Author: Open The Borders Wide. Let 'Em All Come In!

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

CBO also projects a slowdown in GDP growth due to a a decreased growth in the labor force from lower population growth and a doubling of the over 65 population which causes a large increase in entitlement spending (Social Security and Medicare).

The introduction of multitudes of young working new citizens paying into the system would alleviate that.

[Flash]

That’s a good call there. Isn’t America known as the land of opportunity where people from all over the globe come to pursue their wildest dreams? Imagine telling kids “I wanted you to become educated but not successful”.

It is based on the erroneous assumptions that if a person is wealthy he either inherited it, got it illegally or immorally, does not deserve it, and it is taking money away from others.

[Flash]

'Production' is based on 'Consumption'. So it makes sense that if you have fewer Consumers, you will have less Production.

'Production' equals 'Profits'. So if you are a Producer (Capitalists and their Shareholders), you would naturally want MORE Consumers.
This desire, demand, need, for MORE Consumers, leads to a less Quality of Life for the 'Consumer Class' (Worker Drones), while the Elites can move to their 10 acre Estates, Gentleman Farms, and Ivory Towers.

This leads to a 'European Feudal Society' of 'Aristocrats' and 'Serfs', ... the Class Divide of 'Haves' and 'Have Nots'. I don't think Americans want this.

The economy indicates an increased standard of living:

"An annual report from the Census Bureau shows median household income jumped 6.8% in 2019, to $68,700. That's the highest since the government started keeping track in 1967.

The poverty rate declined to 10.5% — the lowest since records began in 1959."

[Truth Detector]

Exploring the economic argument for a return to open US borders

Bryan Caplan: "This is actually the longstanding U.S. policy of open borders, which we had until 1921. So, until 100 years ago, this was our system. So, I don't think it's at all crazy to think about going back to that system."

[Truth Detector]

Immigrants represent human capital.

Preventing capital from entering the USA is hurting our economy.

[PoliTalker]

Hello and welcome Pax Mongolica,

Before I respond to your comment I'd like to acquaint you with my personal Ignore policy. Basically, I come here for the few good discussions found sprinkled among the many standard flame wars. I routinely ignore those who attack me personally, and I never take anyone off ignore. I'm just not into getting personal. I come for the political discussions. Attack my comments and views, fine, I welcome that. Attack me and it will mark the end of any further discussions. I am not into internet abuse, so my effective measures identify that before it becomes a problem and prevent it.

"Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well."

If you're not OK with that then we probably won't be talking long. But if that is acceptable then I hope we have many intriguing discussions. We might even become long standing friends. I would like that. I have a large friends list here.

You have chosen an interesting login name. Thanks for causing me to look that up and learn a bit of history.

That's not true, actually. There were numerous restrictions on immigration up until 1965. After 1965, restrictions still existed, but they were different in orientation but less numerous overall.

One of the major restrictions on immigration involved the Chinese Exclusion Act. As the name suggests, it heavily restricted immigration from China.

Immigration is more open now than it has been since the late 1800s.

I have not read the book in the OP. I do know that we previously allowed much more immigration than we do now. I agree it is a shame what we did to the Chinese immigrants who basically built the transcontinental railroad, and then sort of got railroaded themselves. It seems to be natural to be suspicious of those who appear different on the outside, and are of different culture. But then, diversity makes America great. What's a nation to do?

I don't think we should listen to haters.

It seems apparent there is much to be gained by permitting more immigration.

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Admittedly I haven't read the book but I've read the reviews of what the author argues and he makes some interesting points about what it would do for economic growth both in our country and across the globe. I think the OP saw the title only without knowing anything else about it and thus can't elucidate the points the author was making.

I'm not an historian but I feel like there have long been concerns that various groups of immigrants would have trouble assimilating throughout our history. And while it hasn't worked perfectly I feel we've done a good job generally speaking.

Of course telling people to assimilate today is considered a racial microaggression. And if the immigrant is a P.O.C. we are asking them to assimilate into a white supremacy dominated culture so we can't do that (leaving aside that's how immigrants of all backgrounds have succeeded in America).

But I'm still a believer immigrants bring economic vitality and pride to this country. There are people whose families have been here generations and they think America is a terrible place. And then you have immigrants who come from some of the worst places on the planet and see all that America has to offer and love it with all their heart.

Well said.

Although I would like to elaborate on why this threat was created.

I saw the piece on the PBS Newshour, which I have linked in the OP. It struck me that it might make a good discussion here, so I posted it. I am still learning more about it. Like you, I have not read the book at the heart of the discussion.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

'Production' is based on 'Consumption'. So it makes sense that if you have fewer Consumers, you will have less Production.

