I've always viewed it as paradoxical that the left is both:
1.) For the welfare of the worker, social programs, universal healthcare, "standard of living"
2.) Open borders immigration, free trade, outsourcing, and other ultra capitalist policies.
1.) For the welfare of the worker, social programs, universal healthcare, "standard of living"
2.) Open borders immigration, free trade, outsourcing, and other ultra capitalist policies.
[1]https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-double-...
The point is workers elsewhere is equally entitled to support and liberty.
I'm not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, but it certainly suggests that the left favors open borders.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-ab...
The borders are policed and enforced by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), specifically Border Patrol.
This is technically true and often-cited, but it's really misleading. Its 'creation' was more of a restructuring.
When ICE was created in 2003, it absorbed many parts of the United States Customs Service (founded 1789), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (founded 1933), and the Federal Protective Service (founded 1971).
Before ICE, the INS was responsible for arresting and deporting those who violated immigration laws.
All this aside, I'm sure we can agree:
(1) there's a correlation between (A) willingness to illegally immigrate and (B) the risk of deportation after crossing the border.
(2) that an increase in illegal immigration without governmental response would more closely resemble the concept of open borders.
So far as I can tell the wish for the abolition of ICE is primarily tied a desire to eliminate an unrestrained, rogue, abusive policing org that's showed serious cruelty and abuses of civil liberties. I'm ok with eliminating ICE since they play such a harmful role such as they exist today, their leadership and members should all be fired with many jailed.
If people were calling to abolish the Border Patrol that could be construed as supporting open borders. Calling to abolish ICE is calling out corruption, abuse, and injustice in our immigration enforcement far from the border.
The socialist left is against free trade and outsourcing. Period. We are internationalist and support trade with countries that will raise their labor conditions to parity. We also support anti-capitalist struggles abroad.
Except like so much with socialism, the reality and the hypothetical are in stark contrast. You are arguing that in theory, open borders allow for laborers to take their value to wherever it will benefit them the most. But in reality, it not particularly easy for an individual to pick up and move their entire lives, especially when we are talking about distances on the scale of international travel. So the workers who are willing to move end up being those with the least to lose, meaning those who do end up moving are those willing to settle for less.
Say Mexico and the US opened their borders tomorrow. Do you see American laborers taking their skills to Mexico en masse? Or do you see Mexican laborers taking their skills en masse to America? How do you think the value of an American laborer is affected when the labor market gets flooded with supply, many of whom will likely be willing to work for less than their American counterparts?
Given the structural inequalities between USA and Mexico allowing free movement of capital between USA and Mexico enriches USA and impoverishes Mexico.
However, since you asked, yes Mexicans, who have been abused would flood into the richer north. Socialism is ultimately about creating an equal society, not about preserving disparities between the rich and the poor. However, we would need policies to help preserve American's livelihoods, such as a Federal Jobs Guarantee otherwise open borders would be unpopular and damage living standards.
It's worth asking yourself why people born on one side of an invisible line deserve comfort and power and a baby born on the other side does not deserve to walk one foot north and find a better life.
What? I seriously don't understand this. Find what deals? How does it make it harder?
> Nations are fake.
In what sense? Surely, given the opportunity, most people would prefer to live in Sweden as opposed to Liberia. Most would pick US citizenship over, say, Vietnamese.
The most instructive places to look at in that direction are border areas in general, and the Middle East in particular.
Often times when you look at border areas you will see absurd divisions of people who would normally work together. The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a strong example.
For the clear negative impact of borders though, the absurd creation of most Middle Eastern countries by British diplomats is one of the clearest examples. The arbitrary lines that were drawn through tribal lands and small fiefdoms, the people left without countries of their own (e.g. the kurds) or brought to power over vast swaths of other people (the Saudis)- it is all as absurd as can be, and has proven as poisonous as expected.