You must log in or register to comment.
Easiest way to get rid of undocumented immigrants is to grant them all citizenship. Problem solved.
Rather than the “Easiest way”, how about a good way…
How about we make a nice world to bring folks to. Y’know… end manufactured scarcity, stop using people as pawns on the grand chessboard, stop conjuring precarity to cull and terrorise people by, and so on. Y’know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to? … no more economic migrants under duress… Everybody happy.
“Let’s figure out this food/air deal, OK? 'K. I’m just weird, you know? How about have a neat world for kids to come to?” ~Bill Hicks
Exactly. Being a migrant isn’t exactly a picnic. I think it’s reasonable to assume most people would like to live near their families and homes if that’s a viable option. I still think people should be able to go anywhere in the world if they want to, but they shouldn’t have to. A lot of the “problems” of immigration are just the point at which other people’s problems become inconvenient for me. If we can make the whole world a nice place to live, we’ll be well on our way to making borders not matter so much.
Bada bing bada boom
At a minimum I demand we all be as free to move around the world as the products, money and material that our labor creates.
I lived in Germany for a couple years, about 30 minutes from the French border. Every once in a while, my wife and I would cross the border to buy some French wines.
The border didn’t even stop us. There were buildings off to one side, but the highway was wide open, no barriers or checkpoints or anything. Didn’t even need to slow down. It was like crossing state lines in the US.
America is so used to being isolated from the rest of the world, with oceans on either side, that we make a big deal about the two countries that actually touch our border. I feel it just exacerbates our fear of foreign threats, because we’re not 100% secure on all sides.
And of course, a lot of Canadians mostly look and sound like white Americans, so we don’t think twice about them, but Mexicans look and sound different, so it’s easy to rile people up about the “invading foreign culture” that will “destroy America.” It’s dumb racist gaslighting, but it’s sadly effective against Americans who have never left the country or lived anywhere near either of our borders. Which is most of the population.
I dunno, I think it makes more sense to compare the US to the EU than to individual European countries, given that European countries are more the size of US states.
And of course, a lot of Canadians mostly look and sound like white Americans, so we don’t think twice about them, but Mexicans look and sound different, so it’s easy to rile people up about the “invading foreign culture” that will “destroy America.”
The echo of America’s original sin still dwells in the heart of every American. Deep down, there’s some primal fear that what we did to others will be done to us.
Identity is difficult. Clinging to an identity that describes half a continent will be the end of the United States of America.
two countries
If we count all the bases, USA has more countries bordering its land, than any other.
As a former US military member, I’d like to point out that we consider our foreign bases to be American soil, so anyone born on base is considered a legal US citizen. However, the bases themselves are loaned to us by the host country through legal agreements. Depending on the country, we could have unrestricted use of the space, or we could just be visitors on the host country’s local military base with limited space allocated to us.
I remember in Germany, they have such strict laws against tearing down natural forests that most of our bases had to remain mostly forested. We had very little space to construct buildings on base.
How many crimes against humanity did you commit in service of the war machine?
The EU trade/travel model was a good one, even if the ECB is a moral abomination.
This is the kind of shit that makes us impossible to take seriously
You can’t make traveling across the street in Laredo easier than flying between Miami, FL and Anchorage, AK. What happens if everyone in town crosses the street at once? The whole town flips over and everyone dies.
Do you really not understand that things cost money
Are you being sarcastic or are you unaware that money is a human construct and its rules/existence a choice?
Are you serious here? Money is a human construct what are you an alien? Money is as real as you and me lmao
I am not saying its not real. I am saying its a human construct. Just like laws, religion, culture, nations.
They are created by us and dynamically evolve with our needs. We have full control over how they work and can overhaul them entirely.
For example, you may have heard how money used to be backed by physical gold, but then we abandoned that in 1971 and now its backed by nothing. Its simply changing the rules as needed.
Another overhaul is long overdue. The issue is that we rarely agree on how or what to change and that the choices are almost always made by centralized powers.
So you’d like to overhaul money in a way that’s not controlled by centralized power? I’ve got good news for you!
Good example of how not all solutions to a problem are always good solutions to the problem.
Why do you say that?
I say that because borders are intrinsic to humanity. Going to the extreme of no borders and one world in harmony is in no way realistic or obtainable. If you think it is you’re frankly out of your mind. Focus your efforts on something obtainable and maybe WWIII is preventable. Please.
