It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. Also, working class people are more likely to meet with the immigrants that are engaged in illegal activities, whereas if you are middle-upper class or rich, you'll meet the educated, immigrants that maybe help your business growing or at the very least help you keep your household running.
I'm just trying to show a different "leftist" take, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue as I believe there are good people on both sides and figuring out the best approach is basically impossible.
That sounds very similar to the "they're stealing our jobs" argument I hear sometimes from people on the right.
On the other hand, my ability to negotiate with the powerful owner class is strongly reduced if there are people that are willing to be exploited or simply don't have another choice due to their immigration status and poverty. It could be argued that more people coming in results in bad working conditions for both the immigrants and the working class, whereas the rich can take advantage of the situation and amass a fortune on the misfortune of the poor (both native and alien).
Bernie Sanders, once a prominent leftie, said in one of his honest moments that the open borders is a "Koch brothers proposal".
The way I see it, freedom of movement is pretty much the most fundamental freedom that exists in organic beings. We eat, we grow, we migrate. All the other freedoms are built on that one. If people aren't free to change their living conditions by moving somewhere that provides better opportunities, then they're not really free at all.
Plus if America and about a dozen other countries stop interfering, destroying through military action, and otherwise preventing the overwhelming majority of nations from independent development of industry then there will not be much of an inflow to this country.
If you have true community ownership of the means of production, then people gain wealth by working for cooperatives, not by state guaranteed benefits. In such a system I would think there is more flexibility in how benefits are distributed.
Freedom of movement is tied to left internationalism, but radical (i.e., all-at-once/revolutionary) internationalism is not as strong as it once was, and even people that see freedom of movement as a long-term goal often see unrestricted freedom of movement as having unacceptable costs between states that aren't both much further along than any actually are as having practical problems.
> The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left
In the U.S., the left broadly supports immigration as well as freedom of movement. But if you take a peep at European politics, and even parts of the left in Canada, you might find that support for immigration and freedom-of-movement really is more complicated.
It's one of those weird usages of terminology that the left in the U.S. is described as "liberal." In Europe and Canada, liberal means center-right. But at least in this case, calling the American left liberal is appropriate.
Calling US Democrats "socialist" for wanting things like universal free health care makes me cringe in light of that.
Political discussions in the U.S. using the word "socialism" are basically meaningless, because people use that word to mean several completely different things:
1. Socialism as practiced in eastern Europe during the Cold War - basically the state is a prison, no one is allowed to leave, people who attempt to leave are shot and left to die, everyone is under surveillance, and dissent is punished very harshly. These governments were proud to call themselves socialist. In East Germany, they referred to themselves as "Socialism as it exists in reality" ("real existierender Sozialimus.") These are not governments that someone is now choosing to call socialist to give socialism a bad name.
2. Socialism as practiced in Europe these days, with a focus on Scandinavia. Somewhat higher taxes, reasonable universal health care, generally people are not left to starve in the street. I'm not sure if it makes sense to call this "socialism." I guess it's social-something.
3. Socialism as a scarecrow in American politics: Anything I don't like is Socialism. Any policy where the government provides benefits is Socialism. Any healthcare system where illness doesn't lead to bankruptcy is Socialism.
As a result, people talk past each other, and discussions tend to become nonsensical. Anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on socialism should just take a look at what happened in East Germany and the rest of eastern Europe from 1945-1990.
See for example Richard Wolff for a modern day economist who has been advocating for this type of socialism for a long time. Though you will find a historical through line of advocates going back to the 19th century. Notably there is a growing body of socialists who see the folly and horror of state-run socialisms who have gone back to the original theories and renewed their interest in direct control of collectively owned firms instead of state control.
I mean in France it's literally the Socialist Party. Isn't it more useful to use the word to refer to a political movement that's real and relevant today rather than one that vanished for most practical purposes over 30 years ago?
No, they were governments someone choose to call socialist to give authoritarian state capitalism a good name.
Somewhat more generously Leninism (which they represent, or represent later derivatives of), was an attempt to adapt Marxist Communism (in which “socialism” is the name of a stage of development, and not necessarily in the same sense as “socialism” is used by people who identify it as an ideology of its own) to the conditions that existed in Russia at the time, particularly, the absence of capitalist development and broad proletarian class consciousness. This shortcut was then controversial within the Marxist community, much less the broader socialist community.
Even if one is generous enough to accept Leninism as a valid form of socialism, there is no possible justification for seeing it as representative of socialism in general, more than, say, the broad displacement of the system Marx described as capitalism with a new system shaped largely by socialist critiques of capitalism (sometimes called “mixed economy” or “welfare state”) as the dominant system of the developed West is.
Now, if someone is actually substantively advocating Lenin-/Stalin-/Mao-ism, then, sure, the experience of actual states practicing those systems tend to be relevant. If they are advocating something else, then those experiences are about as relevant as looking to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to assess systems other than Juche that nonetheless are described as “democratic republics”.
What the heck are you talking about?
Denmark is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a mixed economy. The current government is a majority coalition of a social-democratic, a moderate-liberal and a conservative-liberal party. It is considered centrist. There are seventeen parties in the danish parliament, two are socialist parties, and both are small minorities. Denmark does not call itself socialist or claims to practice socialism.
Norway is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a mixed economy. Norway is often called state-capitalist because of the large amount of state owned company shares. The current government is a minority coalition of a social-democratic party and a centrist-agricultural party. It is considered center-left. As a minority government it relies on opposition votes to rule. There are ten parties in the norwegian parliament, two of which are socialist, and both are small minorities. Norway does not call itself socialist or claims to practice socialism.
Sweden is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a mixed economy. The current government is a minority coalition of a moderate, a liberal and a christ-democratic party. It is considered center-right and relies mostly on votes from the right to govern. Sweden was governed by a center-left minority coalition of social-democrats, greens, centrists and liberals, which collapsed. There are eight parties in the swedish parliament, one of which is a small socialist party. Note it was not part of the last government either. Sweden does not call itself socialist or claims to practice socialism.
Finland is a parliamentary republic with a capitalist mixed market economy. The current government is a five party coalition led by the social-democrats and including a centrist, a green, a socialists and the swedish party, in order of size. It is the only scandinavian country in which a socialist party is actually part of the government, but with 8% it is more the little far-left cousin of the leading social-democrats. It holds the ministry of education and the ministry of health and social affairs. The government as a whole is considered center-left, and there are ten parties in parliament, with the previously mentioned one being the only socialist party. Finland does not call itself socialist or claims to practice socialism.
---
For those who can only think in left/right, east/west, blue/red, and are terrified and confused by the idea of a parliament with seventeen parties: to understand european politics one must first learn to differentiate and be specific. For example: "democratic-socialism" and "social-democracy" are two very different political concepts. A mixed economy is not socialism, but a capitalist market economy with strong regulatory oversight and some state owned property, often controlling shares of key industries. And social benefits are an implementation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the first three of the U.N. sustainable development goals.
---
TLDR: There is no scandinavian country that practices socialism these days.
That’s where coming in to become homeless won’t be allowed , same way housing laws will forbid staying in places that are not adequate for residency (rooms with no windows, packing 12 people in one bedroom etc.). Same for minimum wages and taxation stopping a run to the bottom if too many people come in with no value to add to the economy.
Basically you’re free to come and go, but will need to find a spot you fit in if you intend to stay.
EDIT: Point being that open borders has the benefit of forcing us to face the ways in which we are harming other places. The fact that currently many people would leave their homes to come here is a feature not a bug. We’re trying to abuse the rest of the world for our benefit and that makes other people unhappy. We should stop.