At a minimum I demand we all be as free to move around the world as the products, money and material that our labor creates.
post
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
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.
is controversial among “leftists”
I haven't noticed any leftists who consider that idea controversial. Mostly just Liberals/Democrats
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.
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.
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.
And what is the issue there? Let's prioritize our inhabitants then. It's not like there's not enough to go around.
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
we don't live in a world of abundance
literally all studies about this make you wrong
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.
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.
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
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.
No, I don't feel that way.
Hmm, maybe you have a point. Oh wait, I know of something that would help reduce those harmful effects!
Open borders
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I vote for no borders.
Easiest way to get rid of undocumented immigrants is to grant them all citizenship. Problem solved.
Rather than the "Easiest way", how about a good way...
How about we make a nice world to bring folks to. Y'know... end manufactured scarcity, stop using people as pawns on the grand chessboard, stop conjuring precarity to cull and terrorise people by, and so on. Y'know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to? ... no more economic migrants under duress... Everybody happy.
"Let's figure out this food/air deal, OK? 'K. I'm just weird, you know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to?" ~Bill Hicks
Exactly. Being a migrant isn't exactly a picnic. I think it's reasonable to assume most people would like to live near their families and homes if that's a viable option. I still think people should be able to go anywhere in the world if they want to, but they shouldn't have to. A lot of the "problems" of immigration are just the point at which other people's problems become inconvenient for me. If we can make the whole world a nice place to live, we'll be well on our way to making borders not matter so much.
Conservatives need an enemy to rally against. That is all they have.
They have many other enemies. But having an enemy is required for the ideology.
Any ideology that is enemy based, eventually leads to genocide.
The convenient thing is that "Abolish ICE" is valid whether you want closed borders, open borders, or no borders.
The main predecessor to ICE was Immigration and Naturalization Service. Notice the difference in tone between Service and Enforcement? But even if you don't don't support immigration, ICE has morphed into a paramilitary secret police to do Trump's bidding and has been attacking and deporting natural born citizens. If you only oppose "illegal" immigration, ICE has been targeting and deporting deporting people with all their paperwork in order.
Literally the only two reasons to support keeping ICE is that you support fascism and/or White Supremacy
Morphed? It was established to be a redundant paramilitary organization with less oversight and more jingoist blind loyalty than its predecessor or law enforcement in general. That it could be turned directly against Americans was an original design specification.
It's valid to the majority but to those in power it's a non starter.
I wasn't saying open borders before, but I am now. Picking primary candidates who support it too. We need the EU model. Fuck whatever broken system we have now.
European here. You do realize that the EU is still quite picky about who gets in, right?
Within the EU itself it's very easy to move around, I can drive through several countries without seeing a single border checkpoint. Actually getting into the EU if you're from a "less desirable" nation? I hear it's not all that easy.
It's much harder to get citizenship in most EU countries than it is to get citizenship in the USA. Until Trump, it was also easier to get into the US on a visa than to get into Europe on a visa.
I think I've seen border checkpoints while driving between EU countries, but it was hard to tell because they hadn't been in operation for decades. But, there's still a vague sense of a border. It seems like the countries maintain that area enough so that if ever they had to put the border control points back into operation it could be done. So, you can sort of tell that you crossed a border, even if you don't have to slow down at all.
I seem to remember that the USA was part of the model when the EU was being designed. That doing business between EU member states was supposed to be as easy as doing business state-to-state in the USA. It isn't quite there yet. But, the USA has been working at reducing state-to-state friction for nearly 2 centuries, whereas the EU has only had decades.
I've seen them too. There's a booze store in one lol. I meant I haven't seen an operational one.
Have you ever crossed the Swiss border? That was an interesting one. Switzerland isn't in the EU but they're in a lot of bilateral agreements which means they mostly have an open border. But, that agreement is a lot less solid than the rest of the EU agreements.
It seems like the France / Belgium border could be turned back into a proper border control post within a few months. But, the Swiss / France border seems like it could be back in full force within a few days. Currently you can drive past it at nearly full highway speeds, but all the border control buildings are there, and the roads leading up to them are just ready for them to start diverting traffic again. I also seem to remember that it offered a last second chance to turn around and not cross the border, something you didn't get at say France / Germany. Probably because there actually is a meaningful difference in laws between the two sides, so there's a chance someone might decide not to do it.
