Can someone explain to me in a real and not-meme way why we shouldn't have open borders for people? I can't see any reasons why not.
Borders are already fully open for money and business interests, etc. but for some reason we won't allow people to cross them openly? It doesn't logically make sense
>making a dumb political thread on Jow Forums because you know you'll get destroyed if you tried it on Jow Forums
>Borders are already fully open for money and business interests
No, they're not. Every country has restrictions on what type of good and business can pass their borders and often have various taxes and tariffs in place for those that do.
I'm genuinely curious but simultaneously have zero interest in talking to Jow Forums-tards.
>No, they're not. Every country has restrictions on what type of good and business can pass their borders and often have various taxes and tariffs in place for those that do.
That's objectively wrong.
Don't really care about either side, but one reason would be that there wouldn't be an equilibrium of migration. The richer/popular countries would get an inequally higher influx.
Trying to play it off by pretending like everyone on Jow Forums is the same person isn't making you look any better. Scrolling down the front page of Jow Forums just now, I see posters from the following countries:
>Australia
>United States
>Netherlands
>Iraq
>Canada
>Brazil
>Ireland
>Russia
>Germany
>Mexico
>Brunei
>Honduras
>United Kingdom
>Denmark
>France
>Greece
But they're all just a bunch of Jow Forums-tards who all believe exactly the same thing, right? Just admit that you've never visited the board and don't have the balls to ask questions like this of anyone but insecure neets.
Sorry, not interested in talking to Jow Forums-tards.
Why, because you think you can name some tiny island that doesn't have any restrictions on the type of goods or businesses it allows to pass its borders?
You don't just get to say, "lol no ur wrong" and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Can't say I expected any more than this from the kind of brainlet who gets off on starting political debates with people who have no interest in politics.
A country should take care of its citizens first. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be taking care of people from other countries, prioritizing them over their own.
>inb4 "that's a meme answer!"
It's called NAFTA, lad. You don't have to like it or even want it in place, but it does exist and the fact that you were totally unaware of it is very telling.
NAFTA is the most well known but we have free-trade agreements like it that allow for "open borders" for business interests, capital, etc. with at least a dozen countries around the world at the moment.
How does allowing for free movement of people between countries prevent those countries from taking care of their citizens?
bumping for any answers, thanks anons who have posted so far.
You said
>Borders are already fully open for money and business interests
which is not even remotely disproved by a trade agreement with two other countries - and they're not even "fully open" with those countries. If a Mexican businessman who runs a prostitution ring wants to come to the U.S., are our borders "fully open" to him? Is a known cartel boss free to send whatever amount of his money he wants across our borders?
Because the money a nation uses to care for its citizens does not appear out of thin air. It is taken directly via taxes from the people with the assumption by those people that it will be used to care for their friends, neighbors, and countrymen. If people are allowed "free movement between countries", then where are they paying taxes?
>No, they're not. Every country has restrictions on what type of good and business can pass their borders and often have various taxes and tariffs in place for those that do.
>Tariffs were eliminated progressively and all duties and quantitative restrictions, with the exception of those on a limited number of agricultural products traded with Canada, were eliminated by 2008.
>North American Free Trade Agreement
>Free trade is a free market policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries.
>Features of free trade include:
>Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers).
>Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers.
>Unregulated access to markets.
You can travel freely between Kansas and North Carolina. If you take advantage of the free movement that exists between our state borders, then where do YOU pay taxes? It's not exactly unprecedented or impossible to deal with.
Are you trolling or just a brainlet? It's hard to tell these days. Let's pretend that our Canadian border really is "fully open for money and business interests." It's not but even if it were, would that mean that it would be accurate to make that claim? Does a free trade agreement with one or two countries mean that our borders are "fully open" to every other country in the world?
I notice you chose to ignore my questions about Mexico. That's adorable, and a little sad. You realized that Mexico doesn't fit your statement so now you're pretending that because there's one nation in the world which you think might fit it, you can just focus on Canada and it will all be cool? In Canada, it's illegal to buy sex but it's legal to sell it. If a successful Canadian prostitute decided she wanted to move her business to the U.S., and openly stated this fact while attempting to do so, would our borders be "fully open" to her?
>If you take advantage of the free movement that exists between our state borders, then where do YOU pay taxes?
To the federal government.
