Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Do Libertarians Support Open Borders?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kccd View Post

    What do you mean by ending welfare programs?
    Social Security disability benefits?
    Food stamps?
    Unemployment insurance?
    Medicaid?
    CHIP health insurance for children?

    If all programs benefiting the poor were ended, how would they manage, especially the sick, disabled, children, elderly...?
    I think he was talking about benefits for illegal immigrants.

    It looks doubtful that will become a reality as evidenced by the Democratic debate back in June 2019 when everyone who was running for president, including Biden, raised their hands in support of providing millions of illegals with unlimited health care.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      I believe that the United States had open borders for the first 100 or so years of its existence (unless you want to count bans on slave importation. The first federal law to create any restrictions on immigration was passed in 1875, the Page Act. Clearly, this did not have the function of eliminating countries and governments altogether during that time period.

      In fact, the United States to this day has open borders insofar as the borders between states. Obviously, there has been no elimination of state governments and the states have continued to exist. Obviously there is a difference between countries and states, but the point is that the ability to travel freely between states has not led to the existence of the states being eliminated.

      One final consideration is that of citizens and residents. Citizens have rights and privileges that residents do not. Open borders may allow people to freely enter the country and be a resident, but it does not freely grant them citizenship, which (for an adult) requires one to have been a permanent resident for several years. So long as this continues to be true, countries and governments are inherently not eliminated because the citizenship distinction requires them to exist.

      I am not in favor of open borders myself but I do not think that open borders would cause the situation you describe.
      You would have everyone from all of the poorer countries pouring into the USA hoping for a better life. This might have worked when we were an open frontier, but we aren't that any longer. There are only so many jobs available, only so much land. Overrunning the country with immigrants who don't speak English, don't have jobs, will overwhelm our welfare system and collapse our economy. We would become a third world country. Our country would collapse under the weight of the immigrants.

      I am all for regulated immigration, where we take in people who can contribute to our country, those who are actually refugees (limited numbers) but not just open borders. That would be chaos.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        You would have everyone from all of the poorer countries pouring into the USA hoping for a better life.
        Just ike we have people from poor states traveling to better off states, and rural areas travelling to big cities. Those haven't magically dissolved/collapsed.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
          Just ike we have people from poor states traveling to better off states, and rural areas travelling to big cities. Those haven't magically dissolved/collapsed.
          Every state has poor areas. But moving within the country is not increasing the overall population either. When you have an influx of hundreds of millions most who can't even speak english or have any skills, then you have a completely different situation. If every poor person in all of the other states suddenly decided to move to California, you would probably see California's economy collapse unless they got support from the federal government (i.e. other state's money)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            Every state has poor areas. But moving within the country is not increasing the overall population either.
            So you'd support open borders if every country in the world had open borders agreements with every other country? Right? Or would you still oppose it?
            When you have an influx of hundreds of millions most who can't even speak english or have any skills, then you have a completely different situation. If every poor person in all of the other states suddenly decided to move to California, you would probably see California's economy collapse unless they got support from the federal government (i.e. other state's money)
            We can similarly scale up - the Nordic passport zone did not make the nordic member countries dissolve. Nor did the Schengen agreement make the many countries dissolve with those in the poorer countries freely traveling and moving/working in countries with better economies (and boy, there are some pretty poor-off countries in it). Same with East African Community (which has an economic powerhouse like Kenya together with absolute disasters like Rwanda and Burundi). Etc. Etc. Etc. You've invented an imaginary event that doesn't exist in the real world.
            Last edited by Gondwanaland; 01-20-2021, 09:33 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

              We can similarly scale up - the Nordic passport zone did not make the nordic member countries dissolve. Nor did the Schengen agreement make the many countries dissolve with those in the poorer countries freely traveling and moving/working in countries with better economies (and boy, there are some pretty poor-off countries in it). Same with East African Community (which has an economic powerhouse like Kenya together with absolute disasters like Rwanda and Burundi). Etc. Etc. Etc. You've invented an imaginary event that doesn't exist in the real world.
              I can tell you that the German economy has suffered greatly because of immigrants from Turkey and the middle east over the last few decades. And remember when Europe had to bail out Greece? But in Europe, the countries are all more or less on the same economic level as each other. So movement between the countries is not that big a deal, but that is just travel. If you want to move to another country you still have to get permission from that country's government. It's not like the United States. And Europe has pretty stringent regulations on coming into any Shengen country from outside. Those borders are not "open"

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                I can tell you that the German economy has suffered greatly because of immigrants from Turkey and the middle east over the last few decades. And remember when Europe had to bail out Greece? But in Europe, the countries are all more or less on the same economic level as each other. So movement between the countries is not that big a deal, but that is just travel. If you want to move to another country you still have to get permission from that country's government. It's not like the United States. And Europe has pretty stringent regulations on coming into any Shengen country from outside. Those borders are not "open"
                You are conflating Schengen with EU (which is the one that 'had to bail out greece'). Not the same thing.

                The borders WITHIN are open. Of course there's no example of completely open borders worldwide because it hasn't been tried. But we're not speaking about that, we are showing your assertion that countries will dissolve/disappear, has no basis in reality.

