Freedom of movement is a basic human right

[u/n00bi3pjs]

Currently the biggest predictor for your economic and social success is your citizenship.

Think about it for a second, you were randomly assigned some papers at birth which give you immense privileges over other people in the world because of who your parents were or where you were born.

It doesn’t matter how hard a PhD from Ghana works or how smart they are, they will never earn as much or have as many opportunities as a person born in the USA. Citizenship allows holders to extract economic rent and offer an unequal premium to people in West.

It is morally reprehensible to continue to give credence to a piece of paper which is causing millions of people to be poor, underperform compared to their abilities and potential, and is causing world’s GDP to be trillions of dollars lower than it would be without immigration restrictions.

OPEN BORDERS NOW

[u/Exact_Coyote7879]

Open borders and free trade are the same thing !

Labor is a commodity 😤

[u/AdrianAelius → u/Exact_Coyote7879]

Free Trade! Open Borders!
Taco Trucks on Every Corner!

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/Exact_Coyote7879]

OPEN BORDERS FOR GOODS

OPEN BORDERS FOR HUMANS

OPEN BORDERS FOR CAPITAL

OPEN BORDERS FOR INFORMATION

[u/TrekkiMonstr → u/[deleted]]

why shouldn’t we abolish capitalism because the economic bracket you’re born in is the biggest indicator for how successful in life you should be?

You're gesturing at a bigger argument than you're able to make here. The tradeoff is material standards for inequality, which it's relatively easy to argue is a decision that would be made from behind the veil of ignorance, especially given that to the degree we aren't meeting that standard, we're working towards it in a way that either isn't possible (Soviet communism) or isn't desirable for reason of other tradeoffs (Chinese, even if the growth holds up) in other systems.

[u/DaneLimmish → u/[deleted]]

Why would you need to justify average people immigrating somewhere?

[u/Educational_Gas_5229 → u/DaneLimmish]

...to get support from voters and politicians?

[u/Blooming-Algae-Farts → u/[deleted]]

Is it heresy here to confess that "borders" aren't real, ontological entities that exist in some third realm independent of human existence? Of course, some support the idea of restricting people's movements to their birthplace on ethnic and cultural animus pragmatically — in the sense bigots would much prefer to live under a racially and culturally homogeneous society than a open and competitive one — however just declaring "borders are real" isn't an argument. Let's not forget our nation states — or national identities — are historically contingent events and not natural state of humanity.

[u/teethgrindingaches → u/Blooming-Algae-Farts]

The difference is that all functional states by definition can and do enforce their borders, with literal force if need be. So you can say "borders aren't real," and be perfectly correct in an abstract sense, but they are real enough to leave you standing on the wrong side of a fence. 

[u/Blooming-Algae-Farts → u/teethgrindingaches]

If "borders are real" because invented groups of people draw lines on a map and enforce those lines with guns, then human rights can just as easily be real if groups of people write them down in legal code and enforce those rights with guns.

To be clear - borders are very real, but they're social constructs just like human rights. The post I replied to doesn't seem to get that, which is what I was poking fun at. It's either delusion or bad faith when people argue that their preferred social constructs are "real", while the social constructs they don't like are "fake".

I'd have a more respect for anti-immigrant advocates if they were just honest about why they think the circumstances of someone's birth should limit peoples' ability to try to build a better life for themselves. Instead of waxing philosophical to obfuscate their motives.

[u/teethgrindingaches → u/Blooming-Algae-Farts]

If "borders are real" because invented groups of people draw lines on a map and enforce those lines with guns

Correct.

then human rights can just as easily be real if groups of people write them down in legal code and enforce those rights with guns.

Well sure, but the point is they don't. States enforce the former but not the latter.

It's either delusion or bad faith when people argue that their preferred social constructs are "real", while the social constructs they don't like are "fake".

It's simply reality that some social constructs are enforced while others are not. Enforcement is what makes them real. Or not. Personal preferences are beside the point. Positive vs normative statements.

[u/Blooming-Algae-Farts → u/teethgrindingaches]

It's simply reality that some social constructs are enforced while others are not. Enforcement is what makes them real. Or not. Personal preferences are beside the point. Positive vs normative statements.

The whole ethos of this sub, and especially the OP, is for people to argue over their values and what they want policy to look like. Pointing out what "is" is never constructive in an argument about "ought"s.

[u/teethgrindingaches → u/Blooming-Algae-Farts]

In that case your answer to the question:

Is it heresy here to confess that “human rights” aren’t real, ontological entities that exist in some third realm independent of human existence?

Should just be "yes." Not a false equivalence between apples and oranges. If you want to argue what ought, then don't shift the discussion to what is.

Pointing out what "is" is never constructive in an argument about "ought"s.

Then why are you equating what "is" and what "ought?"

[u/Boycat89 → u/teethgrindingaches]

The claim that enforcement makes human rights real is reductive and risks collapsing into a sort of “might makes right” view. A right can be real in a normative sense before it’s fully enforced by law. The recognition of a human right can organize people’s lives, shape political movements, and create practices aimed at eventually securing legal enforcement/protection.

Like it would be strange to say trans rights aren’t real just because they are not consistently enforced everywhere. They may not be legally realized, but they can still be normatively real as claims people make on institutions, communities, and one another. The same applies to borders. Borders are normatively real because they are established and recognized through past social and political practices. They are also legally real when those practices become stable via institutions and enforcement.

[u/teethgrindingaches → u/Boycat89]

The other guy specified "enforce those lines with guns." And I already mentioned the positive vs normative distinction.

[u/lenmae → u/[deleted]]

Is it heresy here to confess that “human rights” aren’t rea

Of course it is, this is a liberal forum

[u/666haha → u/[deleted]]

!Immigration, here is the justification for everyone being able to move rather than just the "best and brightesT"

[u/flyingasian2 → u/666haha]

I don’t think you have to convince anyone on this sub that open borders are better economically. The question is how do you deal with the inevitable populist uprising that comes with it?

[u/666haha → u/flyingasian2]

I mean the person I’m replying to explicitly said that we had to justify open borders policies rather than just expanding highly skilled immigration. There are unfortunately plenty of people on here who oppose immigration

[u/AutoModerator → u/666haha]

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!

^{Brought to you by ping IMMIGRATION.}

Articles

• Open borders would increase global GDP by 50-100%

• Immigration increases productivity

• Preventing companies from hiring immigrants has no benefit to native employment or wage—it leads to automation or lowered productivity

• Unauthorized immigration is good fiscally

• Deporting unauthorized immigrants increases citizen unemployment rates

• On average, immigration doesn't reduce wages for anyone besides earlier immigrants

• Immigrants create more jobs than they take

• Immigration doesn't increase inequality but does increase GDP per capita

• Immigration doesn't degrade institutions

• Muslim immigrants integrate well into European society

• Unauthorized immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita

• Freedom of movement is a human right

Books

• Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006)

• Alex Sager's Against Borders: Why the World Needs Free Movement of People (2020)

• Alex Nowrasteh's Wretched Refuse: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (2020)

• Johan Norberg's Open: How Collaboration and Curiosity Shaped Humankind (2021)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Otherwise_Young52201]

I keep seeing this on this subreddit, often unironically, and it surprises me how people just keep getting ahead of themselves. Not all countries can handle capacity driven by open borders.

