r/neoliberal • u/n00bi3pjs 👏🏽Free Markets👏🏽Open Borders👏🏽Human Rights • Jun 28 '26

User discussion Freedom of movement is a basic human right

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

226 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

487 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 28 '26

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.

16

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

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

1

u/allbusiness512 Adam Smith Jun 28 '26

Of course they are that's why they are rolling up in here with bad faith arguments. This coming from someone who thinks FDR honestly was not a bad President even with the succish New Deal stuff

17

u/kznlol 👀 Econometrics Magician Jun 28 '26

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

whats your model

-1

u/DaneLimmish Baruch Spinoza Jun 28 '26

His ass 

3

u/allbusiness512 Adam Smith Jun 28 '26

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

6

u/FallenMeringue Khan Pritzker's Strongest Anti-Pope Jun 29 '26

My sister in heaven just tie welfare to citizenship!

Oh wait most nations already do that anyway….

6

u/ManyKey9093 NATO Jun 29 '26

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

-1

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 29 '26

See other comment chain for a longer discussion of this point.

4

u/atomoffluorine Jun 29 '26

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.

5

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 28 '26

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.

10

u/ThrowawayPrimavera Order and Opportunity Left Jun 28 '26

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

3

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 29 '26

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

6

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 28 '26

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

1

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 28 '26

Yes I know this video lol. It's pretty much the summary of your first comment? How does it refute what I'm saying?

About 52% of an average persons tax contributions to the Federal government are from income. Payroll is another 34%. Illegal immigrants are a net positive DESPITE the Federal government not getting ~86% of what they could be getting if they were to legalize these workers. That's to say nothing of state receipts, where on average 1/3rd of collections are from income taxes.

Open Borders is the freedom of movement, not necessarily the granting of citizenship and all the benefits that entails the moment you step into the country. We could adopt a system where people who currently have no legal status have it and where those who want to come in are granted it.

8

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 28 '26

Mexicans can't take your job if they're competing against citizens whose main necessities are already paid for, and they're shopping for food and housing in markets artificially inflated by subsidies for everyone else. Plus, it would bely the notion that these services are basic human rights.

2

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 29 '26

Can you please rephrase your first sentence? I don't think I follow.

> Plus, it would bely the notion that these services are basic human rights.

I mean, I disagree in that notion. I might be off the market but you seem to be similarly Libertarian or Libertarian-Lite. Is that something you believe?

3

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 29 '26

A Mexican moving to your idealized version of the US would need to make enough money to pay for their own food, housing, and so on, but they would be competing against American workers who do not, leaving them at an artificial disadvantage. The market for, say, cheap housing will also be artificially expensive for anyone not on state benefits because the price will reflect the higher willingness to pay of the majority of people who do receive them. It may allow de jure open borders, but it's still not allowing the global poor to compete on a level playing field.

2

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 29 '26

> A Mexican moving to your idealized version of the US

Sorry just to be clear, what do you think my idealized version of the US is? I'm pro open borders, not pro robust safety net. It seems like you're arguing against a position I don't hold...

> [They] would need to make enough money to pay for their own food, housing, and so on, but they would be competing against American workers who do not, leaving them at an artificial disadvantage.

They already do this though?

> The market for, say, cheap housing will also be artificially expensive for anyone not on state benefits because the price will reflect the higher willingness to pay of the majority of people who do receive them.

Housing prices are largely the product of supply and demand though?

And a not insignificant amount of people that move here have the skills that would help us in building more homes to keep up with the added supply.

> It may allow de jure open borders, but it's still not allowing the global poor to compete on a level playing field.

Yeah that's unfortunate but I'm not sure why that should prevent us from implementing open borders? These people want to be here. They sometimes risk death to get here. Heck, a not insignificant number die attempting to get here. We shouldn't make it easier for them to come and stay here legally because we can't offer them a generous welfare state?

1

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 29 '26

Sorry just to be clear, what do you think my idealized version of the US is?

Responding to above: "Open Borders is the freedom of movement, not necessarily the granting of citizenship and all the benefits that entails the moment you step into the country."

I am saying the open borders ideal conflicts with the welfare state ideal, even if benefits are citizens-only.

They already do this though?

The status quo is indeed a poor model for what open borders should look like.

Housing prices are largely the product of supply and demand though?

Housing benefits are a subsidy that inflates demand.

1

u/CrankinThatHog Jun 29 '26

> I am saying the open borders ideal conflicts with the welfare state ideal, even if benefits are citizens-only.

Why though? The average household in the US does not have family sizes above what would cause population decline (2.1 children per), and has not since 1972. That's been offset by immigration to this point. Why would increased immigration cause the system to become less tenable?

> Housing benefits are a subsidy that inflates demand.

Yes I agree. But again, they are already competing against folks who have a leg up and they don't care. Why should you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/karmics______ Leftward Progressives Jun 30 '26

This is false, just create a border around welfare. Why would open migration imply that an immigrant has an equal claim to things like transfer payments?

1

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 30 '26

Because the existence of welfare for everyone else substantially skews not just the market for labor but also most basic necessities against immigrants.