'Production' equals 'Profits'. So if you are a Producer (Capitalists and their Shareholders), you would naturally want MORE Consumers.
This desire, demand, need, for MORE Consumers, leads to a less Quality of Life for the 'Consumer Class' (Worker Drones), while the Elites can move to their 10 acre Estates, Gentleman Farms, and Ivory Towers.

This leads to a 'European Feudal Society' of 'Aristocrats' and 'Serfs', ... the Class Divide of 'Haves' and 'Have Nots'. I don't think Americans want this.

We already have it.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

It is based on the erroneous assumptions that if a person is wealthy he either inherited it, got it illegally or immorally, does not deserve it, and it is taking money away from others.

People like Trump give the wealthy a bad rep.

[Nordberg]

Hello cawacko,



It's simple. If America is deeply divided, then America will not unite against the rich and powerful.

The Republican party is the party of the wealthy. They work for them and against the wage earners and middle class. Somehow almost half the people work and vote against their own well-being. They are fooled by the red stress on emotional issues and wedge issues. The reds have had power many times and did nothing about those issues. They need them to run on.

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

The big corporations are the tools and tax shelters of the rich and powerful.

And the workers. Pensions, 401(k), 403(b), and IRA full of stocks and bonds have made many working class a comfortable retirement and they get those same tax benefits. They could not do that without corporate stock gains.

The share of taxes paid into the US govt by corporations has steadily dropped over the years as the share paid by individuals has risen.

Not really. That is a very misleading statement. Bernie Sanders made that claim and Politifact and multiple economists explained the reason.

"One type of corporation, a "C-corporation," pays corporate income taxes on its profits. Another type, the "S-corporation," pays taxes on its profits through the individual income-tax returns of the owner....
Between 1980 to 2010, the category of businesses that includes S-corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs has increased by 10.9 million to over 30 million, while the number of corporations has declined, Pomerlau said.

This means there are fewer corporations to pay the corporate income tax. In addition, the amount of business income generated by these types of businesses has risen as well, Pomerlau said. Between 1980 and 2010, this type of income has increased fivefold, from $320 billion to more than $1.6 trillion, he said.


"In fact, most recent data shows that (these) businesses are earning more total net income than traditional C-corporations," Pomerlau said. "In 1980, it was the complete opposite."


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...rporations-ha/

Yet, the big corporations exert more and more control over what our government does.

Evidence? They exerted a lot more influence before the increased regulatory state involving environmental standards, health and safety regulations, wage and hour regulations, etc. If corporations were more powerful these would have decreased, not increased.

The voice of the average income people is essentially unheard by Congress.

It is the voice of the rich which Congress listens to.

The 2020 election changed nothing?

[Yakuda]

The Republican party is the party of the wealthy. They work for them and against the wage earners and middle class. Somehow almost half the people work and vote against their own well-being. They are fooled by the red stress on emotional issues and wedge issues. The reds have had power many times and did nothing about those issues. They need them to run on.

Prove it's the party of the wealthy. How fucking intellectually lazy are you exactly?

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

The introduction of multitudes of young working new citizens paying into the system would alleviate that.

Agreed, but the concern is about the skill level of many of those new workers.

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

People like Trump give the wealthy a bad rep.

Sure, but Americans (and much of the world) have had that bigoted attitude long before Trump. It is envy turned into hatred and false perceptions.

[Geeko Sportivo]

The United States is only one country with a border in the world. BORDERS ARE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES!

EVERY COUNTRY HAS ONE, so borders are defined globally. In global terms, countries have either OPEN BORDERS, CLOSED BORDERS, OR LIMITED OPEN BORDERS.

And from the comments I am reading here, it is clear that there are people making assumptions about what those terms even mean, and misinterpreting what the terms are.

First of all an OPEN BORDER is not a border that just anyone can cross over without a proper visa. An Open Border just means, if you have the proper VISA, you can enter or leave any time you like.

The United States is an example of what an open border is. YOU CAN ENTER OR LEAVE WITH THE PROPER VISA AND IF YOU AREN'T CARRYING ANYTHING ILLEGAL ACROSS THE BORDER!

EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CROSS AMERICAN BORDERS WITH THE PROPER VISAS TO WORK, SEE DOCTORS, GO TO SCHOOL, VACATION, DO BUSINESS, SHOP, VISIT RELATIVES, WHATEVER.

And when I say OPEN- the invitation is OPEN to anyone- regardless to nationality, creed, race, or religion.

THAT IS WHAT AN OPEN BORDER IS!

Most Democratic Nations around the world have Open Borders.

ONLY VERY FEW COUNTRIES HAVE CLOSED BORDERS {such as N. KOREA, IRAN, SYRIA etc.), or even Limited Open Borders like Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and etc.