There’s a good reason to have secure borders, but “the will of the people” isn’t a good argument for it as what “the people” want is often uninformed, self-centered, and counterproductive. The real reason for border security is the same reason you have a lock on your front door, but just as the lock is not inconsistent with admitting welcome guests and with charitable giving, secure borders are not inconsistent with a mutually beneficial immigration policy and with a compassionate refugee policy. The problem is that currently the US has neither.
To get to the heart of this matter, I think the case of Argentina is instructive. I just asked Gemini about what’s been going on, and it delivered this:
So keep in mind that this was recent. You can still emigrate to Argentina, but you can’t grab the goodies. And that’s a key clue as to what has happened over the past few centuries, in my view:
- Until the early 20th century, economies had a ton of slush in them and were building their capital base and often had vast tracts of undeveloped land. There was no harm in having an extra worker or two arrive.
- At the same time, modern record-keeping was not yet in place, so it would have been harder to track the people that came anyway.
- As has been pointed out in this thread, most immigration restrictions were racist in nature.
- Travel over long distances was difficult and expensive. There was no issue of someone buying a cheap plane ticket and overstaying their visa.
- There were no “goodies” (health care, social security, etc.) to grab, nor were there taxes (income, etc.) to evade. Anyone who came had to survive on their own.
- Though there had been severe panics, etc., in the past, global capitalism came close to collapse during the Great Depression, and people therefore became more jealous of jobs and economic opportunities. At the same time, modern-day social programs were being born. By the 1950s, the income tax and other taxes could be evaded as well. An immigrant could now be seen as doing economic harm to the country. Meanwhile, racism maintained its toxic effects.
- The Cold War greatly increased suspicion between countries and led to tighter controls overall.
- The above covers most “developed” countries in the world, but in the case of the US, the wealth gap between the US and Mexico continued to widen, to the point at which it was worth it to many Mexicans to work in the US without documentation and less than desirable work and living conditions.
- As capitalism entered its “late stage” in the 1970s, the capital base in “developed” countries had mostly been built, and much of the slush was gone. It became hard enough to supply enough jobs to the people already in a country; immigrants posed a theoretical difficulty. But at this time also the “cheap guest worker” status of Mexicans and others in the US gelled into a permanent pathology.
Argentina was likely a holdout longer than others because it consists of Buenos Aires, pretty much no other major cities, and vast farmlands, cow pastures, vineyards, and wildernesses that could use the labor or the desire to develop further.
Let me know if anything seems wrong with the above. In short, it was economically beneficial to have “open borders” until the 20th century for most countries, at which point late state capitalism essentially put countries in a defensive posture in multiple ways. It became beneficial to keep the poor out or turn them into de facto guest workers with limited rights. That’s what the US has done, to the great detriment of the soul of the country.
Chinese Exclusion Act. 1882
Immigration act of 1917
“Gentlemans agreement” with Japan 1907. and a couple others.
So even then, there were some limits. But not on white people who were literate.
During the 1870s and 1880s, the vast majority of these people were from Germany, Ireland, and England - the principal sources of immigration before the Civil War.
But that was a century ago, when America has vast open lands it needed to populate (mostly by pushing the Native Americans out).
There are none. And once upon a time, there were no countries that recognized freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an important right.
The founding fathers weren’t gods. They had a lot of good ideas, but the documents they wrote do not define what is good. For example, the right to not be born or sold into slavery was not included in the bill of rights. That one had to be added later.
Sometimes you can convince people to change their minds by talking to them and advocating for your position. That’s what we’re doing here.
And, just to be clear, I don’t agree with the idea that not having open borders is fascist. But it is nationalist, and fascism requires nationalism.
I’m more immigrant friendly than Bernie Sanders, or at least the way Bernie has been most of his career. But he was and is not a fascist. Neither are the labor unions that favor immigration restriction.
Most of the labor unions are; last I heard they went for Trump.
As for Sanders, if he wasn’t supporting fascist policy then he wasn’t in favor of “enforcing the borders”, because that’s what it means. It’s always been a racist dogwhistle. If you aren’t in favor of closing the borders and killing anyone who tries to cross, you aren’t “enforcing the borders”.
Thus my comment that “that if liberals act like fascists, then they are fascists.” You can’t do what the fascists demand without becoming them.
Yes. If MAGA could not take over by invasion, but could by sending 70,000 or so Trumpers to Greenland for a decade — or a generation — they would do it. The reasons that such immigration to Greenland won’t happen is that the U.S. has an invasion option — and Greenland’s immigration restrictions.
And it is not just Greenland. China would flood Taiwan. I’m not enough of a Africanist to have all the examples there, but Somalia would probably flood Somaliland.
Joe Biden enforced the borders as I use the term. If the definition of “enforcing the borders” has changed to be synonymous with killing anyone who tries to cross, note that I was using the old definition.
Examples that come closer to fitting your definition are the Berlin Wall and World War I on the Western front. Even Trump does not kill anyone who tries to cross.
And therefore was accused of not enforcing the borders. It’s entirely about xenophobia; whether it’s Trump’s wall, other proposals I’ve seen like fields of land mines or automated sentry guns to keep the brown hordes out, and expelling the untermenschen already here.
That is what they want; an America purged of anyone who isn’t “white”. Unless somebody is willing to support that level of ethnic cleansing then they aren’t “enforcing the borders”.
No point in pointing out that that ship sailed away when the first slave sailed in, I imagine: any more than pointing out to our equivalents that “they” are here because “we” were there.
Yeah, every big city on Earth having the same ethnic mix and the same chain stores is referred to as “globohomo” (for homogeneity, nothing to do with gay people) in conservative circles.
Nope. These people have gone after Native Americans; it is not and never has been about immigration. It’s about ethnic cleansing, purging the nation of everyone who isn’t “white”.
So, I have to say, when people talk about this idea, the first thing I think of is racist nonsense like this. Which doesn’t mean it’s not possible, but it does have non-serious associations.
I don’t think the example of Trump and Greenland is true. I don’t think Trump has the patience for a plan like that, and I don’t think his followers care about it beyond following his lead, so when Trump moves on to the next thing or dies, they’ll forget about it.
The example of China and Taiwan seems a lot more likely. That does seem like a significant problem.
I don’t have a good answer to that. But consider, why would it be bad for China to take over Taiwan? Because the people of Taiwan don’t want to live under Chinese rule. But there are probably a lot of people right now who were born in China who don’t want to live under Chinese rule and are forced to because they’re not allowed to live somewhere else.
A recent study showed that even diehard MAGAs are generally not happy with the idea of taking Greenland. This is just trump copying Putin- Putin wants the old Russian empire, and for a while in ww2, the US more or less controlled Greenland. And the Canal Zone for quite some time, and the next is Cuba and Philippines.
But arent we getting a bit far astray here?