I'll use your exact argument to tell you why those numbers are too low.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
How many people have fatal ODs every year? I’d import one upwardly-mobile, motivated, basically educated person from Nigeria to replace each mayo who ends his pointless life wallowing in a pile fentanyl every year.
1 Thor1138 2018-11-21
Maybe they ahould stop breeding then. It's not our responsibility to take them in, just because they can’t stop fucking and don't know how a condom works...
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
Maybe KiAfugees like you should stop shitting up our beautiful subreddit.
And look, I sympathize with wanting fewer immigrants in Europe. Europe has a wonderful culture that merits preservation. America, OTOH, has no culture whatsoever.
1 Thor1138 2018-11-21
Maybe you should make an actual argument instead of going all "hurdur KIA"...
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
You should stop seriousposting on the most profoundly autistic sub on this whole goddamn autistic site.
1 Thor1138 2018-11-21
Maybe I should.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
Good, we agree.
1 Thor1138 2018-11-21
No, fuck you, I don't like agreeing with you.
1 dootwthesickness_II 2018-11-21
too bad
1 Caucasoid_Supreme 2018-11-21
American culture is so ubiquitous that you don't even notice it.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-11-21
SHOCKING
1 Boks1 2018-11-21
But what about the billions of people that will be raped and murdered when you liberalize border policy?
1 AntiIntellectual 2018-11-21
what you think you get: global socialist gay sex party
what you actually get: west becomes urban sprawl mix of East LA, Islamabad, and Johannesburg rest of the world is Chinese vassal states
1 spookyguy109 2018-11-21
Who's gonna tell them open borders is not a socialist policy and never has been? In fact, it's a insane capitalist one.
1 cimarafa 2018-11-21
“Open borders is a Koch brothers proposal”
1 spookyguy109 2018-11-21
Where the lie? That crazy ass old man is right about that atleast.
1 cimarafa 2018-11-21
Yeah I’m not disagreeing with him.
1 fandabidozie 2018-11-21
what
1 ConfuseTheJews 2018-11-21
Open borders, with free healthcare and welfare are not a position to take without virtually unlimited resources
Since moving into a piece of land doesn't automatically make group of people adopt the ideals of the area, views that could be considered harmful may be imported.
First worlders might laugh or cringe at a witchdoctor in Africa saying that raping virgins will cure AIDS, but moving to a new place doesn't magically cure someone of those ideas. If you move enough at once, they'll never have to change their view either, surrounded by like minds
Simply shifting people into places, without thinking about how they might contribute to the welfare of the group they are supposed to be joining, can lead to people who don't even care about the area beyond their own groups affiliation, forming in almost subnational enclaves
These enclaves care more about benefiting their own group than their host group, and look for what they can get from that group in a parasitic action on the body of collective workers from that region
1 OniitanKilledMe 2018-11-21
This is exactly why the UK isn't offering to take Asia Bibi despite all the people clamoring for it. I would imagine quite a few muslims in the UK would riot all the same or attempt to kill her.
1 ugongitbuttraped 2018-11-21
lol I bet these bitches lock their doors at night
also their “subreddit” has borders, and the modtards keep it locked tighter than Bieber’s hairless manhole.
1 VanderBoi 2018-11-21
1 ShalomGoys 2018-11-21
No person should be an illegal!
1 chumthescrubber 2018-11-21
even some socialists are like, "no fuck that."
1 God_Of_Wisdom_War 2018-11-21
I'm amazed at how fucking stupid Chapo, communists and anarchists are. They are "pro union", while also extremely anti immigration enforcement in any way. You can't have unions and also have open borders. Anarchists are a truly special kind of dumbass.
1 allendrio 2018-11-21
Of course you can have unions and open borders what sort of dumb idea is that, the unions will just be significantly weaker.
1 allendrio 2018-11-21
Hot take: Open borders is free labour market so opposing open borders makes you a state capitalist: a leftist
1 ricoue 2018-11-21
Some really good analyses there, the second comment about climate change is really spot on. Want to stop people from coming into your country? Don't starve and deprive them of opportunities in their home countries.
1 leva549 2018-11-21
Oh, sorry about that, I'll stop.
1 God_Of_Wisdom_War 2018-11-21
There is some hope for Chapo.
1 Buddybaker23 2018-11-21
The absolute tardery of Chapo subreddit being overrun by identity politics when the hosts of the podcast only give a shit about class politics. Alright MDE boys the chapo podcast and Dirtbag Left thinks you unite workers through talking to them as a class of people while the Chapo sub is full-on "if we focus our politics on bringing up those who are marginalized, so that POC are equally represented in every labor force and we teach niceness, everything will change in society!". I know! Dumb and gay!