San Jose: New law would make city first to allow “tiny homes” for homeless

That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature.

I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey.

I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters.

> Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery

I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it.

> You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral,

I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion.

> just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases.

That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then.

A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable.

There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting.

I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics.

What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.

> These are their cultural values!

There are horrible cultures in the world; I agree.

> That means borders

NOPE

This merely traps people where these bad cultures are, and this in my mind is the great immorality. You cannot tell a person "you live in a failed place, but you stuck there forever in poverty, and because of the luck of where I am born, I am entitled to greater things."

You allow for a free movement of people, you will perhaps see a transient spreading of some worse cultures, but in a free marketplace of ideas, they will not remain ascendent-- barbarities and oppression simply aren't very effective. Loss-aversion is no way to build a community.

> and if you don't allow borders on the outside of a country then they develop themselves on the inside of a country. Look at the USA, they have gated communities because there exist predominately minority group areas with high crime rates.

Very true, which is why Georgists pull for a Land Value Tax, which would do much to end this segregation.

Look at the data. How many cities around the world have an utopian mix of people, where millionaires live next to homeless tent encampments and [insert ethnicity here] live mixed with [insert another ethnicity here].

The uniform cities I can think of are Soviet cities. Soviets worked hard to Harrison Bergeron their populations, and also to eliminate any shred of social cohesion other than the prescribed love for the Party. And even in Soviet cities, the Party leaders live in their own nice segregated neighborhoods, far removed from the Krushevaks the forcibly uniformized rest of the population is forced to inhabit.

If I had to guess, it's also liability derived from the close proximity of houses in urban setting. The home owner might be cavalier about fire safety or noise containment, but his neighbor might have a strong opinion about those, the strength of the opinion being directly proportional to the proximity of two dwellings.

> by far the richest country in the world

Based on what criteria? You can tell who the richest person in the world is by subtracting his liabilities from his assets and arriving at a large number. US budget liabilities exceeded US budget revenues for quite a bit now.