open or national borders?

http://miniaturepaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/02.jpg

look obviously i'm voting for the dog

We need to be better revolutionaries in these end days, more cute labradors and border collies is the way forwards.

American bioethicist Jacob M. Appel has argued that "treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary," is inherently unethical. According to Appel, such "birthrights" are only defensible if they serve "useful and meaningful social purposes" (such as inheritance rights, which encourage mothers and fathers to work and save for their children), but the "birthright of nationality" does not do so. Economist and writer Philippe Legrain argues that the countries of the world need migration to help global trade and reduce the occurrence of regional wars.

http://i59.tinypic.com/t9v3lx.png

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m37qxbDXEP1rrqxffo1_500.png

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/06/29/obama_will_seek_more_than_2_billion_to_speed_up_deportations_as_border_crisis.html

Obviously, there are some personal benefits for an individual to be able to move about in the world without restraint. But there are even greater benefits in maintaining somewhat stable social and legal institutions. In the absence of a complex and sophisticated worldwide legal framework, the complete elimination of borders would, just for a start, cripple the ability of any governmental entity to collect taxes or enforce law. We'd all be in the libertarian's idea of heaven in three shakes of a lamb's tail.

voted collies, btw

I like the idea of America being overrun with a flood of immigrants just due to the right-wing head explosion

the EU does not have "open" borders, but there is a basic level of freedom of movement insofar as EU citizens have the right to work in any country in the EU. note this has had absolutely zero effect on the national identities or borders of the countries in question.

it does seem unethical to me that transnationals can move capital freely across borders (GATT, NAFTA, etc) but that human beings are denied that freedom.

'the president wants Congress to approve “fast-track procedures” to deport unaccompanied children'

charming

it's better to deport them than keep them in concentration camps

if only those weren't the only 2 options

No borders obv. 'Nations' and their borders are an ancient social, political construct we need to get rid of ASAP. (And yes, that is coming from someone enjoying watching the World Cup with nations fighting each other, but seriously, nations, countries, suck ass)

borders as a definite delineation of where some laws start and others stop are prob fairly significant things I'd imagine, in the absence of agreeing that shit in advance best have them just yet imo

Well there is that, yes

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

open em UP

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

open borders /= no borders, this is a weird poll

You do know that open borders means that http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a233/MechCat/Terrierist.jpgs have a better chance of getting into this country.

open borders /= no borders, this is a weird poll

― ogmor, Monday, July 14, 2014 7:16 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://openborders.info/open-borders-manifesto/

Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should respect and protect unless justified by extenuating circumstances. This extends to movement across international boundaries.
International law and many domestic laws already recognise the right of any individual to leave his or her country. This right may only be circumscribed in extreme circumstances, where threats to public safety or order are imminent.

We believe international and domestic law should similarly extend such protections to individuals seeking to enter another country. Although there may be times when governments should treat foreign nationals differently from domestic citizens, freedom of movement and residence are fundamental rights that should only be circumscribed when the situation absolutely warrants.

The border enforcement status quo is both morally unconscionable and economically destructive. Border controls predominantly restrict the movement of people who bear no ill intentions. Most of the people legally barred from moving across international borders today are fleeing persecution or poverty, desire a better job or home, or simply want to see the city lights.

The border status quo bars ordinary people from pursuing the life and opportunity they desire, not because they lack merit or because they pose a danger to others. Billions of people are legally barred from realising their full potential and ambitions purely on the basis of an accident of birth: where they were born. This is both a drain on the economic and innovative potential of human societies across the world, and indefensible in any order that recognises the moral worth and dignity of every human being.

We seek legal and policy reforms that will reduce and eventually remove these bars to movement for billions of ordinary people around the world. The economic toll of the modern restrictive border regime is vast, the human toll incalculable. To end this, we do not need a philosopher’s utopia or a world government. As citizens and human beings, we only demand accountability from our own governments for the senseless immigration laws that they enact in our name. Border controls should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health and security. International borders should be open for all to cross, in both directions.

they just want to see the city lights - how can you deny them that?

http://openborders.info/blog/open-borders-hive-mind-hypothesis/

this will never happen even though it's a good idea because left-wing people in rich countries wouldn't allow the strain it would put on domestic welfare states (basically making them unaffordable) and right-wing people already hate the sliver of immigrants they've already let in for taking their jobs or whatever. props to the libertarians who keep pushing it though.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-explodes-a-right-wing-myth-open-borders-no-thats-a-koch-brothers-proposal/

even sweden!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/world/europe/sweden-denmark-border-check-migrants.html

is there no country on earth fully committed to the open borders ideal?

oh god those sanders quotes :-(

that kind of thinking is a bit part of what has made me disillusioned with The Left in the past year or so. economics aside (large credible empirical literature showing immigration is good for everyone), it's not even morally coherent coming from the very people who purport to care the most about the poor! bernie's position is basically "i care about poor people, but only the ones who will get me elected" which is cynical but understandable; he's a politician, he only gets the job if he gets elected. but that kind of thinking, that we are playing some zero-sum game against poor people in the rest of the world, is depressingly common among people who don't even have skin in the game.

so does schengen survive 2016?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/end-of-schengen-would-destroy-euro-warns-eus-juncker-1452870027

schengen watch: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/greece-warned-control-borders-schengen-european-commission

Deporter-in-Chief Obama back at it

The Obama administration is planning another series of raids that would lead to the deportation of Central American mothers and children found to have entered the country illegally, the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday.

The news drew protests from several members of Congress and both Democratic presidential candidates.

The raids will target adults and children who crossed the border illegally after Jan. 1, 2014, a population of immigrants that the Obama administration has identified as priorities for deportation, according to Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-immigration-raids-20160512-snap-story.html

are we talking about this beinart article elsewhere? feel like it would be controversial in these parts:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/caplannaik.pdf

libertarians say the darnedest things

Historically, arbitrary lines permitting order under Westphalian sovereignty. In the near future, circuit breakers against domino-like civil collapse. If progressives don't enforce them, fascists will.

Should be: If progressives don't enforce them with humanity, fascists will without.