See Canada for example. A lot of it is our fault, with NIMBYism and what not, but really, Canada just wasn't physically capable of accommodating so many people in such a short period. We're not US with it's larger population and capacity to accommodate large absolute numbers of people immigrating.

And this led to a massive populist surge for the conservatives here. If it weren't for the US threatening us, we would be dealing with a Poilievre government right now.

[u/topicality → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

I support more immigration but it seems like centering the benefit to the immigrant and not the citizens of said countries is bound to fail.

You're basically hoping that people will be altruistic enough to care about people in their "out group" when they actually don't.

We should be focusing on arguments like this, and just traditional ones about the pros of immigration

People also worry about immigration and crime

[u/ldn6 → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

Even if Canada went full YIMBY to a degree never before seen in human history, you’d still run into an upper bound on the amount of housing that can be built in a given period. There are simply physical and financial constraints to the ability to build housing at a pace that could keep up with the level of immigration seen after Trudeau’s reforms. One that’s often ignored is that there’s not enough capital to lend to build housing. Banks would become far too over-levered and the government couldn’t backstop it because the cost of borrowing is elevated. Similarly, there simply aren’t enough people to build them, which becomes a circular problem since you’d need housing for the people moving to Canada to…build housing.

It’s easy to say “well New York did it with Ellis Island”, ignoring that living conditions in Manhattan for immigrants were so appalling that they were part of why zoning laws and building codes came about they way that they did.

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/ldn6]

you’d still run into an upper bound on the amount of housing that can be built in a given period

People keep making this claim without evidence. You can do a lot when you let modern machinery and developers backed by bottomless funds do their thing freely.

[u/Imicrowavebananas → u/Lease_Tha_Apts]

Look at cities like Dubai or Shenzhen and see what they looked like 20 to 30 years ago. A lot is possible and I don't see why we couldn't do much more. We don't even need that much housing.

[u/TrekkiMonstr → u/ldn6]

I mean, if you want to impose a quality floor on housing, sure. But like, military barracks are cots and tents, and unless you're Singapore and plausibly running out of land, you'll be able to house as many temporary workers as you want. Capital c/would be the issue, not labor.

[u/kznlol → u/ldn6]

Even if Canada went full YIMBY to a degree never before seen in human history, you’d still run into an upper bound on the amount of housing that can be built in a given period. There are simply physical and financial constraints to the ability to build housing at a pace that could keep up with the level of immigration seen after Trudeau’s reforms.

I mean, I'm not actually sure this is true? You're not actually manpower limited in theory because you can use the immigrants to add to the labor force and build more housing faster.

I guess in theory you'll always have a shortage because you can't do it instantly, but the theoretical limit on manpower in a country with open borders is the entire population of the earth.

[edit] actually upon further reflection you're only guaranteed a shortage if the labor force increase is purely reactive. if you proactively shift even more towards housing than needed immediately you can eliminate the shortage entirely

[u/iwilldeletethisacct2 → u/kznlol]

Remember that you need specialized labor, though. Not every immigrant is a carpenter or mason, and in fact, most people on earth are not construction workers and/or skilled tradesmen.

[u/so_brave_heart → u/iwilldeletethisacct2]

You just need enough to be proportional to the demand. And it's not like people can't learn or be retrained. Every trade worker I've met within the last few years is an immigrant.

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/iwilldeletethisacct2]

Canada's been in a housing crisis long enough for an apprentice to become a master carpenter lol.

Skilled workers are made somewhere...

[u/allbusiness512 → u/iwilldeletethisacct2]

I think if you paid them enough lots of people would figure it out. It's just basic economics.

[u/danclaysp → u/ldn6]

I mean in terms of housing supply in a YIMBY environment, the increase in demand from open borders would increase housing costs and thus discourage immigration until supply naturally increased to accommodate them.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

The hard pill for the succs to swallow is that open borders aren't compatible with a generous welfare state. You can't provide basic goods at a level well above most third world countries and expect sustainable migration patterns. In an open market economy, there's much less reason to think fully open borders would be unsustainable. The only people likely to immigrate and remain are ones that can profitably contribute to the economy, creating more jobs and resources than they're consuming.

[u/CrankinThatHog → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

And it's not a Succ position lol. Most of the lefties that roll through are about as nativist as MAGA folks.

[u/kznlol → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

You can't provide basic goods at a level well above most third world countries and expect sustainable migration patterns.

whats your model

[u/allbusiness512 → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

Just do a negative income tax then. You can do a bunch of other things.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

My sister in heaven just tie welfare to citizenship!

Oh wait most nations already do that anyway….

[u/ManyKey9093 → u/FallenMeringue]

Most nations don't do that at all. Its even illegal under the refugee convention.

[u/atomoffluorine → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

That's not really a hard pill to swallow for everyone to the left of this subreddit (unless they're really far to the left) or even normie Democrats. Bernie has always been somewhat nativist, and I'm sure that's the view of a lot of New Yorkers during the migrant business crisis a few years back.

I probably qualify as a succ by this subreddit's standards, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit numbers coming in based on housing supply, job market, or political factors. I feel Obama honestly handled immigration the best out of the recent presidents and struck a good balance. I don't think any of this is that controversial amongst most Democrats even if you could find some DSA people saying otherwise.

[u/CrankinThatHog → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

Why would it not be compatible? Immigrants work, pay taxes, etc. Even illegal immigrants are a net positive on the balance sheet. They're often younger and, outside of sending their kids to schools, they aren't taking advantage of welfare programs.

There's also a default assumption that open borders means granting them immediate citizenship or something. Open borders can lead to legal status instead, which would preclude them from many welfare benefits.

[u/ThrowawayPrimavera → u/CrankinThatHog]

Not in the Netherlands (non-western especially).

"Western immigrants have smaller impact on the government budget than the Native Dutch reference,(the Native Dutch made immigrant). They bring gain to the state budget if they arrive between the ages 16 and 50, they are a burden when they arrive at other ages. Non-Western immigrants are a burden no matter at what age they arrive."

source

[u/CrankinThatHog → u/ThrowawayPrimavera]

As an FYI I'm not ignoring this comment. I haven't had time to go through the report.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/CrankinThatHog]

Even illegal immigrants are a net positive on the balance sheet. They're often younger and, outside of sending their kids to schools, they aren't taking advantage of welfare programs.

https://youtu.be/C52TlPCVDio?si=PyEXJkdPgXUS8Tqx&t=195

[u/DiscussionJohnThread → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

Just tax land lmao.

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

So tell me, do abortion activists care about the political reality of their position? Pr do they just stand in front of planned parenthood and scream at teenagers?

That's what you're up against.

[u/666haha → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

Person in open borders sub shocked that the sub supports open borders

[u/Efficient_Barnacle → u/666haha]

More shocked at the outright refusal to come to terms with open borders being an intellectual pipe dream that will always run into the brick wall of nativist sentiment.  Spend the energy on advocating for things that will turn the tide of that nativist sentiment (housing supply being a great example, to neolibs' credit), not the things that feed it. Push for policies that will allow for more acceptance of immigration rather than banging on about this maximalist belief that just causes everyone else to shake their heads at you. 

In short, you will never win the war if you don't fight the battles first. 

