you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 61 points 9 months ago (26 children)

it’s baffling to me how the idea that "being born here does not make me entitled to services more than someone who wasn’t born here" is controversial among "leftists"

we all need food, we all need housing… why should it matter that my birth coordinates happen to be within an arbitrary drawing on the map ffs

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    I think what you're seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:

    • Change this one thing and everyone will be better off for it.
    • An ideal world would have this feature.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    is controversial among “leftists”

    I haven't noticed any leftists who consider that idea controversial. Mostly just Liberals/Democrats

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration, and generally people that support those governments are also called "leftist".

    The same goes for many social democrats and socialist reformists. Even unionists often oppose migration because migrants are imported by the capitalist order to use as scabs (see "guest workers" in 1970s West Germany).

    All basically want a walled garden in which leftist ways of living can flourish, usually with the idea to export them later.

    But especially in activist and discourse spaces, people tend to be in a pretty narrow band from pop liberalism to anarchocommunism. Socialists, socdems, and unionists tend to be busy with their job, because that is what their praxis calls for. And state communists tend to walk away exasperated when people condemn genocide.

    But anarchocommunist praxis is for a large part prefigurative sharing of information, ideas, and tentative structures. So we're relatively loud and as unemployed as we can get away with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago*

    Basically no one believes in open borders, only some weird fringe anarchists who posts memes like the one above that are largely irrelevant in the real world. It's always just been a straw man from the right or just weird online fringe anarchists who hold the position.

    The reason communists are critical of the US/European hostility towards immigrants is not because we want open borders but because western countries bomb, sanction, coup these countries and cause a refugee crisis then turn around and cry about those immigrants coming to their country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago*

    Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration,

    Fair enough, the USSR restricted movement within their territory more than many other countries restricted their borders.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 9 months ago (21 children)
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    And what is the issue there? Let's prioritize our inhabitants then. It's not like there's not enough to go around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago* (11 children)

    The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.

    "what's in it for us?

    Ah, ok, you're one of those. Might want to change your username

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 9 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    we don't live in a world of abundance

    literally all studies about this make you wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    that would be arguing that i am speaking as if everybody's needs have been met NOW which I am not saying. Don't deliberately misinterpret my comment. Don't pretend that part of why Nigerians don't have abundance is not imperialist colonialism 2.0 wrapped in the flag of freedom, democracy and development.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Having an over abundance in one part pf the world and scarcity in another isn't a world of abundance.

    You're so close to realizing wherever humans settled had enough to sustain civilization. It's the plundering, wars, genocides, privatization of national respurces that cause the scarcity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    Who's saying to "put the world on welfare"? This conversation isn't about getting things for free from the government, it's about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.

    Edit: "preying on the generosity of our country" is hilarious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Thanks for clarifying.

    Immigrating to the US legally in 2026 is a slow, restrictive, and broken process. Opening it up wouldn't be the end of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Hmm, maybe you have a point. Oh wait, I know of something that would help reduce those harmful effects!

    Open borders

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That's just like, openly, demonstrably false. Poor countries greatly benefit from having open borders to wealthier nations, as it removes barriers to bringing that wealth back into those poor countries. Closed borders only serve to keep rich countries rich, and poor countries poor.

    Next to no one is fleeing to Mexico for economic opportunity.

    You framing it as "fleeing"really drives home your biases. If there were an open border between the US and Mexico, we'd see two-way movement way more often, as it'd be way easier for Mexicans to come to the US seeking economic opportunity, build some wealth, then take that back across the open border to Mexico to their family/dependents/community. We see that pretty much everywhere there's an open border or some sort of economic cooperation zone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    i also take issue with the paternalistic approach that the countries of the global north should decide for the countries of the global south what's best for them. i think the process of decolonization needs to be collaborative by the global north at the behest of the guidance of the people of the global south to avoid fascist genocidal dictators like Edie Amin and Pol Pot taking over the fascist mechanisms created by the global north. but this idea that we need closed borders in the global north, strictly enforced, for the benefit of the global south, seems like it can't lend itself to good results based on that it is inherently replicating the roots of colonialism

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

    That's some weaselly circular argument you're engaging in there.

    Your use of the word "just" implies that having people called "citizens" is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called "inhabitants"; which you're then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven't actually made any kind of case for why it's better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.

    You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.

    You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.

    Your words are hollow.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    It's an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.

    And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they're ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don't think they, you know, buy things and work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I've read the whole thread, how do you think I got down here?

    They take up space without contributing, that's the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.

    This is what you just said. Can you explain how I mischaracterized it? I feel like I just reworded this sentence pretty directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    If your analogy is based on consumption it makes no sense.

    Meanwhile, I could drop eat from mine response and the point stands with a dry place to sit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Irregular immigrants contribute to the communities they exist in. They help their neighbors, they perform work, they pay taxes via sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact, by the metrics of tax contribution, they contribute a higher percentage of their income back to their local municipalities than most citizens. Saying they don't contribute is outright racist.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)