Open up America's borders change my mind
Posts
Total:
21
-->
@TheUnderdog
You said Reagan was for open borders.
How exactly do you define open borders?
-->
@Incel-chud
Open borders means free plane rides all over the country with no TSA inspection.
-->
@TheUnderdog
can you provide evidence on HOW it has been successful. You really just show political parties, libertarian ideology, and population numbers.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Open borders is the reason for you Doc.
Well that and brutally oppressing the indigene.
Sort of typical ongoing human behaviour I suppose.
-->
@Incel-chud
How exactly do you define open borders?
Not deporting individuals for coming to the country without documentation.
-->
@Greyparrot
Open borders means free plane rides all over the country with no TSA inspection.
The migrants would pay for their own plane rides.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
can you provide evidence on HOW it has been successful. You really just show political parties, libertarian ideology, and population numbers.
The UAE lets pratically anyone in and their economy per capita is much better than their protectionist neighbors. Same with Singapore.
The easier your immigration policy is, the better your economy is. An open borders country is the easiest approach to immigration and therefore the best way to improve an economy.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The easier your immigration policy is, the better your economy is.
Not true. We have let in a ton of immigrants in the past 60 years but our economic well-being has most certainly stagnated.
The UAE lets pratically anyone in and their economy per capita is much better than their protectionist neighbors.
A city state that primarily sells oil will naturally have a better economy than more rural states that has seen civil strife. Regardless of immigration policy
An open borders country is the easiest approach to immigration and therefore the best way to improve an economy.
Open borders only makes things more complicated and chaotic. A controlled immigration setting allows for immigrants to disperse and assimilate quite easily, while open borders allows immigrants to basically colonize a section of their new country.
-->
@zedvictor4
Open borders is the reason for you Doc.
No it's not. My ancestors immigrated from a western country to another western country in a time period in which immigrants had to be spread throughout the country evenly and had to assimilate. Not at all comparable to third world dwellers invading the southern border.
Well that and brutally oppressing the indigene.
Nope, I'm willing to wager that my ancestors didn't even talk to a native.
Sort of typical ongoing human behaviour I suppose.
tribalism. It's human nature.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well.
East is east of east and west is west of west, or east is east of west and west is west of east.
Completely depends upon you Doc, and where you choose to view the situation from.
And at the time Ireland was pretty much third world.
And I wasn't necessarily referring to your direct ancestors, but generally to those that invaded and conquered the land mass known as the U.S.A.
So your third world ancestors were welcomed with open arms?
Now, you've got plenty of space over there for a few more, so do unto other Earthlings as other Earthlings did unto yours.
Oh and just to forewarn you....You might find that not all Earthlings exactly resemble those in your little tribal bubble.
But in the main, all that they want is the same sort of opportunities that your ancestors sought.
So it would be hypocritical to deny them, wouldn't it?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not true. We have let in a ton of immigrants in the past 60 years but our economic well-being has most certainly stagnated.
You sure about that? We got computers, iphones, and the digital age now. That was made possible because there were extra workers in the US working on these products.
A city state that primarily sells oil will naturally have a better economy than more rural states that has seen civil strife. Regardless of immigration policy
Saudi Arabia also primarally sells oil. Economy of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia states that 42% of Saudi's economy is oil. Economy of the United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia states that 1/3 of UAE GDP comes from oil. Saudi Arabia is more dependent on oil than the UAE, yet the UAE has the better economy because of more foreigners coming to the country.
A controlled immigration setting allows for immigrants to disperse and assimilate quite easily, while open borders allows immigrants to basically colonize a section of their new country.
The immigrants that come here assimilated with enough time. I mean, British Americans living in America had a practically open borders policy for a long while and now they make up only 10% of the US population. But everyone learned English given enough time.
Open borders means open borders with every country in the world. If every single person that wanted to permanently leave their countries moved to America, only around 15% of the immigrants would be Hispanic(More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could (gallup.com)). The rest would be from areas of the world where English is fairly common (Africa, India, China). They would mix with each other in cities designed for it (built by the private sector), and they would use English as their lingua franca (similar to how the Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, and other groups used English as the lingua franca when they moved to America).