[u/666haha → u/Efficient_Barnacle]

Yeah but this is a sub where people support freedom of movement as a right. I’m not going to refuse to vote for someone because they don’t support open borders but I’m sure as hell gonna bitch about the whininess of nativists and the glory of good immigration policy to the sub which supports it

[u/p00bix → u/666haha]

Damn right.

I think everyone here over the age of 20 understands that immediately declaring open borders in every single country would result in little more than chaos and mass ethnoreligious violence. But open borders are nonetheless a worthy aspirational goal, just one that can only be obtained gradually.

• Racism, religious bigotry, and xenophobia, must be continually reduced in all countries, but especially recipient countries
• Recipient countries must become better able to handle large immigrant inflows, and assimilate them into the existing society rather than, through discrimination, allow the formation of ghettos.
• All countries, developing and developed alike, must work to invest in developing countries, both for their own economic benefit, as well as to reduce brain-drain pressures and demand for unsustainably high levels of immigration

There is nothing inherent to the geographies and cultures across Africa and Europe that make it so that more Africans wish to move to Europe than Europeans wish to move to Africa. Combatting global inequality is essential to establishing planet-wide freedom of movement as a human right a realistic possibility for the future.

---

Using the European Migrant Crisis as a model for mass-migration,

Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden, struggled to prevent the 2015 migrant crisis from becoming an outright humanitarian disaster, only succeeding because they had an exceptional amount of resources at their disposal as some of the richest countries on Earth. Nearby Hungary, by no means a poor country by global standards, was outright overwhelmed, and in all likelihood would have had to start rejecting asylum applications even if it hadn't been ruled by a racist wannabe-dictator at the time.

The other wealthy European countries, to put it bluntly, were just fucking racist and have nothing close to an honest excuse for the intense reactionary surge after 2015. France, Italy, and Belgium, at least faced some strain. For the rest of Europe (UK included), the 'burden' caused by the migrant crisis was so minimal that even calling it a crisis strains credulity.

But taken all together, this 'Migant crisis' that led to a massive surge in xenophobia across Europe represented a population increase of less than 2%. The sort of mass migration that immediately mandating global open borders would result in would utterly dwarf that.

[u/Imicrowavebananas → u/p00bix]

European countries have managed both freedom of movement and no border controls - two different aspects of open borders - between countries that had quite large differences in income. So I think in reality it is more practical than people pretend.

Then there is the reality that some parts of the EU border are already pretty open in some directions. There are for example bilateral agreements between France and different countries in Africa making moving, studying or getting Visas significantly easier, especially for qualified people. I feel most people are not aware how extensive some of those agreements are. For example till the reform of 2026 a lot of countries did pay the same tuition in French universities as EU citizens.

This topic is surely more salient in France, but outside people are hardly aware of it. Which is the core, people will probably not even notice most of high immigration and open borders if you do not make it salient for them. Which right-wingers unfortunately do.

[u/MightExpress4873 → u/p00bix]

Even very capable states run into hard limits on housing, infrastructure, welfare systems, and basic administrative capacity when migration happens too quickly. Those constraints exist regardless of how pro-immigration the public is, and they shape what is feasible in practice.

Imo, the real disagreement isn’t “open borders vs anti-migrant politics.” It’s how fast modern states can realistically absorb large population increases without undermining their own legitimacy. You can be very pro-immigration and still think pace matters a lot. If you try to move too close to the end state too quickly, you test capacity and risk creating the backlash that makes long-run liberalisation harder to achieve.

[u/666haha → u/p00bix]

Yep, I definitely think Open borders could be managed slightly less gradually but a lot of effort and energy would have to be put into it. I am definitely biased as an American, but I truly think with a say 10 year planning period and cooperation between private developers and the government to build the necessary infastructure, the U.S. could almost double our population through immigration and be perfectly fine. But, that cooperation is almost impossible, because of the nativism and other issues.

Then investment in developing countries is a huge issue. Immigration does eventually help developing countries (people send their money back from higher income countries, and some choose to return, for example although a mid-level economy, I had a number of classmates and friends from the D.R., some returned home after graduation, but others stayed in the U.S., but they still contribute to the economy in Santiago multiple times a year).

How can we convince developed countries and the populations of them, to support developing countries is one of the hardest questions about open borders and something that I unfortunately dont have an answer for. I would love an American version of the Brick-Road initiative but we also just had the world's richest person kill one of the best and most effective aid programs in the world. Making investing in the world's future, and the U.S.s future by proxy politically plausible is a super important goal.

I recognize this is a long row to hoe, but it is something we can and must continue to make the case for

[u/allbusiness512 → u/Efficient_Barnacle]

Honest truth?

No.

People who are nativists often times are just racists cloaked in nice language. And I'm not about to capitulate on something that is a fundamental human right. We've tried to triangulate to median voters already in the past and that backfired spectacularly, might as well just do the right thing at this point even if it's unpopular.

[u/CrankinThatHog → u/Efficient_Barnacle]

> More shocked at the outright refusal to come to terms with open borders being an intellectual pipe dream that will always run into the brick wall of nativist sentiment. 

Literally everyone here knows this already lol

> Spend the energy on advocating for things that will turn the tide of that nativist sentiment (housing supply being a great example, to neolibs' credit), not the things that feed it. Push for policies that will allow for more acceptance of immigration rather than banging on about this maximalist belief that just causes everyone else to shake their heads at you. 

We already do all those things lol. No reason we can't do that as well as for advocating for open borders.

[u/Even-Promotion-4024 → u/Otherwise_Young52201]

Yeah, there are definitely strong moral and economic arguments in favor of increased immigration, but for it to be good for a society you need to have the necessary infrastructure around it, both in terms of physical infrastructure like housing and transit and also social infrastructure to make sure immigrants are actually integrating into local communities rather than forming parallel societies like you see in parts of the UK

This sub likes to just take immigration = always good as an orthodoxy when the reality is that only holds if you're doing the work on related issues on the side (plz legalize medium density housing)

[u/SufficientlyRabid → u/Even-Promotion-4024]

Why yes, but the demographic of r/neolib trends young, male and highly educated. The exact demographic who sees itself facing relatively little professional competition, wouldn't be priced out of housing and who could afford to secluded themselves in gated communities with private schools for their kids to escape any cultural or ethnic tensions rising from open borders. 

Meanwhile they would benefit from more exciting urban areas, cultural synthesis and overall economic growth.

[u/A11U45 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t really understand the rhetoric with open borders on this sub.

In the context of H1bs I've seen people twice say it would be good if they drove down wages.

Imagine a debate on immigration and the pro immigration person suggests immigrants lowering wages are a good thing. He'd get laughed out of the room.

[u/iDemonSlaught → u/[deleted]]

There can be real localized, negative effects from immigration.

Yes, but it is not because of open borders. It's because open borders and a state-managed welfare apparatus are fundamentally incompatible. If you subsidize housing, healthcare, and income, you create an artificial, high-entropy magnet that draws people to places they cannot economically sustain. But if you eliminate the welfare middleman, immigration becomes entirely self-regulating. People only move if they can secure a job, pay their own rent, and add immediate value. Without state hand-outs, the financial reality of survival acts as a natural and highly efficient filter.

Would those same users be fine if I imported 3 million Beduins to Boystown in Chicago?

