What Would an ‘Open Borders’ World Actually Look Like?

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
WHY DO WE NEED OPEN BORDERS?
There are strong ethical, environmental, and—more commonly—economic arguments for why an open-borders position makes sense. The first and perhaps best argument for open borders is that borders kill. Just since 2014, according to the Associated Press, the number of migrants who have died or gone missing is nearly 60,000 worldwide. If people weren’t forced to board unseaworthy ships captained by smugglers, ford dangerous rivers to bypass visa restrictions, or trek across remote deserts to avoid violent border guards—that is, if they were allowed free transit—we could eliminate many, or even all, of these deaths.

Furthermore, the status quo is just not fair, in the basic sense of the word. Why does being born on one side of a line—in Piedras Negras, Mexico, for example—often consign one to a life of relative hardship, violence, and privation, while being born on the other side of the line—in, say, San Antonio, in the US—afford a life of relative opportunity, privilege, and bounty? Such inequality is enforced by our militarized borders: Philosopher Joseph Carens, in his book The Ethics of Immigration, writes that “The goal of the open borders argument is to challenge complacency, to make us aware of how routine democratic practices in immigration deny freedom and help to maintain unjust inequality.” For Carens, birthright privileges, or jus solis, are akin to feudal class privileges. As he argues elsewhere, birthright privileges grant “great advantages on the basis of birth but also entrench these advantages by legally restricting mobility, making it extremely difficult for those born into a socially disadvantaged position to overcome that disadvantage, no matter how talented they are or how hard they work.” That, according to Carens, is unethical.

Humans are a historically migratory species (along with starlings and cockroaches, we’re among the most widespread of all animal species), and our movement has been enshrined as a fundamental human freedom: Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” The crucial part of the equation that has been missing, however, is that, in a world carved up into nation-states, a right to leave a state is only a half-right if it’s not accompanied by the right to enter into another state. It would be like if the First Amendment guaranteed the right not to stay silent but didn’t mention the attending right to freedom of speech.

https://www.thenation.com/article/open-borders-immigration-asylum-refugees/


Aww life is 'unfair'
 

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
Instead of everyone flocking to the places that have their crap together, why don't hell hole nations do the things that successful nations do? I guess it's hard to wipe out the widespread corruption that keeps billions in perpetual poverty.

Back when Europeans were moving into africa and setting up European style nations, those place quickly became functioning societies. They had schools, industries, hospitals, railroad, mines and all the trappings of a better society. Once the colonists left and turned over a functioning nation, it didn't take long for the locals to turn the place back into the former misery.

Take the Belgian Congo. The Belgians set up industries and needed a lot of labor. The middle class grew since the Congo had a labor force double any other african nation. Prosperity increased under this capitalistic system. But in the late 1950's agitators started riots in the cities denouncing the colonists. In 1960, the Belgians turned the place over to the locals instead of facing death by rioting mobs all across the nation. 80,000 Belgians left the country. In true savage fashion a general had the prime minister executed. Then he promptly ran the nation into the ground. The strongman ran the place for more than 30 years. Here's a wiki snippet of his accomplishments:
Mobutu developed a totalitarian regime, amassed vast personal wealth, and attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence. During his reign, Mobutu amassed a large personal fortune through economic exploitation and corruption, leading some to call his rule a "kleptocracy". The nation suffered from uncontrolled inflation, a large debt, and massive currency devaluations.

By 1991, economic deterioration and unrest led him to agree to share power with opposition leaders, but he used the army to thwart change until May 1997, when rebel forces led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila expelled him from the country.

Marshal Mobutu became notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between US$4 billion and $15 billion during his reign. He was known for extravagances such as shopping trips to Paris via the supersonic and expensive Concorde. He presided over the country for more than three decades, a period of widespread human rights violations.
I wonder how much of his multi billion dollar embezzled wealth could have gone to helping the citizens of his failing nation. I wonder how many of those people became illegal immigrants in other nations.

Rhodesia has a similar history. Once the breadbasket of africa, after the locals took over the nation they couldn't even feed themselves after decades of being a net food exporters. Mugabe ran the place into the ground as he mismanaged the country. But all his cronies were on the take so life was good. At least for him and his elite buddies.

Yeah that's what we need to be doing. Exporting corruption and email scammers and letting them go to all corners of the globe. No thanks. I'll fight against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Why not? Russia can just send 5-10 million "migrants" into Ukraine, and China can send 30-40 million "migrants" into Taiwan.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
Instead of everyone flocking to the places that have their crap together, why don't hell hole nations do the things that successful nations do? I guess it's hard to wipe out the widespread corruption that keeps billions in perpetual poverty.

Back when Europeans were moving into africa and setting up European style nations, those place quickly became functioning societies. They had schools, industries, hospitals, railroad, mines and all the trappings of a better society. Once the colonists left and turned over a functioning nation, it didn't take long for the locals to turn the place back into the former misery.