First, how do you figure borders intrinsic to humanity? Second, we should hope that you’re wrong, because if we keep trying to exterminate each other with more and more advanced weapons, we’re going to find a solution to the Fermi Paradox real quick.
There’s a BIG gap between open borders and “no borders and world in harmony”. The U.S. had relatively open borders with Canada and Mexico, like, 50 years ago.
Also, why did you believe that birds are intrinsic to humanity? To my knowledge we’ve managed to live without them for the VAST majority of human history
Being tribal is intrinsic to humanity. Our oldest stories are related to one group being in opposition to another. Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, those are all just borders. Grow up please! There are real solvable problems this isn’t one of them
Being tribal is intrinsic to humanity, but that doesn’t imply borders. Borders are a social construct and product of the state, they aren’t just some natural thing. A coyote doesn’t give a shit about the border, and neither should you. How are you so willing to let others tell you what to do and how to do it?
I’m not sure being tribal is intrinsic. Merely situationally emergent. … and abused.
I’m fairly sure that for the vast majority of time and populations of humanity, borders have been a total non-thing, and of the miniscule remainder, the vast majority remaining have been soft borders. It’s not intrinsic at all.
If we cease suppressing all the emancipatory technologies that avail abundance to each and all, what concern remaining is there then for borders, when there’s no resource disparity evoking scarcity mindsets and resource wars and plunder? What use even a border then, when we each can have our own spaceships?
Far far from intrinsic. Such a tiny conceptual box, conflating contemporary circumstantial constraints imposed, as if intrinsic. We are so much more than what’s imprinted upon us from your prison walls.
How do you feel about safe spaces
wat.
I’m struggling to fathom the purpose of this non-question.
Too many possibilities, too many directions one could take a response to that [including [perhaps wiser] none].
What safer than ability to remove oneself from danger instantly? Seems self-evident what I “feel” about safe spaces. So, I’m still (and all the more) stumped by the purpose of this line that starts like a question, but then lacks a question mark, hinting some kind of rhetoric implied, yet what it appears digging for is already on the surface… so…
wat.
Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else’s goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the “It’s natural” appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it’s inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I’ve offered.
“Micro border”… likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
- Like psychological boundaries of principle where one intently shall not bring themselves to cross regardless of provocation?
- And shared among like-minded with similar experiences?
- That kind of safe space?
- Is that for which you’ve coined the term “micro border”?
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It’s kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama1, perhaps starting with some “aloof” mixed in with the (at least) “poor-me”, perhaps even escalating through “interrogator” to “intimidator”, to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
… I forget who that’s attributed to ~ “separation is the path to destruction”… Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"2.
Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
First, tackling:
Should they be allowed to do so
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that’s a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it’s the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I think it does.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
It’s natural and inherent to humans.
Yes… which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
- Inherent, from Latin inhaerere[/Inherens] (“to stick in”), e.g. like something imbued within from something prior.
- Intrinsic, from Latin intrinsecus (“on the inside”), emphasizing internal essence. Does not imply receipt. At least not intrinsically. ;)
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there… I don’t know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what’s cooking us? n_n What’s trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it’s not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who’s causing such? Who benefits?
1 2 Heh, that’s two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.
Borders are intrinsic to humanity? Citation extremely needed.
In the US, we had open borders for a long time, and there are many places in the world currently that don’t have border controls. Capital flows freely around the world, why shouldn’t people be allowed to?
And respectfully, you don’t know the extent of my activism based on one meme I shared. I advocate for many things. And for what it’s worth, I think it’s more likely that strict borders would be a contributing factor leading to a WWIII. All the more reason to get rid of them.
The United States has always had immigration control. Ellis island? This is exactly why progress cannot be taken seriously. You cherry pick these nonsense causes and then die on a hill that is crazy. There are real issues to deal with I promise you that a world with no borders isn’t one of them. Lets try a semblance of equality first
Ellis Island opens in 1892, over a century after the USA were created. There were no federal immigration controls before that. States handled arrivals loosely, if it all. Most migrants simply got off their boat and stayed.
During its first decades, Ellis Island was not a modern border control but rather a filter for contagious disease and extreme incapacity (eg. they didn’t want sick or handicapped people, only able bodied workers). Admission rate was 98%, it was triage motivated by stopping the recurring pandemics in the dense urban environment of NYC.