A fully open border for money and business interests between two countries is what it is. Mexico is also a part of NAFTA, and lacks the restrictions that are in place with Canada. Our borders are actually more open with them in that respect. I don't know why you think it's being ignored.
Is this a problem with grammar? Do you not understand what "fully open" means? If a Mexican cartel boss is prohibited from freely selling cocaine across out borders then our borders are closed to his money and his business, therefore they cannot possibly be "fully" open.
Also, prostitution is illegal in the US, I don't know why you're trying to say we don't have an open border regarding capital and assets because crime is illegal. That's a very strange definition that isn't used anywhere else.
>our borders are open to Canada and Mexico for capital and assets.
>yeah but you can commit CRIMES?
>no
>then it doesn't count! Ha!
I mean, not like it stops them from committing cross-border crimes. Those are already very well known. I guess you're wrong either way then.
>A cartel boss sells illegal goods in Mexico
>it's illegal for him to sell them in the US too.
>therefore the borders aren't open to his legal business interests!
user, I...
>Mexico and Canada both have fully open borders with the U.S.
>ok maybe Mexico doesn't but Canada definitely does
>wait no, mexico has less restrictions than canada
wew lad
I'm not sure where it is you think that someone is saying Mexico doesn't have a free-trade agreement with the US. It does.
But prostitution is not illegal in Canada nor is it in Mexico. It is not a crime in those nations. So what exactly do you think is supposed to be taking place here when someone who is not a criminal in one nations steps across a border and suddenly becomes one? How are people supposed to "openly cross" borders in this scenario? Do we just abolish all laws? Should every nation have identical laws? On which nations laws would these worldwide laws be based?
It's illegals for gays to get married in some states but not in others. We have free movement between the states. What part of the concept of "it's illegal to commit crimes in some places regardless of where you are coming from" are you struggling with? I am asking this question genuinely here.
Oh, so now the debate is over social issues and not "money and business interests"? My, those goal posts are just flying all over the place, aren't they?
>What part of the concept of "it's illegal to commit crimes in some places regardless of where you are coming from" are you struggling with?
You are basing your idea of what counts as crime and what doesn't on the laws of your home nation. In Mexico, a pimp who has a chain of successful brothels is a legitimate businessman. He is committing no crime, according to the laws of his country. He is not a criminal there. According to you, our border with Mexico is "fully open for money and business interests". And yet, somehow, inconceivably, this legitimate businessman is prohibited from moving his business across our "fully open" border.
If the border is truly full open, how is this possible? I am using prostitution as a very clear example but there are a variety of businesses and money which are prohibited as well. Why are you so obsessed with pretending that our borders are completely open to everything? Is your argument for free movement of people really so flimsy that you can't think of a single other thing to support it if you can't claim that our borders are "fully open" to business?
Why do you think free movement of people means allowing people to commit crimes in a different country? You're fixated on a bizarre definition of open borders that somehow means free trade and movement don't exist if you don't allow people to commit crimes in other countries, which nobody is seriously suggesting without being disingenuous. If you live in Colorado or Washington you can legally buy and smoke weed for recreational purposes. You also have open borders between the states. You, a Washington or Colorado citizen, can move to a state where it is not legal, like Missouri. You cannot bring your marijuana with you though, and you cannot buy it or smoke it legally in the other state. That doesn't mean you don't have free movement between the states. I don't know what you think you're gaining by acting patronizing and implying that I'm shifting goal posts when I'm asking questions I legitimately want to know the answers to.
>You're fixated on a bizarre definition of open borders that somehow means free trade and movement don't exist if you don't allow people to commit crimes in other countries, which nobody is seriously suggesting without being disingenuous.
Son, OP said and I have been quoting constantly:
>Borders are already fully open for money and business interests
If you are finally admitting that borders are not open to businesses which would be criminal and money which comes from those businesses then you can finally admit that our borders are not "fully open" - and I am not using a "bizarre definition" of those two words. I am using them literally. If they are restricted to various businesses our nation considers criminal (and many others besides; thousands of various products from various nations are also banned from import). then they are not fully (entirely, wholly, etc) open.
>I don't know what you think you're gaining by acting patronizing and implying that I'm shifting goal posts when I'm asking questions I legitimately want to know the answers to.
You have gone from claiming that our borders should be completely open for anyone in the world to come and go as they wish because "they're fully open to business and money" to now claiming that because someone from Colorado can move to Wisconsin whenever he wants, obviously someone from Nigeria should also be able to move to Wisconsin whenever he wants. Your original argument has been repeatedly proven to be absurd and now you're pretending that your argument was something different all along - the very definition of shifting goal posts.