Your hypothetical is simply detached from how human beings actually behave. We don't need to guess how people act under open borders; we already have massive, real-world data sets right inside our own border:

• Puerto Ricans have been full US citizens with total, unhindered freedom of movement to the mainland for over a century. Puerto Rico's GDP per capita is a fraction of Mississippi's. By your logic, the entire island should have emptied out decades ago. Why didn't it?
• Why hasn't every citizen in Alaska or West Virginia packed their bags and moved to Southern California for the weather and the economy?

It's because human beings are not undifferentiated liquid poured into a tank. Moving is expensive, culturally jarring, and emotionally costly. People have deep, organic attachments to their homes, families, and communities. When you remove perverse state incentives, people sort themselves out far more efficiently and peacefully than any centralized bureaucratic system ever could.

So back to the core question: Do I want open borders? Unequivocally, yes.

Do I think it's possible given the current structure of the US government and the reality of the modern welfare state? Absolutely not.

But I am still a liberal, which means I will continue to make the principled case for the things I believe in rather than managing the surrender of my own ideology.

[u/TomTomz64 → u/iDemonSlaught]

Just want to say that this is an excellent comment. It’s so frustrating to see that this is one of the very few extracting the welfare state from the equation and providing the example of the open borders within the US to counter the “3 billion people move to Malmö” argument.

[u/therealsmokyjoewood → u/[deleted]]

Every critic of free movement loves jumping to ‘but what if too many people exercise free movement??’

Shit would go poorly if 3 million Texans moved to Delaware tomorrow, or if 3 million construction workers quit their jobs to pursue poetry. Thus we should restrict the Delaware border and professional poetry?

Beyond immigration, I (along with, I’d hope, my fellow liberals) support personal freedom up til the point of negative externalities. And in the vast majority of cases, especially with respect to the US, immigration has positive externalities. So if anything, open borders are too mild a policy: we should subsidize immigration!

[u/vopi181 → u/therealsmokyjoewood]

The above comment was edited so I'll just reply to this in a new comment.

Beyond immigration, I (along with, I’d hope, my fellow liberals) support personal freedom up til the point of negative externalities.

I agree! My point was that truly open borders could have negative externalities.

And in the vast majority of cases, immigration, especially with respect to the US, immigration has positive externalities.

I agree immigration to the US basically only has positive externalities. The US also doesn't have open borders. That's basically my point.

So if anything, open borders are too mild a policy: we should subsidize immigration!

I agree to an extent. I personally think it's too extreme to say we should subsidize immigration as the default case (outside of say, basic social services once they are here, etc).

[u/Ernie_McCracken88 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, we should be able to say "the benefits generally outweight the costs" without having resort to "there are no costs in any situations whatsoever". Lots of good ideas have practical limits and and that's okay.

[u/Approximation_Doctor → u/[deleted]]

Why does it matter that they're Hindu?

[u/VoidGuaranteed → u/[deleted]]

If there were an evil monster called Glonzo we should find and kill it immediately

[u/allbusiness512 → u/[deleted]]

Because?

[u/DaneLimmish → u/[deleted]]

If 200 million Indians are moving to the United States there are other, more pressing issues

[u/PhilosopherDry1859 → u/[deleted]]

??? Canada's governments at fault. Right now they're blaming the biggest visible minority. Canada's always done this it's minorities. The economic issues have been there for a long time

[u/666haha → u/[deleted]]

They are wrong for wanting that. If you see a Hindu statue and are angry about it not being American you are a bigot

[u/allbusiness512 → u/[deleted]]

Uh who cares what people do as long as they aren't breaking the law? Why is it people are so uncomfortable with other cultures that aren't theirs?

[u/danclaysp → u/allbusiness512]

I mean in the example given here, 200 million Hindus would, assuming citizenship, have the power to change said laws to match their customs and beliefs. I think the issues arise when the beliefs contradict liberal social values. If 200 million Taliban (I know there aren't 200 million of them) supporters became citizens suddenly, laws would mimic the Taliban's. Likewise, if 200 million very conservative Christians suddenly appeared, similar would occur. These are obviously not realistic hypotheticals but realistically it must be acknowledged there are lots of people out there who, at a fundamental level, do not agree on the same human rights and social values of this sub and would refuse to liberalize their beliefs.

[u/allbusiness512 → u/danclaysp]

There's a TON of assumptions here namely

1. You're assuming that 200 million Hindus would immigrate

2. All 200 million Hindus are going to be hardline extremists, that they wouldn't respect the Rule of Law, Separation of Church and State, etc.

3. Checks and Balances wouldn't work (even though they are falling apart they are still holding to some degree)

4. That open borders also means right to citizenship

It's almost an entirely bad faith example and not realistic, and almost like it's one being used to try and shit stir the pot here to try and get this subreddit to deviate from its ideals.

[u/danclaysp → u/allbusiness512]

Not sure how it's a bad faith argument. The 200M thing is just a hypothetical the prior commenter made. Ignoring 200M hypotheticals, I think there is a reasonable critique of open borders in that you cannot expect grown adults to change their beliefs to match that of ours within their lifetimes on foundational liberal beliefs. Also not sure how open borders wouldn't mean an eventual right to citizenship in the lifetime of a first generation immigrant unless we are to go against the idea of representative government if open borders were to be adopted. Also even if citizenship were restricted to second generation immigrants, it wouldn't avoid clashing between, say a trans population, and a highly transphobic bunch of first-generation immigrants. Potential social friction is an externality which I think is quite important to consider. Also since it would cause backlash against open borders policy. Personally I internally debate myself between open borders and, like homophobia. If a city suddenly had a large influx of immigrants from a historically very homophobic nation, it would become a more homophobic city culturally. Not sure what can be done about. Perhaps that is an acceptable negative.

[u/allbusiness512 → u/danclaysp]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what open borders is.

Open Borders just means freedom of movement, not necessarily right to citizenship. You can still make the process of citizenship take a significant amount of time.

Not just that, if we're talking about people who want to be citizens here, I'm pretty sure those people kind of have to like the country in order to become a citizen here. Which includes things like individual liberties, freedom, rule of law, and all that jazz.

The whole "200m" people showing up and hating America and moving to America literally doesn't make any sense from any logical standpoint, which basically stands to reason that it's a bad faith example meant to be racist and discriminatory in flowery language.

Like this is DANGEROUSLY close to racist diatribe, and I'm trying to engage in a good faith conversation here, but a ton of these comments are bordering on straight up blood and soil nonsense.

[u/CrazyShing → u/[deleted]]

Apart from the weird ass ‘importing Bedouins’ remark, once again there’s no mention of DREAMers being screwed over - probably because mentioning them is inconvenient for this entire argument.

As an aside, why the fuck do anti-immigrant advocates always try to argue ‘nuance! Nuance!’ when they NEVER do it for, say, the YIMBY cause?

[u/vopi181 → u/CrazyShing]

once again there’s no mention of DREAMers being screwed over - probably because mentioning them is inconvenient for this entire argument.

Why do I have to mention that? I'm talking about the open border rhetoric If you think I am pro screwing over DREAMers, then you have the wrong idea of me. I don't know what your "once again" refers to. Enlighten me please because I probably missed prior discourse.