US border control starts in 1921-1924 with the quota acts, although you could arguably say the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act is the real birth of it (that act did not come with the means to enforce it though).
Aristide Zolberg’s “A Nation by Design” goes through all of this. Read it and educate yourself instead of making a fool of yourself on the Internet. I must once again insist that you stop discussing history online. You will get clowned for it.
Apparently they’re successfully deploying Cunningham’s Law to get their education.
Would be the case if they were able to read/understand.
They seem to just be stubborn and dumb.
You’re so far into the academic element of this you’re missing the point entirely. You’re saying that a new nation in a relatively underdeveloped area of the world was capable of keeping out undesirable elements but they don’t have border control? It was loose, sure, but it existed. All I’m saying is you can die on a hill that’s achievable. Put this effort into everyone getting enough food instead of some high minded notion of borderless states. It’s silly
“Give me your” immigration guards.
That’s how it went, right?
/s
I suggest dropping the fallacies that bind you in such a tizzy. I suggest cease creating self-sabotaging pre-requisites to progress.
Oh friend. I suggest you educate yourself, you don’t know how wrong you are.
During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing “open border” policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization was subject to five-year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry into America; rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws. Processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.[1][2][3]
The Wikipedia article on “ History of immigration and nationality law in the United States”
You’re fighting yourself with this reply. ‘Open border’ doesn’t mean no border. You clearly stated that only whites were allowed. How do you think they limited that access? With hopes and dreams? Again, you’re just not as smart as you think you are even with all the sources you can imagine. Borders you don’t like are still borders
Borders are a recent enough invention that two of my grandparents migrated before passports were a requirement when they were young newlyweds (showing my age lol). They traveled from Austria-Hungary to France though Germany, it was a normal migrant journey, you were casually welcomed and given citizenship by your new country as long as you had money to spend and/or could provide labor. Another one of my grandparents was a vagabond (vagrant) who just walked from place to place, changed countries often, he stopped when most countries adopted anti-vagrancy laws. This happened a century ago, not millenia ago.
WWI, colonialism, and the rise of nationalism and fascism in early XXth century europe are what caused borders to become strictly enforced. You have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history, and likely have been brainwashed by modern heinous discourses on immigration, like too many people sadly.
Your story is nonsense. If you have money travel is possible so borders have never existed? Are you familiar with the Roman Empire? Persians? Egyptians? They didn’t have borders? Are you absolutely out of your mind? Where were born has mattered forever that’s borders friend
[Thanks to everybody putting in the effort dealing with this. It’s too steep a Brandolini’s Law charge for my spoons stock to diligently take on thoroughly… So I continue here more as a general commentary stepped back from getting tangled up in all the…]
Strawman, moving goal posts, redherring, non-sequitur, ad-hominems, false dilemma, appeal to antiquity, appeal to novelty, circular reasoning, appeal to ridicule (ironically), appeal to authority, loaded language, ignoring counter-examples, conflation, equivocation, … on and on it goes.
You seem to have decided you’re right, and keep doubling down, despite the cogent arguments and corrections offered your way, contorting your position to prevent entertaining1 an idea from outside the world view that you seem to identify with, and fight to protect like your life depends on it.
It does not.
The ignorance that dies is not you.
I hope you find a healthier peace of mind in this.
I expect you’ll more likely continue to reject1 any idea not conforming to the naive-realist world-view you subconsciously perceive as you.
1 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.”
You’re talking about power and territory, not borders.
Roman, persian, egyptian borders were zones of influence, not fixed lines. A peasant or merchant could move across countries without having to go through border control or anything resembling a border. They were not able to join the local ruling class in most cases, due to being an outsider, but were still welcomed for their labor or money in the territory they had entered.
Ages ago, for some political history courses, I had to read CR Whittaker’s book called “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. As the title implies it touches on this very topic. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, it’s quite dull. Anyway, one of the first things it touches on is that trying to understand history requires shedding modern concepts. Borders are the first one he asks the reader to shed.
Once again, you have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history. I don’t think you should be talking so confidently about a topic you are completely out of your depth in. It makes you look like a dunce.