I haven't been into any of the EEA countries yet, but there's a non-zero chance of crossing the Swiss border later this year. I'm looking to import a cheap old used car from western Europe and prices for the particular model are a tiny bit higher in Switzerland than Germany, but the Swiss ones tend to have lower mileage (and my friend who used to work at AutoDNA when it was still competitive against CarVertical (or maybe before CarVertical was a thing even) says German cars are the worst to get background checks on since there's so little info available and Swiss cars are significantly better in that regard)
Cool, just be careful on the rules. Switzerland is technically not part of the EEA. They're part of the EFTA, and have a bunch of bilateral agreements with the rest of the EU, but there are still quirks to the deals. Even if you're charged only minimal fees or duties, that could add up if you're buying a car. At a minimum, you'll probably have to do paperwork to export the car from Switzerland to another country. And the Swiss love their paperwork.
There's paperwork to do regardless of country of origin I believe, since you generally need to de-register it and get the temporary plates. This seems to incur some minor fees of usually double digits euros in pretty much every country, as some clerk has to fill out a few forms and whatever. And on the Estonian side I'll have to show it to some officials who will verify that it exists, is a car, has the correct VIN, the doors open, and that it has seatbelts. More or less. It's not a proper TÜV, as the TÜV from country of origin still applies. Also we now have a registration fee so that's nice. Since already registered cars also incur the fee (one time retroactive reg fee for the first change of ownership after the law came into effect a year ago), it doesn't really make imports any less competitive yet.
Mostly I'm still leaning towards Germany, as I could just fly into Stuttgart or Frankfurt and have several examples in my price range to check out as long as I'm willing to bus/train around or hail whatever the German equivalent of Bolt is (because fuck Uber). Average of 100k extra kilometers on the clock compared to the Swiss examples isn't a big deal on an OM642 anyway if it's been maintained and having more choices is better, because I don't want to go fly out to see one particular car, discover it has a glaring flaw not described by the seller, and have no other options nearby lol
The EU is notorious for its brutal and heavy-handed immigration enforcement. This is one rare case where the answer is in the past; America didn't even have laws restricting immigration for about a hundred years.
We do have the EU model. Travel all you want across US state borders. Europe and America both enforce outer borders.
The system in the US is indeed broken, as is Europe in slightly different ways.
Sounds like a bit of an opposame risk, walking problem-reaction-solutioned straight into NAU. Great grandest father mason would be proud.
The fact that immigration is even a thing here makes me chuckle. We literally killed the people who lived here, planned a flag and said that's ours now. It's such a laughably ridiculous concept. Every one of us here is a descendants of immigrants who came here looking for a better life.
I mean, native Americans/native indians still exist. So not everyone
i think, alas, the spirit remains true since indigenous people have been systematically barred from the levers of power. however, i still appreciate your comment because building something new that works for everyone will have to include, and frequently be led by, indigenous voices
I mean yes, but they were systemicatically murdered in a genocide, and forcibly removed from their land.
Anybody who survived that period was forced to integrate with American society or face systemic persecution and often death.
Hell, we went to war with a number of tribes bcz we wanted their land and resources. The point isn't that Native Americans don't exist today.
Its that their culture was systematically destroyed and their homelands burned to the ground or taken over.
Yes, I acknowledge all of that. Which is why I was correcting you when you said every one of us is descended from immigrants looking for a better life. It's wrong to act like they are completely gone, not because it makes our ancestors look bad, but because it erases the people and cultures who are still here with us and persevere.
Please point me to all of these supposed immigrant gangs. I'd love to read about it. All of the research data that I've seen points to immigrants committing violent crimes at a far lower rate than actual citizens of the U.S.
If you don't have actual data to back up your claims, you're just spouting misinformation at best, or intentional disinformation at worst.
Cartels are a different problem entirely. Those are drug gangs from other countries. So, in don't even know why you're bringing that up in the context of immigration.
I have zero faith in congress’ ability to do this though.
This is the crux of the problem. Nobody has faith in Congress' ability to do anything.
top 87 comments