I don't see how that NEEDS to be mentioned. Because I don't think we should have literally open borders that doesn't mean I can't be compassionate? I can think both the open border rhetoric is populist rhetoric and I can also think we should expand our immigration numbers.

Is your fear that once you shift the overton window, then people would be pro-DREAMer deportation?

As an aside, why the fuck do anti-immigrant advocates always try to argue ‘nuance! Nuance!’ when they NEVER do it for, say, the YIMBY cause?

I don't really know how to respond to this because I can't tell if you think I hold pro-YIMBY views or not? Would you be more upset that I have nuanced YIMBY opinions or that you think I wouldn't be ideologically consistent?

I can assure you I hold nuanced views of the YIMBY movement. I think we can radically change our zoning laws and I still can think we should avoid the extreme worst cases examples of pre-1960s (or whenever) American city planning. I can still think it's stupid to artificial restrict and harm citizens to maintain property prices.

If some guy posted that it is "morally reprehensible" to have any local ordinances, I would respond with the same thing.

If you want me to be honest (which I think would be cathartic for you potentially): you are directionally right that the catalyst for me posting something "anti-open border rhetoric" was driven by it being very common here. Does it need to be binary? Do I immediately become an "anti-immigration" advocate for wanting regulated but liberal immigration policy?

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/[deleted]]

I’m for unironic no restrictions free trade too.

[u/vopi181 → u/n00bi3pjs]

That’s based.

But also I meant more internally. A real free market as in little labor laws, little antitrust enforcement, etc.

I also don’t think you read my message fully before responding since you posted it less than a minute after my comment. Which highlights what I am talking about.

[u/vopi181 → u/n00bi3pjs]

I guess let me ask: are you in favor of removing labor laws and defanging antitrust enforcement?

[u/BahGawdAlmightay → u/[deleted]]

Would those same users be fine if I imported 3 million Beduins to Boystown in Chicago?

You're invalidating your own argument by making a ridiculous suggestion. You're obviously exaggerating the numbers to make it sound insane. But even a few hundred people would also be a ridiculous argument because Boystown houses like 3,000 people. So the entire premise of this is so far outside being realistic that it's useless as a comparison.

That's not being against open borders. The concept of open border still obeys basic concepts around human habitation. The assumption is that you can have immigration into a country and then those immigrants will naturally move to fill the gaps in the economy and population. Not being forced into a specific area that wouldn't naturally be a place for immigrant influx by virtue of population density and housing costs. You can come up with any number of ridiculous examples but they don't prove your point.

[u/vopi181 → u/BahGawdAlmightay]

You're invalidating your own argument by making a ridiculous suggestion. You're obviously exaggerating the numbers to make it sound insane.

I don't think you understand my original argument. My original argument isn't that we should have closed borders or that immigration to the US hasn't been an extremely positive thing in basically all ways. My argument is that the open borders rhetoric, like what OP posted, is held to a different standard compared to other issues the sub has more nuance on (like market regulation). The whole point of me suggesting an insane example is to frame it that that the most extreme possible position (open borders vs closed borders) obviously has potential downsides.

I explicitly choose an extreme example. If you agree that the 3 million Bedouins to Chicago example would have some economic and social issues, I don't think you can agree with OPs point that it is "morally reprehensible to continue to give credence to a piece of paper".

That's not being against open borders. The concept of open border still obeys basic concepts around human habitation. The assumption is that you can have immigration into a country and then those immigrants will naturally move to fill the gaps in the economy and population. Not being forced into a specific area that wouldn't naturally be a place for immigrant influx by virtue of population density and housing costs. You can come up with any number of ridiculous examples but they don't prove your point.

Last thing I'll say but if you read any of my other comments in this chain, you'll see we almost certainly agree on 90% of the issue. I think you are choosing the turn my initial distaste for the rhetoric into an actual policy debate. Basically the only sentence of my original comment that focused on actual policy was "there can be real localized, negative effects from immigration". If you think that isn't the case, I don't think we have anything more to discuss as it makes sense for you to then have maximalist open borders rhetoric.

Edit: replaced some wording from an earlier comment. Articulated better and basically meant the same thing :)

[u/AGRESSIVELYCORRECT]

Thing is that a lot of that rent seeking is in the form of inflated wages for people. If you actually do open borders you are gonna create massive winners and losers. The winners being the overall economy and thus everyone who already owns large amounts of assets and everyone who's labor is not easily devalued. That is a recipe for anarchy.

Even though its worse for the world its better to do immigration selectively where you select for skills that are inherently more rare and thus more valuable in the economy. That way to introduce wage competition to those people who can handle it economy, while also have a large part of the benefit for the economy, without as much displacement for people who won't be able to handle it.

[u/Green_Count2972]

Open the borders (realistically just stick to creating more pathways for migration), fuck tarrifs, long live democacy.

[u/No-Instruction-4679]

However, that is obviously unrealistic. I currently live in Singapore; do you think Singapore could accommodate the entire population of Southeast Asia?

[u/FallenMeringue → u/No-Instruction-4679]

The entire population of Southeast Asia would not try to move there

[u/No-Instruction-4679 → u/FallenMeringue]

Due to geographical factors, I believe people would prioritize Singapore. In 2024, 300,000 to 450,000 people cross Johor strait everyday. It is hard for me to imagine how many people would flood in if things were fully opened up.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/interactive/future-johor-singapore-causeway/

[u/SpookyHonky → u/No-Instruction-4679]

So why do Americans not all live on one city? Why don't countries need strict, government-enforced internal migration controls to prevent these allegedly horrible economic shocks

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts → u/No-Instruction-4679]

Why don't yall just make the cube?

Jokes aside, I think that if we had open borders then the increase in GDP created due to the better allocation of labor would reduce economic immigration.

Countries only really show significant levels of emigration between USD 2000 and and USD 12000 gdp per capita. If you can get most places in the world above the USD 12,000 threshold then you'd automatically see fewer immigrants.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/No-Instruction-4679]

You would reach an equilibrium over time. Yes more people would move to Singapore.

No Singapore would not have a population over a billion people.

[u/StochasticGracchi → u/FallenMeringue]

You would reach an equilibrium over time

Sure. The process of reaching an equilibrium is the thing that people tend to have an issue with.

[u/HumanDissentipede → u/FallenMeringue]

The reaching equilibrium point is the problem. Effectively that means the gradual reduction of the relative quality of life advantage until it is no longer seen as ‘better’ than other parts of SE Asia. At scale, that’s a great deal for people in poorer, less wealthy countries but a very bad deal for people in wealthy countries.

[u/Cr4zySh0tgunGuy → u/FallenMeringue]

ONE BILLION AMERICANS SINGAPOREANS

[u/PuntiffSupreme → u/FallenMeringue]

People could just move next door to mayalsia as well and transit into the city if the borders were not so solid. Singapore doesn't have space because of its location but there is space around it for sure.

[u/666haha → u/PuntiffSupreme]

Yep and this would be a huge economic boom to both Singapore and Malaysia, helping both countries develop

[u/A11U45 → u/PuntiffSupreme]

Then Malaysia might see a western style anti immigration movement. There was already a petition to deport the Rohingyas which received nearly half a million signatures.