You are being awfully condescending here. The Great Wall and Hadrian’s wall are pretty clearly borders. You’re just a dreamer. I respect that but you’re also being silly. Focus your clearly competent mind on something possible please
The Great Wall and Hadrian’s Wall both served the same purposes:
- Deterring raids and armed incursions, a purely military role
- Marking the end of military control (eg. on the other side of this line you’re on your own)
- Signaling than anything within those walls would be subject to taxation (the price of military protection)
- Enabling signaling (chains of beacons/towers to warn in case of military invasions)
They were not designed to stop individual peasants or merchants. Those walls all had gates to let them in and out. In Frontiers of the Roman Empire, CR Whittaker goes through archaeological records to better understand Hadrian’s Wall and its role, and did not find any form of deterrence against migrants or any historical record showing any individual border control.
I am being condescending because you are being stubborn. I see no reason to be nice when you are speaking confidently about a topic you very clearly know nothing about, which happens to be one of my fields of expertise. You’d probably do the same if you were in my shoes, it is very frustrating to see misinformation spread on something you have academic knowledge of. If you are unwilling to learn and want to cling to your modern preconceptions of what a border is, then I must ask you to get the fuck out off radical leftist spaces and stop spreading your racist propaganda. You will never be welcome there as long as you hold those views.
I direct you to every fort and castle ever made. Every wall and mote. Every single fence. Borders are ancient and you’re being silly
You don’t have to reply twice to the same comment.
You already made it clear that you do not understand the difference between military and civilian structures, and have a negative understanding of political history. Don’t need to clarify, we all saw it and understood.
That fetish of yours for public humiliation is not my kink, sorry. You’ll have to find someone else to continue the roleplay with.
Your inability to visualize a better world, a world without borders, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
It’s a wonderful dream. Facism is back in America and the whole world is on the brink of war. Focus your efforts on something possible please
White moderates always asking “but what about me and my immediate priorities?” when people want to continue their long ongoing fight for minority rights, the instant they feel threatened by the same fascist state that had been targeting minorities for decades.
Every time without fail.
MLK was right.
How do you think you’re helping your endgame friend? Did MLK ask for anything more than what was possible at the time?
You’re talking shit about people who have been fighting fascism on the streets for years if not decades and asking how they benefit the fight that you just joined once it started targeting people like you.
No one is talking shit about anyone. A world without borders just isn’t realistic. How about harmony between people first? How about preventing WWIII? Ridiculous
deleted by creator
How about harmony between people first?
I honestly don’t know if you’re using this as an example of something you think is realistic, or more difficult than open borders.
He specifically talked about the tranquilizing drug of gradualism in his most famous speech.
Yes. Namely, the dissolution of the capitalist system.
MLK never advocated for open borders. It’s a bastardization of his statement to dismiss all but the most radical positions on any issue.
I was referring to MLK’s thoughts on white moderates’ tendency to hijack/coopt civil rights activism and neuter it, not to anything he might have said about open borders (which he opposed afaik).
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
I was referring to MLK’s thoughts on white moderates’ tendency…
That’s what I figured but I assumed, given the thread, that you were applying it to open borders. I apparently assumed wrong.
Being a naive Utopist, I understand that many things aren’t possible right now
That doesn’t mean, that those things wouldn’t be the correct thing to work towards toWork towards them! Focus on something achievable because the world is in real trouble and this isn’t helping
Fascism never left America, it’s just went underground for a little while. And the system problems with this country are the reasons why that’s even possible to begin with. You can’t treat the symptoms and not treat the cause, otherwise we all end up right back here.
Even if it seems.
That’s impossible!
No. It’s necessary.
– Interstellar, docking scene.
Removed by mod
The fact that immigration is even a thing here makes me chuckle. We literally killed the people who lived here, planned a flag and said that’s ours now. It’s such a laughably ridiculous concept. Every one of us here is a descendants of immigrants who came here looking for a better life.
Removed by mod
Please point me to all of these supposed immigrant gangs. I’d love to read about it. All of the research data that I’ve seen points to immigrants committing violent crimes at a far lower rate than actual citizens of the U.S.
If you don’t have actual data to back up your claims, you’re just spouting misinformation at best, or intentional disinformation at worst.
Cartels are a different problem entirely. Those are drug gangs from other countries. So, in don’t even know why you’re bringing that up in the context of immigration.