Take the Belgian Congo. The Belgians set up industries and needed a lot of labor. The middle class grew since the Congo had a labor force double any other african nation. Prosperity increased under this capitalistic system. But in the late 1950's agitators started riots in the cities denouncing the colonists. In 1960, the Belgians turned the place over to the locals instead of facing death by rioting mobs all across the nation. 80,000 Belgians left the country. In true savage fashion a general had the prime minister executed. Then he promptly ran the nation into the ground. The strongman ran the place for more than 30 years. Here's a wiki snippet of his accomplishments:


I wonder how much of his multi billion dollar embezzled wealth could have gone to helping the citizens of his failing nation. I wonder how many of those people became illegal immigrants in other nations.

Rhodesia has a similar history. Once the breadbasket of africa, after the locals took over the nation they couldn't even feed themselves after decades of being a net food exporters. Mugabe ran the place into the ground as he mismanaged the country. But all his cronies were on the take so life was good. At least for him and his elite buddies.

Yeah that's what we need to be doing. Exporting corruption and email scammers and letting them go to all corners of the globe. No thanks. I'll fight against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
I wondered the same things during White Flight where whites left cities because OMG! blacks are moving in! Why leave? They should have stayed and protected their neighborhood color and culture.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
What's it called, "Broken windows theory"? That once there is sign of decay and lack of order, it encourages further decay and disorder? That's what "open borders" would look like: the worst of the world.

I like a nice country. If I wanted to live in a shithole, there are a number of them to choose from - why make the US another one of them?

If "refugees" would come here and be forced to assimilate to our culture and values, I'd welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately these days they are encouraged to bring their crappy mores with them (those same mores that turned their country into a place to be fled). And I imagine that immigrants who got with the program and embraced our American culture don't like it much, either.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If everyone headed out to the land of plenty, soon there would be no land of plenty.
How many can any land of plenty absorb.
And who pays for this ?
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
What's it called, "Broken windows theory"? That once there is sign of decay and lack of order, it encourages further decay and disorder? That's what "open borders" would look like: the worst of the world.

I like a nice country. If I wanted to live in a shithole, there are a number of them to choose from - why make the US another one of them?

If "refugees" would come here and be forced to assimilate to our culture and values, I'd welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately these days they are encouraged to bring their crappy mores with them (those same mores that turned their country into a place to be fled). And I imagine that immigrants who got with the program and embraced our American culture don't like it much, either.
I’m glad you’re an open bigot. Takes the guesswork out of it all.
 

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
I wondered the same things during White Flight where whites left cities because OMG! blacks are moving in! Why leave? They should have stayed and protected their neighborhood color and culture.
I'm sure people moved when they felt that their safety and security is threatened. I grew up in the shadow of Newark, NJ. As a kid we had riots going on 5 miles from where we lived. I'm sure if that nonsense had gotten any closer to our home, we would have had the moving truck in the driveway in no time.

Can you mention any previous majority white neighborhood where minorities moved in and quality of life, home values and school test scores improved?
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
I'm sure people moved when they felt that their safety and security is threatened.

Can you mention any previous majority white neighborhood where minorities moved in and quality of life, home values and school test scores improved?
White Flight happened because the extant homeowners knew the property values would plummet when the racial makeup of the neighborhood changed. And they were right.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
White Flight happened because the extant homeowners knew the property values would plummet when the racial makeup of the neighborhood changed. And they were right.
I did a little looking, and this was pretty good - because there have been instances where there was mass migration to the suburbs - but the city was still white. So were white people fleeing other whites?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/white-flight.html

While some of it is probably bigotry - there might be other stuff as well.
I moved out of a complex in PG to Calvert - my car was broken into, a girl was raped in the parking lot, and the DEA arrived one morning in riot gear to get my upstairs neighbor. I couldn't even ride my bike in the neighborhood, for being chased down because the young guys were trying to thump me and steal my bike. I still lived there 5 years.

A good friend of mine moved to St Mary's from Upper Marlboro - among other things, all but one neighbor had their homes boarded up - after raids for drugs. All of the kids bikes were stolen from the back yard, and even their dog was attacked by a neighbor dog who jumped the fence INTO their yard. He lived there 15 years.

People can't just up and leave that easily. They - generally - don't see people moving in and just take off.
And that article shows that in the cities, most neighborhoods were segregated already - most people didn't live anywhere NEAR someone of color moving in.

There's always more to the story.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
White Flight happened because the extant homeowners knew the property values would plummet when the racial makeup of the neighborhood changed. And they were right.
Your explanation is a little simplified.
But not totally wrong.
The first people to run.(mostly the liberals who said they were all for the changes) left because of housing values.
Of course the old and retired could not afford to move so they stayed,
Later as the neighborhood declined others moved out.
When the violence, the old cars abandoned in the yards the grass not cut and the boogie boxes blaring in the street the next section moved.
The older ladies who had their handbags ripped from their arms and the drug dealers hit the corners, the only ones left were those who could not afford to leave.
 
Top