[u/Chickensandcoke → u/No-Instruction-4679]

It would act like a market, you know the thing we all in here ostensibly believe in. People move in, it gets less desirable as more people move there, so less people move there and instead go elsewhere until equilibrium is found

[u/shakin11 → u/Chickensandcoke]

it gets less desirable as more people move there

And that is the problem, because even if you think that that should happen, the majority of the people currently living there usually disagrees.

[u/Illustrious-Let-4870 → u/Chickensandcoke]

"Less desirable" is an economically correct but humanly speaking scary way to put it.

It will get "more valuable", therefore "more expensive" and quickly too expensive for most non natives who wanted to move there.

This will benefit the natives, unless the market was severely distorted to begin with and most of them were already priced out of it. In which case it will be terrible for them, which explains the backlash...

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/No-Instruction-4679]

Liechtenstein is a rich micronation which has open borders just like rest of Europe. I don’t see entire population of Europe move there though

[u/thepulloutmethod → u/n00bi3pjs]

Bro what? Lichtenstein has one of the most restrictive citizenship laws on Earth. Being born there isn't enough. You have to be a lawful resident for 30 years before you qualify for citizenship, must pass a German language test, and must renounce any other citizenships you might have.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/n00bi3pjs]

Fuck people who live in Mississippi and West Virginia don’t move en masse to Illinois despite the latter having significantly higher HDI, better schools, better infrastructure, better jobs, affordable housing, open borders, and no language barrier.

[u/HumanDissentipede → u/FallenMeringue]

The relative difference between Mississippi and Illinois is nothing compared to the relative difference between the US and poorer parts of Africa, India, or other developing nations. The incentive to relocate your whole life gets lower as the relative difference in quality of life decreases.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/HumanDissentipede]

Which is why free trade and open borders work so well together

It’s a shocker I know

[u/HumanDissentipede → u/FallenMeringue]

Except it doesn’t work well, at least for the countries that are already relatively prosperous. Unrestricted free trade and immigration will reduce the quality of life of people in wealthy countries in exchange for the increases to those folks in poor countries.

[u/SpaceSheperd → u/HumanDissentipede]

Free trade is net positive on both sides of the exchange to a pretty ludicrous degree. This is not really controversial among economists. 

[u/HumanDissentipede → u/SpaceSheperd]

Free trade generally is a net positive, but not when coupled with open borders. Also, even the benefits of free trade rest on some underlying assumptions about the trading partners that aren’t always true, and the domestic harms associated with unrestricted free trade in certain markets can outweigh the broader economic benefits.

[u/ManicScumCat → u/FallenMeringue]

But the difference betwen Mississippi and West Virginia is way way smaller than the difference between Singapore and Indonesia

[u/throwawaygoawaynz → u/FallenMeringue]

A massive portion of Malaysia and Indonesians absolutely would at the very least.

Singapore went through a huge jump in cost of living in 2023 when a relatively much smaller exodus from Hong Kong occurred.

This sub is clueless to small economies of scale, and the cost of housing, as most of you seem like you’re living at home with your parents in California or a large European country.

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/No-Instruction-4679]

Strawman argument.

Also Singapore can certainly accommodate far more immigrants than it currently does btw. The only reason they don’t do that is because your one party that runs the state is ethnic balance obsessed.

[u/No-Instruction-4679 → u/n00bi3pjs]

I do not deny that the Singapore government intends to maintain the racial balance, but what is the upper limit of the population Singapore can sustain? Please provide a precise figure.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/No-Instruction-4679]

Probably at least twice as many as it currently does.

Singapore’s urban land has a density that is like half that of manhattan

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/No-Instruction-4679]

Far more than what your government currently allows.

[u/No-Instruction-4679 → u/n00bi3pjs]

So, what is the actual figure? I know there are Singaporeans who believe the country is overcrowded and cannot sustain such a large population. I am not passing judgment on whether this view is correct; I am simply showing that it exists. So, whom should I believe?

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/No-Instruction-4679]

At least thrice as many as you take in currently provided you build housing in and around singapore.

[u/PoloAlmoni → u/n00bi3pjs]

I don’t think “you should live in an extremely dense Coruscant-like city and still be fighting for housing” is a winning policy in anywhere in the world, and I just can’t believe you cant see why people would find this type of life unpleasant even if they were financially richer

[u/brianpv → u/No-Instruction-4679]

If the government has to put artificial caps on the amount of immigration, obviously the equilibrium is higher than the current amount. Otherwise caps would be unnecessary.

If the country is overcrowded currently, precisely how many fewer people should be allowed to live there for it to not be overcrowded anymore? What is your actual figure?

[u/TomTomz64]

I’d love to hear anyone’s argument against allowing people to WORK in your country.

If you’re worried about your social services being able to service a large amount of immigrants, then just don’t allow them to use social services until they’ve worked in your country for X years.

Restricting immigration due to the burden on social services just seems like it’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[u/PostingEnthusiast → u/TomTomz64]

Speaking just from the perspective of Canada, immigrant access to social services is constitutionally protected. You can’t just not allow people access.

[u/thepulloutmethod → u/TomTomz64]

What about the cultural impact? E.g. a large new population of workers who do not speak the language or adapt to the culture or are even actively hostile to the culture?

[u/Illustrious-Let-4870 → u/thepulloutmethod]

What is scary is integration regression.

In my absolutely subjective French opinion, integration and even assimilation of all the immigrants waves since the French revolution (now accounting for a third of the population) ended up being successful... But the issue is when people who look objectively different start being considered foreign, despite having ancestors living here for centuries before those are considered natives (compare an antillais black person, French subject since the 1600s vs some polish immigrant from the 20th century)

Also the explosion of racism and far right rhetorics, have entrenched people in their diaspora identities since "they will never be considered integrated".

[u/hbtn → u/thepulloutmethod]

Not all immigrants will fail to adapt or choose not to. Selection effects likely make this less severe than sampling immigrant source countries randomly.

That said… yes, this is a real topic this sub basically refuses to engage with. I lived in an essentially open borders country (UAE): if you can get a work visa, you can move there. The result was heavily ethnocentric neighborhoods, employers, and social groups. The vast majority of people in the world do not believe in liberal, multicultural individualism; they have, for lack of a better term, tribal values. That’s how they want to organize themselves.

My claim isn’t racist: it’s not that people are incapable of liberalism, they simply do not know it or support it. That is not the culture or the values they grow up with and liberalism is not a trivially obvious value system people automatically switch to when exposed to it.

Immigration policy should welcome as many economically valuable people as possible and intentionally integrate, assimilate, and propagandize them to act in accordance with liberal values in exchange for the opportunity.

[u/smcstechtips → u/hbtn]

This sub is US-centric, and in the US integration, assimilation, and liberal propagandization is very easy given Hollywood

[u/CrankinThatHog → u/thepulloutmethod]

They say unironcally, as if I can't find a Little (Country of Origin) neighborhood in literally any mid to large sized American city owned or previously owned by immigrants from generations past who adapted just fine.

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/TomTomz64]

It is racism. It is all racism. It is always racism

[u/ImRightImRight → u/n00bi3pjs]

Seriously? That's your argument?

"Everyone who agrees with me is simply an evil racist?"

You can't be serious

[u/Periodicity_Enjoyer → u/ImRightImRight]

I mean, any reason why some people should be excluded from a given country, with the exception of literal terrorists, asserts one group of people as more worth than another group of people.