I mean, native Americans/native indians still exist. So not everyone
i think, alas, the spirit remains true since indigenous people have been systematically barred from the levers of power. however, i still appreciate your comment because building something new that works for everyone will have to include, and frequently be led by, indigenous voices
I mean yes, but they were systemicatically murdered in a genocide, and forcibly removed from their land.
Anybody who survived that period was forced to integrate with American society or face systemic persecution and often death.
Hell, we went to war with a number of tribes bcz we wanted their land and resources. The point isn’t that Native Americans don’t exist today.
Its that their culture was systematically destroyed and their homelands burned to the ground or taken over.
Yes, I acknowledge all of that. Which is why I was correcting you when you said every one of us is descended from immigrants looking for a better life. It’s wrong to act like they are completely gone, not because it makes our ancestors look bad, but because it erases the people and cultures who are still here with us and persevere.
I think you are taking my original statement too literally.
Yea it was mostly supposed to be tongue in cheek :P Not actually mad or anything
I have zero faith in congress’ ability to do this though.
This is the crux of the problem. Nobody has faith in Congress’ ability to do anything.
Removed by mod
I wasn’t saying open borders before, but I am now. Picking primary candidates who support it too. We need the EU model. Fuck whatever broken system we have now.
We do have the EU model. Travel all you want across US state borders. Europe and America both enforce outer borders.
The system in the US is indeed broken, as is Europe in slightly different ways.
The EU is notorious for its brutal and heavy-handed immigration enforcement. This is one rare case where the answer is in the past; America didn’t even have laws restricting immigration for about a hundred years.
European here. You do realize that the EU is still quite picky about who gets in, right?
Within the EU itself it’s very easy to move around, I can drive through several countries without seeing a single border checkpoint. Actually getting into the EU if you’re from a “less desirable” nation? I hear it’s not all that easy.
It’s much harder to get citizenship in most EU countries than it is to get citizenship in the USA. Until Trump, it was also easier to get into the US on a visa than to get into Europe on a visa.
I think I’ve seen border checkpoints while driving between EU countries, but it was hard to tell because they hadn’t been in operation for decades. But, there’s still a vague sense of a border. It seems like the countries maintain that area enough so that if ever they had to put the border control points back into operation it could be done. So, you can sort of tell that you crossed a border, even if you don’t have to slow down at all.
I seem to remember that the USA was part of the model when the EU was being designed. That doing business between EU member states was supposed to be as easy as doing business state-to-state in the USA. It isn’t quite there yet. But, the USA has been working at reducing state-to-state friction for nearly 2 centuries, whereas the EU has only had decades.
I’ve seen them too. There’s a booze store in one lol. I meant I haven’t seen an operational one.
Have you ever crossed the Swiss border? That was an interesting one. Switzerland isn’t in the EU but they’re in a lot of bilateral agreements which means they mostly have an open border. But, that agreement is a lot less solid than the rest of the EU agreements.
It seems like the France / Belgium border could be turned back into a proper border control post within a few months. But, the Swiss / France border seems like it could be back in full force within a few days. Currently you can drive past it at nearly full highway speeds, but all the border control buildings are there, and the roads leading up to them are just ready for them to start diverting traffic again. I also seem to remember that it offered a last second chance to turn around and not cross the border, something you didn’t get at say France / Germany. Probably because there actually is a meaningful difference in laws between the two sides, so there’s a chance someone might decide not to do it.
I haven’t been into any of the EEA countries yet, but there’s a non-zero chance of crossing the Swiss border later this year. I’m looking to import a cheap old used car from western Europe and prices for the particular model are a tiny bit higher in Switzerland than Germany, but the Swiss ones tend to have lower mileage (and my friend who used to work at AutoDNA when it was still competitive against CarVertical (or maybe before CarVertical was a thing even) says German cars are the worst to get background checks on since there’s so little info available and Swiss cars are significantly better in that regard)
Cool, just be careful on the rules. Switzerland is technically not part of the EEA. They’re part of the EFTA, and have a bunch of bilateral agreements with the rest of the EU, but there are still quirks to the deals. Even if you’re charged only minimal fees or duties, that could add up if you’re buying a car. At a minimum, you’ll probably have to do paperwork to export the car from Switzerland to another country. And the Swiss love their paperwork.