It's really weird to me that you're fixated on saying that borders can't be open if countries don't allow criminals to commit crimes in them. Although to be honest, I think you're only doing it because you want to win an argument and are latching onto a bizarre technicality you want to exist in order to do it, not because you're actually interested in a serious discussion.
>why can't people have free move via open boarders worldwide?
Well
>literal invasions will ensue
>some cultures don't integrate or even want to but they want to live in other countries for their benifits
It could be an interesting experiment I suppose because:
>The west becomes overridden, overpopulated and completely socially degenerated from shit tier people moving freely to top tier countries
>bye bye England, hello Japan I say.
>The intelligent people will all eventually localise to one country and enforce their own socially controlled boarders
>Most of the world eventually is war torn for heated civil disputes through religious enforcement on all sides
You might ask "where's the police in all this?"
We'll, where are they now when we have the most brutal crimes committed by shit people from the middle east? They don't even know how to handle it because it will cause a massive civil war and it's no joke.
Well, since you're refusing to accept the literal, dictionary definition of "fully open", let's set that one aside for now.
How about this: first you wanted people from any other nation to be able to "cross our borders openly", but are you now saying we should restrict entry to criminals? That's what we do with "money and business interests" and you've just spent the last hour doing your best to explain and defend that practice, so are we going to treat people in a similar fashion, or are you going to tell me that you have no problem with a Chinese serial killer freely entering your nation?
it's simply terrible for the economy
Opening them makes sense if you get rid of welfare. Otherwise they leech off the government.
That's an interesting idea and perspective. Can you explain it more?
NAFTA doesn't even cover everything and imports are still subjected to American laws ans standards.
I don't see why a country with open borders would stop applying its laws and standards to the people within it.
It's pretty self explanatory though. Welfare creates incentives to move.
The point is that they goods don't move openly between borders, they still need to meet standards and quality control. I'm not talking about internal policing, I mean import standards. For it to be truly open there would have to be literally no barriers for entry.
Welfare only applies to citizens though, and they have to prove eligibility.
Reply to my correct post, it's impenetrable and very anti-pc
The safety of the population of the country is put at a significant risk. If anyone and everyone is allowed to just walk in no background checks, there will be a rise in all sorts of crime. Germany is a good example of this.
Long term dude. Their kids have access to it. They often have relatives that have access to it. And there's consideration like hospitals and schooling and fake social security cards.
Take it from a Hispanic, it's pretty easy to access welfare.
If their children and relatives, through citizenship, can access welfare then they'll also be paying into it through taxes and still have to prove eligibility.
Whoops, meant for: wow, it's original! yes, original.
Studies have shown that first generation immigrants are a net drain specifically because they have kids and grand parents that access social services.
well its not like that is what every country has though
The only study I could find about this stated that the first generation is a net drain but this net drain is counteracted directly by 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
>For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost to state and local budgets of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each. In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets.
Free trade agreements very common. Surprisingly, open borders are ALSO very common. The US has open borders between states, the EU has open borders between its member-states, the Gulf countries have open borders between their members, East Africa, the Nordic Passport Union, Andean Community, India has an open borders agreement between some neighbors, along with many South American countries and their neighbors, and Australia with New Zealand. I didn't know about that before this thread, pretty nifty desu
>why can't people have free move via open boarders worldwide?
Well
>literal invasions will ensue
>some cultures don't integrate or even want to but they want to live in other countries for their benifits
It could be an interesting experiment I suppose because:
>The west becomes overridden, overpopulated and completely socially degenerated from shit tier people moving freely to top tier countries
>bye bye England, hello Japan I say.
>The intelligent people will all eventually localise to one country and enforce their own socially controlled boarders
>Most of the world eventually is war torn for heated civil disputes through religious enforcement on all sides
You might ask "where's the police in all this?"
We'll, where are they now when we have the most brutal crimes committed by shit people from the middle east? They don't even know how to handle it because it will cause a massive civil war and it's not a joke!
Answer this now. I don't care if you think it's anti-semetic, it's harsh reality.
>the only thing worth considering is whether or not immigrants can bring us more money
>what? culture?
>lol nobody cares about that, hundreds of millions of africans should be able to move to american whenever they want
>open borders for everyone, yay!