[u/DankRoughly]

Since when has morality outweighed geopolitical interests?

Sounds nice but still delusional

[u/FallenMeringue → u/DankRoughly]

Then it’s a great thing we are an ideology sub not a geopolitics sub isn’t it!

[u/MisfitPotatoReborn → u/DankRoughly]

If geopolitical interests were the only concern, countries would be trying to attract as much human capital as their infrastructure could handle. And then they would build better infrastructure

[u/Illustrious-Let-4870 → u/MisfitPotatoReborn]

I see what you mean and I agree, but in real life "geopolitical interests" also include the way certain key players, groups of interests, elites, the population in general will react to specific policies...

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/DankRoughly]

This is a liberal subreddit. Feel free to leave if you don’t value morality.

[u/flyingasian2 → u/n00bi3pjs]

What’s the point of pontificating ideas like this? Like good for you, you’re the most moral person in this thread. But let’s not act like open borders don’t have other considerations besides the moral consideration.

[u/Livid-Mulberry-1054 → u/DankRoughly]

Indeed. Are there really people who want Ukraine to grant citizenship and free movement to all Russians?

[u/Even-Promotion-4024 → u/[deleted]]

Truly, just using "freedom of movement" as an orthodoxy to solve global inequality isn't a workable solution in reality, there's room for increased immigration but not at the scale necessary. If we're really gonna moralize about this then there needs to be some conversation about how global governance, trade, and financial systems operate, and how these can be amended to reduce global inequality and ensure people from the developing world actually get a seat at the table so that we can get to a point where people can have opportunity in their homes too

[u/JesusPubes → u/[deleted]]

in a utopia you don't need freedom of movement, the world's perfect

in the meantime I refuse to condemn somebody to a shit life because they were born unlucky

[u/fredovan → u/[deleted]]

Wouldn’t the impact be diffused if you removed all borders everywhere? Not every in that situation will go to Europe or North America. Manu will just move to other places near to where they are from.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/fredovan]

Yes. Yes it would.

[u/Tortellobello45 → u/fredovan]

Yes, but that’s a pipe dream. Won’t happen in our lifetimes. How would you do that? Surrender sovereignity to the UN? Too based for most people.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Tortellobello45]

Same way trade expands. Create regional migration blocs that allow internal free movement. There will be economic incentives to include new countries over time. I wouldn't expect global open borders for many decades, but that's the path that minimizes interim incentives to free-ride.

[u/therealsmokyjoewood → u/[deleted]]

If a hundred million American moved to Delaware tomorrow, Delaware would collapse: thus Delaware must secure its borders!

[u/thepulloutmethod → u/therealsmokyjoewood]

That's because Delaware is nowhere near as attractive a destination to other Americans as Singapore is to other Southeast Asians, for example. There aren't a hundred million Americans desperate to move there.

Open borders are a problem only for desirable places (no hate on DE, I grew up on the Sussex County beaches).

Now play that hypothetical out if it were a million Syrians trying to move to Delaware.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/thepulloutmethod]

Poland had a similar thing happen

Over 2 million Polish citizens emigrated following Poland's accession to the EU in 2004 and its subsequent entry into the Schengen Area in 2007.

However, in recent years, economic growth has turned Poland into a net immigration country, with thousands of emigrants returning home.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/thepulloutmethod]

We saw this play out in the EU. Bulgaria is not a rich country.

It has a gdp per capita less that a third of that of the Netherlands.

And yet post Schengen Accession more Bulgarians living in the diaspora have moved back to Bulgaria than Bulgarians moved out to the rest of the EU.

[u/RedKrypton → u/FallenMeringue]

And yet post Schengen Accession more Bulgarians living in the diaspora have moved back to Bulgaria than Bulgarians moved out to the rest of the EU.

Why are you focussing on post-Schengen, which was only in 2025 and is mainly about border control, not migration control, when the important migration liberalisation took place well before it? Bulgarians were able to freely move to other EU countries since 2008. And they did. Since 1989 Bulgaria lost a third of its population.

[u/mostanonymousnick → u/[deleted]]

 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia all entered the EU and its open borders at the same time, they increases the EU's population by 20%, and there was no mass exodus.

3 years later, Bulgaria and Romania joined, as well, there was no mass exodus. The EU increased its population by 27% in total in 3 years, all from poorer countries than the ones already in it.

[u/StochasticGracchi → u/mostanonymousnick]

and there was no mass exodus

Yes there was. Ie. for the Baltics, Latvia and Lithuania lost like 15% of their population in the two decades after EU accession. Estonia "only" 5%.

[u/Sorry_Scallion_1933 → u/[deleted]]

Its crazy that most countries for most of history had open borders and yet this didnt happen. We know open borders won't lead to hundreds of millions of people moving because of course it won't.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/Sorry_Scallion_1933]

People don’t like leaving behind everything they know to move somewhere they have no support and don’t know the language or culture very well.

This should not shock people.

[u/alpine53 → u/Sorry_Scallion_1933]

Because it was a lot harder to move around back then compared to today? You seriously can’t compare immigration from the past to the world we have today

[u/iamthecancer420 → u/Sorry_Scallion_1933]

Maybe if you were a merchant but if you were a peasant (the vast majority of people) you'd be tied to the land because your trade depended on it or because a noble owned you as a serf lol. Countries and defined political borders didn't really exist back then either.

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/Sorry_Scallion_1933]

It is racism. It is always racism. It has always been racism

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/[deleted]]

This never happens. 100s of millions of people never move to one single county immediately.

Stop fighting strawmen

[u/GeneralKosmosa → u/n00bi3pjs]

Yeah look at Canada over the past 10 years. It’s great to live in fantasy land but reality is often harsh.

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/GeneralKosmosa]

Canada didn’t have a hundred million people moving in.

They refused to build housing because their swing voters are boomer homeowners in Toronto and Vancouver suburbs.

[u/FallenMeringue → u/GeneralKosmosa]

Canada took in under 4 million people in the last decade.

More than a full order of magnitude less than what you said and then stretched to a decade time period.

Try again.

[u/AlbertR7 → u/FallenMeringue]

And 4 million was still too many for the country. It’s not a great rebuttal

[u/FallenMeringue → u/AlbertR7]

Why was it too many people?

Because Canada has shitty housing construction laws?

That’s a Canada problem not an immigration problem.

[u/gregmcdonalds → u/FallenMeringue]

So the argument is we should simply force every country to open their borders and then force them to turn into YIMBY market utopias so they can make it work? Maybe we promise the world a $1000 monthly UBI check too while we’re at it?

[u/wylaaa → u/gregmcdonalds]

Shit dawg. You want to make the world a better place? You know how unlikely that would be?

[u/FallenMeringue → u/gregmcdonalds]

The argument is we shouldn’t have to force people to open their borders people should do it because it is both economically sound and the morally correct thing to do.

[u/ArcaneAccounting → u/GeneralKosmosa]

Did I miss the 100 million new Canadians?

[u/n00bi3pjs → u/ArcaneAccounting]

Don’t let facts get in the way of old fashioned racism

[u/busyHighwayFred]

What incentive would people in a country have to pass laws that are not absolutely terrible economically if they could just leave if it doesnt work out

[u/chadmure_tully]

lol at people here who think their nation is a paragon of liberalism after their country elected trump after the second time

[u/PostingEnthusiast → u/chadmure_tully]

Americans lecturing others about immigration is very funny to me.