Based on this, I fail to see how a separatist movement would occur with an open borders policy.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You sure about that? We got computers, iphones, and the digital age now. That was made possible because there were extra workers in the US working on these products.
Explain China and Japan. They have just as good, if not better, technology than we do but they accept far less immigrants.
Saudi Arabia also primarally sells oil. Economy of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia states that 42% of Saudi's economy is oil. Economy of the United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia states that 1/3 of UAE GDP comes from oil. Saudi Arabia is more dependent on oil than the UAE, yet the UAE has the better economy because of more foreigners coming to the country.
UAE is a city, saudi arabia is rural
The immigrants that come here assimilated with enough time. I mean, British Americans living in America had a practically open borders policy for a long while and now they make up only 10% of the US population. But everyone learned English given enough time.
No they absolutely did not have open borders. You literally had to get a charter from the King in order to settle. There was also severe penal laws in the colonies that specifically kept them closed to anyone that wasn't white nonconformist english. You're aware that the founding fathers severely mistrusted the French Catholics in the Louisiana and protested the Quebec Act, right?
Open borders means open borders with every country in the world. If every single person that wanted to permanently leave their countries moved to America, only around 15% of the immigrants would be Hispanic(More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could (gallup.com)). The rest would be from areas of the world where English is fairly common (Africa, India, China). They would mix with each other in cities designed for it (built by the private sector), and they would use English as their lingua franca (similar to how the Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, and other groups used English as the lingua franca when they moved to America).
But at the moment Hispanics are the only group that is coming here in incredibly large numbers. This is due to location.
Based on this, I fail to see how a separatist movement would occur with an open borders policy.
Just look at Kosovo when the Ottomans allowed internal migration.
Just look at Croatia when Austria allowed Serbs to settle in the border region
Just look at Danzig and WW2
-->
@zedvictor4
Ireland was a white and western country, no matter how poor and rural it was
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Explain China and Japan. They have just as good, if not better, technology than we do but they accept far less immigrants.
China and Japan are both very densely populated and they have a lot of money in these countries. You don't see rural areas doing a lot of innovating. Open borders adds to the population density in a reasonable way (we won't be that overcrowded) and it adds GDP(but the plan is to put the migrants in blue counties since they want the extra taxpayers and the red counties don't).
UAE is a city, saudi arabia is rural
Saudi Arabia Urban Population 1960-2022 | MacroTrends states that 84% of Saudi Arabia's population live in an urban enviornment.
A comparable 86% is the case for the UAE (• United Arab Emirates - urbanization 2010-2020 | Statista)
Both countries are urban.
No they absolutely did not have open borders. You literally had to get a charter from the King in order to settle.
Post 1776 America was independent of any King. Post 1776 America had open borders with any free person that wanted to settle the land for America.
But at the moment Hispanics are the only group that is coming here in incredibly large numbers. This is due to location.
Hispanics are a group that for the most part is native born.
Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center states that Asian immigration to the US outnumbers Hispanic immigration.
Just look at Kosovo when the Ottomans allowed internal migration.Just look at Croatia when Austria allowed Serbs to settle in the border regionJust look at Danzig and WW2
All of the separatist movements happened when exclusively one neighboring ethnic group settled a nearby foreign country.
This won't happen with America because it would be hundreds of ethnic groups settling a country that for most of the ethnic groups is not bordering their own country. America is isolated from the countries that most of the immigrants are coming from. In the 1920s, there were huge numbers of Italians, Poles, Slavs, and other ethnic groups coming to America. America was not bordering any of these countries and they were all mixed up with each other. Because of this, there was no movement to make NYC part of Italy, Poland, or Russia. NYC was located very far away from these areas and due to the mix of immigrants, there was no majority in NYC in terms of language (except the English language).
The only place I have a fear of a separatist movement happening is in the south west USA, but if huge cities are placed in the blue counties across these areas (and those cities are populated by anyone that wants to settle these areas. Many blue counties would have huge cities just built where they currently exist by the private sector), then English speakers will make up the majority of the population of these areas because English is a pretty widely known world language (with 20% of the world being fluent in it and many others knowing a little bit of English), causing English to be the lingua franca of communication in these cities (since only about 15% of the population would be Hispanic and this would be the biggest other language group) and thereby, the cities would assimilate those that come to it.