There’s paperwork to do regardless of country of origin I believe, since you generally need to de-register it and get the temporary plates. This seems to incur some minor fees of usually double digits euros in pretty much every country, as some clerk has to fill out a few forms and whatever. And on the Estonian side I’ll have to show it to some officials who will verify that it exists, is a car, has the correct VIN, the doors open, and that it has seatbelts. More or less. It’s not a proper TÜV, as the TÜV from country of origin still applies. Also we now have a registration fee so that’s nice. Since already registered cars also incur the fee (one time retroactive reg fee for the first change of ownership after the law came into effect a year ago), it doesn’t really make imports any less competitive yet.
Mostly I’m still leaning towards Germany, as I could just fly into Stuttgart or Frankfurt and have several examples in my price range to check out as long as I’m willing to bus/train around or hail whatever the German equivalent of Bolt is (because fuck Uber). Average of 100k extra kilometers on the clock compared to the Swiss examples isn’t a big deal on an OM642 anyway if it’s been maintained and having more choices is better, because I don’t want to go fly out to see one particular car, discover it has a glaring flaw not described by the seller, and have no other options nearby lol
Sounds like a bit of an opposame risk, walking problem-reaction-solutioned straight into NAU. Great grandest father mason would be proud.
You"re missing half the picture here. Zeros are such because legality is delirium. It’s all about money and Earthbound showed it clearly it when you get done with Moonside.
Shit if you make to the explination of your dreams right before you bot out to beat your neighbor Pokey & G…
The US immigration “policy” is just as stupid as it is inhumane. At this point it’s easier to imagine it being orchestrated by rivals that think long term, rather than being just from the ever-present conservative hate and ignorance.
Our economy is built with an infinite growth mindset, moreso than most. ALL developed nations are seeing population growth slow down and even reverse – that’s just what happens when populations get educated and wealthy.
So what are we doing? Violently kicking out tons of lower paid workers while also scaring away some of the most highly educated and specialized Ph.Ds.
But hey, at least we’re consistent and also make conditions horrible for natural born citizens to raise USian children!
Yes, Open borders is the desirable outcome. The fact that people were saying they don’t want open borders shows they’re a lib and therefore not a real leftist.
It is not immigrants who are the cause of any problems in America, it is the right-fascists and oligarchs who shit this garbage out their mouths.
The counter to right-wing extremism isn’t right-wing liberalism, it is real leftism, the thing they are trying to dismiss.
I don’t want open borders, I want abolished borders, big difference.
The leeches are not the immigrants, unless they happen to be an oligarch immigrant like Elon.
We should have open borders. The only thing needed to get in should be a background check. But anyone who hasn’t committed violent crimes should be able to live and work in the country.
No. I’m not worried about being swamped by a flood of people from poorer countries. Why? Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person. We will only ever attract as many immigrants as there are jobs to support them.
Of course, I would want reciprocity. I would support signing mutual open border agreements with poorer countries. They can send workers in need of work here. We can send retirees in need of low cost of living places there. The flow in both directions is kept in check by market forces, the same way we regulate the production of every good and service in our economies.
Of course, I would want reciprocity. I would support signing mutual open border agreements with poorer countries.
There’s literally zero incentive for a poorer country to sign this agreement with a richer country.
Many of the poor countries intelligent, productive population leave, and basically no one from the rich country have any incentive to move to the poor country.
You must be unaware of:
-
Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
-
The whole fucking EU
Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
Do remittances outweigh the benefit of having your own productive, successful upper class? Do remittances give you doctors to support your population and engineers to build your infrastructure?
The whole fucking EU
Is a union due to the similarity of the members, there is no Nigeria level member country of the EU. The poorest nation in the EU is Hungary/Bulagria that is at 60-70% of the average EU income.
If Nigeria was a member it would be around the 20% level with next to nothing to offer to the agreement. Everyone that coupe afford to, would immediately move our of Nigeria and bring next to nothing to wherever they moved.
The United States and Canada could absolutely have such an agreement with a similar level of benefit. The United States and Argentina could not.
-
I believe that everyone in the country should have free medical care, free or deeply subsidized minimal housing, and free or deeply subsidized food. (I believe this for everyone, but it has to happen somewhere before it can happen everywhere.)
This is not possible if we allow unlimited access to absolutely anyone (and their families) regardless of whether there is employment to sustain them.
We should have work visas sufficiently available for all the jobs that we need filled, and we should have harsh enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers. (Treat them like slavers because that’s what they are). Deportations should be done compassionately and should not treat immigrants as criminals or national security threats.