                I guess you missed my other comment in the edit:
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                Every state has poor areas. But moving within the country is not increasing the overall population either.
                So you'd support open borders if every country in the world had open borders agreements with every other country? Right? Or would you still oppose it?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                  You are conflating Schengen with EU (which is the one that 'had to bail out greece'). Not the same thing.

                  The borders WITHIN are open. Of course there's no example of completely open borders worldwide because it hasn't been tried. But we're not speaking about that, we are showing your assertion that countries will dissolve/disappear, has no basis in reality.

                  I guess you missed my other comment in the edit:

                  So you'd support open borders if every country in the world had open borders agreements with every other country? Right? Or would you still oppose it?
                  The Schengen is just an agreement, an economic zone. The countries in it are all economic partners and on an equal footing. In such cases there is no driving force for all of the population to mass migrate to one country. Just like between the US and Canada. But when you have one country having a much better economy than others, you will have an economic force driving the poorer population into the richer one, until the richer one collapses. Once all of the countries are equally poor, the influx would taper off. So your examples are not comparable to an open southern border in the US.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    The Schengen is just an agreement, an economic zone.
                    and? You were conflating it with the EU and Greece and saying that it was whawhat required the Greece bailout. Schengen doesnt involve all EU countries and involves a number of non-EU countries.

                    The countries in it are all economic partners and on an equal footing.
                    Not remotely. You are going to with a straight face tell us Hungary, Greece, etc., are on equal footing with Switzerland, etc.? Lawl.

                    In such cases there is no driving force for all of the population to mass migrate to one country. Just like between the US and Canada. But when you have one country having a much better economy than others, you will have an economic force driving the poorer population into the richer one, until the richer one collapses. Once all of the countries are equally poor, the influx would taper off. So your examples are not comparable to an open southern border in the US.
                    Except as the examples I provided show, that's not the case

                    Now are you going to address the question I asked? I'll repeat it again:

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    Every state has poor areas. But moving within the country is not increasing the overall population either.

                    "So you'd support open borders if every country in the world had open borders agreements with every other country? Right? Or would you still oppose it?"
                    Last edited by Gondwanaland; 01-20-2021, 10:26 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                      and? You were conflating it with the EU and Greece and saying that it was whawhat required the Greece bailout. Schengen doesnt involve all EU countries and involves a number of non-EU countries.


                      Not remotely. You are going to with a straight face tell us Hungary, Greece, etc., are on equal footing with Switzerland, etc.? Lawl.
                      um, make up your mind, either my example using Greece does or doesn't involve Schengen.




                      Except as the examples I provided show, that's not the case

                      Now are you going to address the question I asked? I'll repeat it again:




                      "So you'd support open borders if every country in the world had open borders agreements with every other country? Right? Or would you still oppose it?"
                      Your question doesn't even make sense. Please re-read what I actually wrote. Open borders only makes sense when the countries don't have some driving force causing the population of some countries to flood into another unchecked.




                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        um, make up your mind, either my example using Greece does or doesn't involve Schengen.
                        nothing I said contradicts anything eelse I said so I'm not sure what you are confused about. Your example does not involve Schengen. It involves the EU. EU =/= Schengen.

                        The EU was forced to bail Greece out because of how the EU is made up. The Schengen didnt require the bailing out of Greece. Non-eu countries in the schengen didn't bail Greece ouout.


                        Your question doesn't even make sense.
                        dont go all H_A on me now. My question is perfectly legible and coherent.

                        Please re-read what I actually wrote. Open borders only makes sense when the countries don't have some driving force causing the population of some countries to flood into another unchecked.


                        Please answer the question asked of you.

                        as to the rest, I've already provided examples that show that's not true and no country dissolving has happened.
                        Last edited by Gondwanaland; 01-20-2021, 11:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                          nothing I said contradicts anything eelse I said so I'm not sure what you are confused about. Your example does not involve Schengen. It involves the EU. EU =/= Schengen.

                          The EU was forced to bail Greece out because of how the EU is made up. The Schengen didnt require the bailing out of Greece. Non-eu countries in the schengen didn't bail Greece ouout.

                          dont go all H_A on me now. My question is perfectly legible and coherent.


                          Please answer the question asked of you.

                          as to the rest, I've already provided examples that show that's not true and no country dissolving has happened.
                          Your question assumes some sort of all or nothing criteria and reads like a loaded question. Try explaining what you are actually asking.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            You would have everyone from all of the poorer countries pouring into the USA hoping for a better life. This might have worked when we were an open frontier, but we aren't that any longer. There are only so many jobs available, only so much land. Overrunning the country with immigrants who don't speak English, don't have jobs, will overwhelm our welfare system and collapse our economy. We would become a third world country. Our country would collapse under the weight of the immigrants.

                            I am all for regulated immigration, where we take in people who can contribute to our country, those who are actually refugees (limited numbers) but not just open borders. That would be chaos.
                            That is pretty much what happened during the mid 19th cent. Immigrant were encouraged to go west and settle. For example, from the U.S. Parks Service website:

                            Source: Immigration and the Homestead Act


                            Was the Homestead Act the First Accommodating Immigration Law in the United States?