-->
@TheUnderdog
China and Japan are both very densely populated and they have a lot of money in these countries. You don't see rural areas doing a lot of innovating. Open borders adds to the population density in a reasonable way (we won't be that overcrowded) and it adds GDP(but the plan is to put the migrants in blue counties since they want the extra taxpayers and the red counties don't).
Right, so it's urban and rural and not immigration
Saudi Arabia Urban Population 1960-2022 | MacroTrends states that 84% of Saudi Arabia's population live in an urban enviornment.A comparable 86% is the case for the UAE (• United Arab Emirates - urbanization 2010-2020 | Statista)Both countries are urban.
Can you demonstrate how UAE's immigrants directly contribute to the development of the country
Post 1776 America was independent of any King. Post 1776 America had open borders with any free person that wanted to settle the land for America.
Nope. It specifically favored whites until 1965.
Hispanics are a group that for the most part is native born.Key findings about U.S. immigrants | Pew Research Center states that Asian immigration to the US outnumbers Hispanic immigration.
Native born from immigration after 1965. I looked at the source and only from 2010 on has Asians slightly outnumbered Hispanics.
The point with separatism is that it is inheritably tied to a particular group that settles in a country and begins to demand rights. This is what is happening
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Right, so it's urban and rural and not immigration
Correct, although immigration allows an area to become more urban. Racial diversity is irrelevant at best, but urbanization is useful in developing an economy.
Can you demonstrate how UAE's immigrants directly contribute to the development of the country
They urbanized the UAE.
Post 1776 America was independent of any King. Post 1776 America had open borders with any free person that wanted to settle the land for America.Nope. It specifically favored whites until 1965.
Yeah, but they allowed anyone who was white to move to America. Now, it's taboo to consider race, so the logical thing would be to let anyone move here and contribute to our economy.
Native born from immigration after 1965. I looked at the source and only from 2010 on has Asians slightly outnumbered Hispanics.
Yeah, but the proportion of immigrants being Hispanic is decreasing and the proportion of English speaking foreigners coming to America is increasing.
The point with separatism is that it is inheritably tied to a particular group that settles in a country and begins to demand rights. This is what is happening
This only happens if a group thinks they are being significantly oppressed and significantly culturally different. For example, there are counties in Dixie that are majority black, but nobody is trying to make these counties an independent country. There are German plurality areas in the great plains that have no desire to break away due to ethnicity. I live in an area with a lot of Italians and we don't want to break away from the US.
Assimilated people don't want to break away from the US and assimilation happens with time.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Correct, although immigration allows an area to become more urban. Racial diversity is irrelevant at best, but urbanization is useful in developing an economy.
No it doesn't. The trend of urbanization is irrespective of immigrant trends. The fastest urbanizing nations don't take in immigrants like China.
They urbanized the UAE.
Way too broad and most likely incorrect
Yeah, but they allowed anyone who was white to move to America. Now, it's taboo to consider race, so the logical thing would be to let anyone move here and contribute to our economy.
No they did not allow anyone. They openly turned away thousands of non-white immigrants and did a system of merit in order to protect the white demographics. Plus migrants don't contribute to the economy. They suck off taxpayer money and hispanics have negative net worth
Yeah, but the proportion of immigrants being Hispanic is decreasing and the proportion of English speaking foreigners coming to America is increasing.
Not English speaking. And while language is a factor, culture is more important.
This only happens if a group thinks they are being significantly oppressed and significantly culturally different. For example, there are counties in Dixie that are majority black, but nobody is trying to make these counties an independent country. There are German plurality areas in the great plains that have no desire to break away due to ethnicity. I live in an area with a lot of Italians and we don't want to break away from the US.Assimilated people don't want to break away from the US and assimilation happens with time.
Politically, they all support democrats. If more immigrants are taken in, the second amendment will be taken away and a lot of free speech would be outlawed.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No it doesn't. The trend of urbanization is irrespective of immigrant trends. The fastest urbanizing nations don't take in immigrants like China.
China is lucky enough to have its own population. America will just have to import population, build up our cities, and rely on people coming here to exceed China’s urbanization rate.