Open borders are a naive notion, but we should be a lot closer to open borders than to what we have now.
Not sure needing any sort of check would be “open borders”, but let’s assume it’s open to anyone who doesn’t have a violent criminal record. Now all the non-violent people with criminal records are fleeing to your country to avoid prosecution. Do you allow them to be extradited?
Do you still have a military to protect your country from others? How do you prevent a foreign nation from just sending enough people over to instigate a coup? Way cheaper than going to war, and they wouldn’t even need to be sneaky or underhanded; just overwhelm the local population and overthrow their government.
Universal healthcare would completely collapse if people can move to a country, get treatment, then go back home. Are you doing a health screening and making sure they have a job and live in the country for a minimum amount of time?
Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person
You can bring your family too so that’s a non-issue, and many people would be better off homeless in a wealthy country than making do in a poor one. People will travel within a country to be homeless in the more desirable places, if there’s essentially no boundary imagine how many people that would attract. Especially if the wealthy country continues to have outreach and support programs for the homeless and still enforces laws in the inevitable camps that spring up.
Now you’re arresting loads and people and it’s straining your resources to imprison them all. Do you start deporting people who break certain laws?
Seems like we’re starting to invent all the immigration rules that never used to exist but sprang up out of necessity.
sprang up out of necessity.
You mean out of racism?
I’m not American, but won’t say every immigration law is right; just that going full-open is an over-correction.
This “overcorrection” was the case for the vast majority of human history. It only stopped being the case due to racism and nationalism. I’m not sure what you think you’re appealing to here but this is just not reflected in reality.
You’re taking things way too literally. The US had open borders for most of its history, and it didn’t get invaded or fall to pieces. When people say “open boarder” they mean no restrictions on immigration other than criminal records.
Your speculation on vast camps is hogwash. Immigrants maintain much lower unemployment levels than native-born citizens. And you can have all your social welfare benefits tied to citizenship. These are problems the EU solved a long time ago. Look more into history and real world examples, less vague speculation.
The US had open borders for most of its history
Just because a social program worked in past doesn’t mean it will work in the future. Hell, just because a social program worked in another country doesn’t mean it will work in this country.
We can’t have people just coming in and immediately qualifying for government assistance. As selfish as it sounds people shouldn’t come into any country with the expectation of economic assistance. The U.S. is not the world’s welfare program; it cannot afford it.
Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person
Life as a homeless person can be better than life in a war torn country.
The flow in both directions is kept in check by market forces, the same way we regulate the production of every good and service in our economies.
Libertarian ah take
Life as a homeless person can be better than life in a war torn country.
Immigrants however are extremely unlikely to be homeless. People who take the initiative to flee across a continent tend to be self-starters and highly motivated. There’s a reason immigrants start businesses at far higher rates than native born citizens. By accepting immigrants, you are selecting for a population of the most motivated and driven people in the regions you’re drawing from.
Libertarian ah take
So? This is how we regulated immigration for the vast, vast majority of the history of human civilization. People move to areas with more opportunities. If too many people move to those areas, the opportunities available to immigrants decrease, and the flow of people slows. It’s a self-regulating system. It only ever becomes a thing to worry about if you’re concerned about the skin color of your neighbors.
I understand what you’re saying about immigration, but that holds less true with respect to war forcing people to move.
So?
I was more pointing towards the suggestion that market forces kept everything in check, which, no, they don’t. The market does not magically stay afloat without intervention. Production is not just regulated by market forces.
But most importantly, countries have capacities. America, for example, can hold many more people than it is, comfortably. But if you have a place that’s smaller, like Britain or sweden, free border immigration will result in strains in both the cultural and infrastructure situation in the countries at hand as they rapidly grow beyond present capacity, which they will if free immigration is allowed.
Excess workers willing to work for lower pay can also drive wages down, and allow companies to exploit workers more easily(often regardless of the actual law).
I’m generally in favor of reasonably lax immigration policies, but free border immigration is not a good idea. People need time to adjust to the culture of where they’re going, and you don’t want to overload that
There is less war today that at any point of human history.
Watch this video. Market inefficiency will have people freezing to death in the streets, unable to afford travelling to a place with work, unable even to afford accurate information on where to find work. Many turned to crime to survive.
In Tudor England’s case, they “solved” this by kidnapping people ICE-style and deporting them to the colonies as indentured servants or putting them in for-profit prisons.