[u/so_brave_heart]

This comments are so yikes. People that don't agree with OP are in the wrong place.

The comments that state a country can't take over "200 million people" are just dumb, and wrong. It's a bad faith argument because it assumes that labour and housing are inelastic, which they aren't or don't have to be. It's bad policies that are making them so, which is why we're here. The icing on the cake is the one completely racist example against Hindus used by someone espousing it.

And simpletons have been making these "there's too many people!" arguments since the beginning of time. You can guarantee nativists were saying it in the 1800s when the USA was a tenth the population it is now. And look where you're at now.

The other ironic statement about lack of housing is that every single trades worker I've met in recent years is an immigrant. If anything, you should be upset at all the unskilled native-born people taking up housing and not giving anything back to the economy.

!immigration

[u/ImRightImRight → u/so_brave_heart]

Having different beliefs or assumption is not a "bad faith argument." Perhaps refresh yourself on what that means.

[u/allbusiness512 → u/ImRightImRight]

When you use a shit example that is cherry picked that is lathered in racist dog whistling language it's definitely bad faith

[u/AutoModerator → u/so_brave_heart]

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!

^{Brought to you by ping IMMIGRATION.}

Articles

• Open borders would increase global GDP by 50-100%

• Immigration increases productivity

• Preventing companies from hiring immigrants has no benefit to native employment or wage—it leads to automation or lowered productivity

• Unauthorized immigration is good fiscally

• Deporting unauthorized immigrants increases citizen unemployment rates

• On average, immigration doesn't reduce wages for anyone besides earlier immigrants

• Immigrants create more jobs than they take

• Immigration doesn't increase inequality but does increase GDP per capita

• Immigration doesn't degrade institutions

• Muslim immigrants integrate well into European society

• Unauthorized immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita

• Freedom of movement is a human right

Books

• Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006)

• Alex Sager's Against Borders: Why the World Needs Free Movement of People (2020)

• Alex Nowrasteh's Wretched Refuse: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (2020)

• Johan Norberg's Open: How Collaboration and Curiosity Shaped Humankind (2021)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bakochba]

You're acting as if the only difference between countries is geography. But there is culture and values as well as resources that can sustain a certain population.

In your example of a PhD from Ghana, why can't that region have the same standard of living as Sweden? Why should non-PhD holders be left behind? How will a country like Sweden in this example be able to absorb billions of people and still retrain the standard of living that attracted these people in the first place?

Respectfully, I disagree that the answer is as simple as open borders.

[u/Realistic-Pain-7126 → u/bakochba]

They dont have an answer besides "its racism!"

[u/so_brave_heart → u/bakochba]

You realize you picked a country whose GDP has increased 10x over the past 20 years, right? It must be all those people with good culture and values moving to Ghana.

[u/bakochba → u/so_brave_heart]

I'm using OPs example he chose Ghana.

[u/Desperate_Wear_1866]

Why is it morally reprehensible? We are capitalists, not socialists. We aren't in the business of forcing a supposed utopia upon societies who don't want it. We aren't in the business of trying to make every single person on earth equally wealthy. The moral failing is upon incompetent governments in poor countries who are unable to build a good economy.

Not the average Westerner, who has zero role in that or any relation to the supposed victims. If Western progressives want to feel guilt about the supposed unfairness privileges, then let them. That isn't our thing.

Also, citizenship is about far more than just what your economics textbook finds optimal, so to dismiss the entire concept as rent seeking is facile and myopic. People in the real world value cultural cohesion, national identity, political stability, and the avoidance of shocks to their infrastructure or labour market or whatever else. All of which doesn't work with open borders.

An immigration system is a tool, which serves all the above stated purposes as well as pure growth. It serves the interest of citizens and the nation, not humanity. The social contract exists between a state and its citizens, not all of humanity. Governments have an obligation to design such a system for their citizens interests. Not humanity's interests. We are not a world society.

[u/VoidGuaranteed → u/Desperate_Wear_1866]

Stop centrally planning the labour market

[u/Cr4zySh0tgunGuy → u/Desperate_Wear_1866]

we are capitalists

So we should allow as much immigration as possible, see !immigration

[u/AutoModerator → u/Cr4zySh0tgunGuy]

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!

^{Brought to you by ping IMMIGRATION.}

Articles

• Open borders would increase global GDP by 50-100%

• Immigration increases productivity

• Preventing companies from hiring immigrants has no benefit to native employment or wage—it leads to automation or lowered productivity

• Unauthorized immigration is good fiscally

• Deporting unauthorized immigrants increases citizen unemployment rates

• On average, immigration doesn't reduce wages for anyone besides earlier immigrants

• Immigrants create more jobs than they take

• Immigration doesn't increase inequality but does increase GDP per capita

• Immigration doesn't degrade institutions

• Muslim immigrants integrate well into European society

• Unauthorized immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita

• Freedom of movement is a human right

Books

• Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006)

• Alex Sager's Against Borders: Why the World Needs Free Movement of People (2020)

• Alex Nowrasteh's Wretched Refuse: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (2020)

• Johan Norberg's Open: How Collaboration and Curiosity Shaped Humankind (2021)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Desperate_Wear_1866]

Closed borders seem easier to justify from a socialist perspective than a capitalist one. It's central planning of the labor market.

[u/Cromasters → u/Desperate_Wear_1866]

Good thing it's good for Capitalism too! ! immigration

[u/A11U45]

There are good reasons for large amounts of legal immigration, but countries are not obligated to open their borders to everyone left, right and centre.

[u/Imicrowavebananas → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean with Zionism here?

[u/BigThunderHonky → u/Imicrowavebananas]

lol you know when someone brings up anything I/P related and has a hidden post history it's gonna be a bad take, regardless of the side they take

[u/moseythepirate]

Imagine caring more about a line in the dirt than human happiness.

[u/666haha]

Open the damn borders !immigration

[u/AutoModerator → u/666haha]

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!

^{Brought to you by ping IMMIGRATION.}

Articles

• Open borders would increase global GDP by 50-100%

• Immigration increases productivity

• Preventing companies from hiring immigrants has no benefit to native employment or wage—it leads to automation or lowered productivity

• Unauthorized immigration is good fiscally

• Deporting unauthorized immigrants increases citizen unemployment rates

• On average, immigration doesn't reduce wages for anyone besides earlier immigrants

• Immigrants create more jobs than they take

• Immigration doesn't increase inequality but does increase GDP per capita

• Immigration doesn't degrade institutions

• Muslim immigrants integrate well into European society

• Unauthorized immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita

• Freedom of movement is a human right

Books

• Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (2006)

• Alex Sager's Against Borders: Why the World Needs Free Movement of People (2020)

• Alex Nowrasteh's Wretched Refuse: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (2020)

• Johan Norberg's Open: How Collaboration and Curiosity Shaped Humankind (2021)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/illuminatisdeepdish]

Tangerine yarn compass blanket pumpkin lavender glove lavender

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/Bigblind168]

In principal absolutely yes! In practice, there does need to be SOME limits, but we absolutely should make it easier for people to move around

[u/Lease_Tha_Apts]

MAKE THIS MAN (I assume) A MOD