Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If borders were open

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: If borders were open

#121

Post by sethrin »

mnm2 wrote: post #108
Zahlmeister wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counting in crimes like drug sales is misleading. Selling drugs is really just a business opportunity, albeit illegal. Native Germans tend to have much better opportunities and more to lose. To some degree the same is true for robbery/burglary as well. It's economic pressure and incentives that make these crimes attractive, these people aren't so much immigrants but rather crime tourists (some of them from EU countri…

You are not supporting the leftist agenda All people are the same! Please be silent now! Differences do not exist Actually,... differences would require that I think hard about them, won't you dare!

Comments like this which are political rather than technical in nature are considered off-topic. If you post like this frequently you are very likely to be banned.

Re: If borders were open

#122

Post by sethrin »

fche wrote: post #69
conanbatt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is forcing you to. The application of migration restrictions is forcing other people to not move. In terms of individual liberties you lose nothing in this case.

> you lose nothing Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing". If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.

What exactly is cultural dilution? It sounds like a dog whistle for base tribalism.

Re: If borders were open

#123

Post by fche »

ForHackernews wrote: post #120
fche wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: > open borders also FTA: > why not charge them more for visas Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this: > To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so. You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open bor…

If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.

Re: If borders were open

#124

Post by ForHackernews »

fche wrote: post #123
ForHackernews wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address this: > To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so. You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open bor…

If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.

Maybe you should try reading the article to see what the article is about.

Re: If borders were open

#125

Post by fche »

ForHackernews wrote: post #124
fche wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law permits", then it's a tautological piece.

Maybe you should try reading the article to see what the article is about.

Rereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the term "open borders" any more acceptable.

Re: If borders were open

#126

Post by slang800 »

pandaman wrote: post #89
conanbatt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restri…

When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immi…

> creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population

I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.

Re: If borders were open

#127

Post by pandaman »

slang800 wrote: post #126
pandaman wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immi…

> creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.

Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back.

1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...

Re: If borders were open

#128

Post by conanbatt »

slang800 wrote: post #112
conanbatt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restri…

> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with…

This is an interesting data point!

It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals.

This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically.

I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.

Re: If borders were open

#129

Post by conanbatt »

DrScump wrote: post #105
conanbatt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restri…

In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open Immigration to the USA was never "open". Entire races were periodically excluded (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act), and legal immigrants were subject to health checks.

Well, open-er. You didnt need to have a sponsor company to remain in the united states.

A foreigner cannot live in the united states today, health check or not, without some monetary or time commitment to a specific set of people.

Re: If borders were open

#130

Post by slang800 »

pandaman wrote: post #127
slang800 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.

Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come…

> the US can not deport illegals en masse

Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation.

> they do not even track visa overstays ATM

Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?

Post reply on HN