                            The Homestead Act of 1862 was, without question, a land law. People could receive 160 acres free if they were willing to live on, cultivate and improve the land. However, it was much more than a land law. The Homestead Act was the first comprehensive accommodating immigration law encouraging people to come to the United States while providing the necessary requirements for citizenship. By examining the Congressional Debates and studying the language used in the narrative of the Homestead Act, it is apparent that the 37th Congress intended to use the Homestead Act as a way to bolster a stagnant population and build an agricultural nation through immigration and the settlement of the public lands of the United States.


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            It's why you get articles like

                            Source: Nation’s first immigration law was Homestead Act of 1862


                            At the end of this year in which election results reinserted immigration into the political conversation, remember that 2012 is the 150th anniversary of "the first comprehensive immigration law." This is how the Homestead Act of 1862 is described by Blake Bell, historian at the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, Neb., one of the National Park Service’s many educational jewels that make the NPS one of just two government institutions (the other is the U.S. Marine Band) that should be exempt from any budget cuts, for all eternity.

                            In 1862, the grim year of Shiloh and Fredericksburg, Congress would have been forgiven for concentrating only on preventing national dismemberment. Instead, while defiantly continuing construction of the Capitol dome, Congress continued nation-building. It passed the Pacific Railroad Act to provide for the movement of people and goods to and from the new lands in the West, the Morrill Act to build land-grant colleges emphasizing agriculture, and, most important, the Homestead Act, whose provisions were as simple as the problem it addressed was stark.

                            What today is called the Great Plains was at that time identified on maps as the Great American Desert. Under the act, $18 in fees entitled homesteaders to farm 160 acres to which they would acquire title for no further cost after five years. Or after six months if they paid $1.25 an acre.

                            (Union soldiers could deduct their time in uniform from the residency requirement.)

                            The act was intended to attract immigrants from abroad — immigrants who would put down roots. For this purpose it provided all requirements for citizenship.

                            Until then, Bell writes, the states had been "the primary overseers of immigration." And as an immigration commissioner of New York later testified to Congress, large numbers of immigrants would “come regularly to this country every spring” but would take themselves and their earnings back to Europe in the autumn, not paying taxes and depressing American wages.

                            The Naturalization Law of 1802 required immigrants to receive certificates (“first papers”) proving that they had declared upon arrival their intention to become citizens. After five years, an immigrant could take the certificate and two witnesses to a courthouse and be naturalized. This law addressed the worry that Europe was deliberately exporting the wretched refuse of its teeming shores -- people of (in a Kentucky congressman’s words) "the most turbulent and factious tempers," accustomed to monarchies and sorely in need of Americanization.

                            By 1850, the United States had acquired, by hook or by crook (including Indian “removal” and the morally dubious but indubitably beneficial war with Mexico), vast quantities of land. Most of it was uninhabited, unless you counted, as few did, Indians. In 1862, with many citizens fighting, noncitizens were needed to (in an Illinois congressman’s words) “go upon these wild lands” to increase the nation’s wealth.

                            Bell calls the Homestead Act "an accommodating immigration law" because its requirement that the land be farmed for five years was the amount of time required to become a citizen, and because it began the assimilation of immigrants into American law.

                            The spirit of the act was optimistic. As the New York Times said, it would attract "the common people of Europe" who are free from the prejudices of “the aristocratic and snobocratic classes.”

                            Under the Homestead Act, which continued in effect in Alaska until 1986, more than 270 million acres -- approximately 422,000 square miles or 2.5 Californias -- were privatized.


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            [*Article continues at link above*]





                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                              Your question assumes some sort of all or nothing criteria and reads like a loaded question. Try explaining what you are actually asking.
                              My question is one that is answered simply yes or no. (Tgough more detail explaining the why behind the answer is certainly welcome)

                              I'm unsure how to re-explain such a simple question. Would you support open borders if every country had an open borders compact with one another, or would you not. Im trying to determine the logic you are presenting with your argument. I've been more than willing to answer everyone else's questions about my viewpoints and position, I'm simply asking the same courtesy. Honestly right now you're behaving just like H_A when she gets asked questions that she knows the answers of which might challenge her viewpoint
                              Last edited by Gondwanaland; 01-20-2021, 01:58 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                My question is one that is answered simply yes or no. (Tgough more detail explaining the why behind the answer is certainly welcome)

                                I'm unsure how to re-explain such a simple question. Would you support open borders if every country had an open borders compact with one another, or would you not. Im trying to determine the logic you are presenting with your argument. I've been more than willing to answer everyone else's questions about my viewpoints and position, I'm simply asking the same courtesy. Honestly right now you're behaving just like H_A when she gets asked questions that she knows the answers of which might challenge her viewpoint
                                no.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 01:41 PM
                                18 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post kccd
                                by kccd
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:16 PM
                                27 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 03-07-2021, 06:02 PM
                                25 responses
                                140 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by kccd, 03-07-2021, 01:36 PM
                                58 responses
                                338 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by mossrose, 03-06-2021, 07:26 PM
                                1 response
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Working...
                                X