They urbanized the UAE.Way too broad and most likely incorrect
My claim is definitely correct.
They openly turned away thousands of non-white immigrants and did a system of merit in order to protect the white demographics.
They did this because non whites weren’t considered people then, but if these immigration policies were around in our time, America would already have open borders.
Plus migrants don't contribute to the economy. They suck off taxpayer money and hispanics have negative net worth
If an individual Hispanic immigrant consumes welfare, the appropriate thing to do would be to kick them off and make them get jobs like everyone else.
Not English speaking. And while language is a factor, culture is more important.
Define culture.
Politically, they all support democrats. If more immigrants are taken in, the second amendment will be taken away and a lot of free speech would be outlawed.
I addressed the fear of the undocumented turning the country blue in my presentation. The undocumented don’t give a shit about gun control and woke leftist policies like banning David Duke. They just want to be here and to contribute to the greatest economy on the planet. When Regean advocates for open borders, he won 98% of the states in the country (because the immigrants often vote Republican if the GOP doesn’t threat to deport their family).
-->
@TheUnderdog
China is lucky enough to have its own population. America will just have to import population, build up our cities, and rely on people coming here to exceed China’s urbanization rate.
We have our own population
My claim is definitely correct.
Prove it or run away
They did this because non whites weren’t considered people then, but if these immigration policies were around in our time, America would already have open borders.
They did to protect the demographics of the nation. Nonwhites were considered people and our ancestors were a lot smarter than us
If an individual Hispanic immigrant consumes welfare, the appropriate thing to do would be to kick them off and make them get jobs like everyone else.
But they are all on welfare. Hispanics have negative net worth
Define culture.
19th and 20th century Ireland a good point for this. Yes, most Irish spoke English but were culturally Gaelic. Meaning they played gaelic football instead of soccer and were Catholic. They wanted separation from GB
I addressed the fear of the undocumented turning the country blue in my presentation. The undocumented don’t give a shit about gun control and woke leftist policies like banning David Duke. They just want to be here and to contribute to the greatest economy on the planet. When Regean advocates for open borders, he won 98% of the states in the country (because the immigrants often vote Republican if the GOP doesn’t threat to deport their family).
Not true, immigrants and Hispanics DID not vote for Raegan. In fact, he got the same share of votes as Trump did.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have our own population
It's not as big as China's, so we will have to find other ways to urbanize. Rather than reproduce to get there (kids are expensive), why not accept taxpayers who don't need to have their education paid for for over a decade?
Prove it or run away
areas-of-habitation_uae_emirates-population-map_720px.jpg (890×740) (fanack.com) shows the UAE becoming more densely population and more urbanized.
They did to protect the demographics of the nation. Nonwhites were considered people and our ancestors were a lot smarter than us
Are you defending white supremacy? Caring about racial demographics is racism.
But they are all on welfare. Hispanics have negative net worth
This is false. Straight Talk on Welfare Statistics (20+ Stats & Facts) | Fortunly states that the number of welfare reciepiants is less than the Hispanic population of the US. Moreover, if immigrants are disproportionally more likely to be on welfare, the solution is to kick them off of it.
19th and 20th century Ireland a good point for this. Yes, most Irish spoke English but were culturally Gaelic. Meaning they played gaelic football instead of soccer and were Catholic. They wanted separation from GB
The Irish wanted independence because of religious reasons. Yet religion isn't a problem for American sovereignty as there are many Catholic majority states(out of the Christian population)(R.85e9e3b0adab3a4ea70c1f14befd52b1 (1600×1188) (bing.com)) and none of them want independence.
Not true, immigrants and Hispanics DID not vote for Raegan. In fact, he got the same share of votes as Trump did.
Reagan got a higher share of the Hispanic vote than Trump did. But the solution to this problem is to tell Hispanics not to turn America into the leftist hell hole they fled. It worked with Californian migrants moving to Texas (58% of Californian expats to Texas are Trump supporters due to the, "Don't California my Texas" slogan.)
Moreover, you can't kick people out for disagreeing with you politically. Otherwise, we should mandate abortion for poor women because they breed future democrat voters.