Interesting green text proposal, user. If that's a legitimate concern of yours why not bring it up as a serious question instead of insulting the other guy for bringing up welfare as an issue isntead?
Literally taking a class about this right now.
>inb4 liberal brainwashing
The whole argument revolves around the concept of "imagined community". Each person has their own imagined community, which is the people/groups that give them a sense of belonging.
People that are outside this imagined community are considered "morally irrelevant", which means that their wants/needs aren't weighed against the wants/needs of the imagined community.
When people want to become citizens of a country, the join a geographic community. Imagined communities often overlap with geographic communities, and when someone joins a geographic community it feels like they are forcing their way in to YOUR imagined community. Kind of like that weird autistic kid who wanted to follow you around at recess back in 4th grade (come on, we've all experienced something like that, right?).
Everything I could find about NAFTA and import standards seems to indicate that imported products from NAFTA countries have to adhere to American safety standards and laws, which is pretty reasonable. I don't think free trade means allowing food with illegal amounts of lead, likewise I don't think free movement means allowing in Chinese serial killers to continue serial killing, or etc.
Nobody's going to take you seriously when you pick and choose which posts to respond to. You already got btfo and ran away so stop pretending you want to be serious again all of a sudden.
Sorry, please tell me more about your Chinese serial killer.
Yeah, it's almost like people are tribal creatures and nation states are an evolution of that same tribal mindset and no amount of top-down one world propaganda will ever lead to people willingly throwing their culture and heritage into the garbage just so they can brag about having free borders.
Pretty sure I already did. You're welcome to respond to it any time you like. Till then, have fun being a brainlet who wants nothing more in life than to fling open his borders to hundreds of millions of immigrants from third world countries.
How large can imagined communities be? If you're already feeling a sense of belonging in your imagined community what is the motivation to leave it? I'm not sure I see how imagined communities is a reason to not have open borders, but it is interesting. We went from imagined communities of tribes of several dozen, to towns of several hundreds, to cities of several thousand, to a country of some hundred million. Is there a reason to believe that an imagined community can't be larger than that?
Don't be that way user, if you have anything more to say please post it, I'm listening.
>Literal denial
Your thread is bad
i wonder what the posts in this thread say
Huemonkeys are a hivemind, though
t.huemonkey
An imagined community is an abstract concept, so there really isn't a limit on size.
Yes, they are. Businesses literally move money in a few clicks on a mouse/keystrokes.
Factories/production is planned remotely from other countries. Dont pretend that you dont understand this.
I guess if there's no limit there's nothing to stop the entire world from being a part of a mostly singular imagined community like Buckminster's Spaceship Earth idea. I think we're already on that route, considering how large (and general/abstract) these communities already are.
Let's not start this again. You can read the thread if you need an education the the definition of "fully open".
Businesses LITERALLY move money from one country to another in a few clicks, how is that not open?
The simple answer is space and destruction of the economy. The more you pack in to one area, only one situation can happen and thats an explosion of demand on all goods, with an extreme lack of supply due to the large population. Less space for businesses due to more housing needed. The value of a product will sky rocket and the value of our dollar will plummet.
>Buckminster's Spaceship Earth idea.
???
Some businesses do. Not all of them do. In some cases, it would be illegal for them to do so.
What the fuck does prostitution and pimps have to do with legitimate businesses transferring funds? Are you being obtuse or are you just retarded?
>The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system.
The idea is that we see the Earth the wrong way, as an independent set of nations that argue and fight about who gets the most of what, instead of as a group of people who trying to make the most of a planet they live together on that has a slowly-reproducing set of limited supplies that we have to cooperate to make the most of for everyone.
Interesting. Have my original (You) and thanks. Sounds kind of like commiebait but when it's worded that way it doesn't sound unreasonable either.
Because we're arguing over whether or not our borders are "fully open", you dense motherfucker. If they are closed to certain types of business (which are legitimate businesses in their countries of origin) then they can in no way be considered "fully open".
This is the last (you) I'm feeding you. Look up the definition of "fully" and "open". Put them together and see if something that's closed to certain things can qualify as "fully open". It's really not that hard to understand.
>whether or not our borders are "fully open"
Yep, retarded. Anyone who tries to nitpick and say that borders aren't ackshually open to businesses because they don't allow literal prostitutes and pimps to fuck clients is autistic as fuck.
Don't forget the Chinese serial killer.