Open borders are good, but you need to be anarchocommunist about it. People need to base their migration patterns on accurate information, which means information given as mutual aid rather than for profit or for manipulation (e.g. if people constantly say “we have no space” when they have space, people learn that “we have no space” means “we probably have space”, so if there is no space you get disaster).
It also needs to be mutual aid when people are there. Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to slot into the economy of a foreign culture is “leaving money on the table”. It’s much more economically productive to get people everything they need to be comfortable so they can instead spend their labor on efficient tasks they are specialized in (which then help other get what they need faster in the positive sum game we call society).
Open borders are a great idea if you want to average out the standard of living across the world.
Personally, as an American, I don’t want that to be a fast process. I am interested in helping the rest of the world to raise their standard of living, especially in the long term. That’s in everyone’s interest.
I’m not interested in making huge sacrifices in the American standard of living in order to accomplish that.
If you have any requirement for entry then it’s not really an open border and you need some kind of enforcement to enforce those requirements.
deleted by creator
It’s true. Before March 3rd 2003, the day ICE was created, humanity did not know borders. They weren’t a thing. Borders have only been a concept for 23 years, the same amount of time ICE has existed.
I really wish I could just know this is sarcasm.
I’ve heard crazier things on lemmy, but I think it’s sarcasm in this case.
If Occam’s razor says so, who am I to argue.
The US would be swamped by really or desperate people. There are billions living in filth in India. Living in the streets of America should be a huge upgrade
If we had worldwide open borders why would people from India go to the US instead of China or the EU?
Because we’re never going to have worldwide open borders. Humanity is going to off itself before then.
ALSO BECAUSE we’re specifically talking about abolishing ice here, so… seems like a united states centered conversation. I’d put money on the united states having open borders before either china or the eu.
First, aside from literal war-torn countries there’s nowhere where being homeless is a “huge upgrade” (or even a small upgrade) over not being homeless. That’s just not how that fucking works. Second, in the past (and present) poor Chinese people did in fact enter the US in large numbers looking for opportunity, and what you’re implying didn’t happen in the slightest. I’m not sure where you got this idea from, but this is completely unrealistic fearmongering.
Chinese came here thousands or tens of thousands. Not billions
Uh… you think 66% of India’s population is going to pack up and move to the US? Do you seriously believe what you’re saying?
Do we also give out pensions and free medical to everybody that comes in? Do they have to pay into the system for a period first? We can barely keep up with the people we have in Canada. Few million more and we’re swamped.
it’s baffling to me how the idea that “being born here does not make me entitled to services more than someone who wasn’t born here” is controversial among “leftists”
we all need food, we all need housing… why should it matter that my birth coordinates happen to be within an arbitrary drawing on the map ffs
I think what you’re seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:
- Change this one thing and everyone will be better off for it.
- An ideal world would have this feature.
is controversial among “leftists”
I have notice any leftists who consider that idea controversial. Mostly just Liberals/Democrats
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration, and generally people that support those governments are also called “leftist”.
The same goes for many social democrats and socialist reformists. Even unionists often oppose migration because migrants are imported by the capitalist order to use as scabs (see “guest workers” in 1970s West Germany).
All basically want a walled garden in which leftist ways of living can flourish, usually with the idea to export them later.
But especially in activist and discourse spaces, people tend to be in a pretty narrow band from pop liberalism to anarchocommunism. Socialists, socdems, and unionists tend to be busy with their job, because that is what their praxis calls for. And state communists tend to walk away exasperated when people condemn genocide.
But anarchocommunist praxis is for a large part prefigurative sharing of information, ideas, and tentative structures. So we’re relatively loud and as unemployed as we can get away with.
Basically no one believes in open borders, only some weird fringe anarchists who posts memes like the one above that are largely irrelevant in the real world. It’s always just been a straw man from the right or just weird online fringe anarchists who hold the position.
The reason communists are critical of the US/European hostility towards immigrants is not because we want open borders but because western countries bomb, sanction, coup these countries and cause a refugee crisis then turn around and cry about those immigrants coming to their country.
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration,
Fair enough, the USSR restricted movement within their territory more than many other countries restricted their borders.
Because we have limited resources and a country definitionally priorities its citizens over foreigners. If it doesn’t; then you basically no longer have citizens, you just have inhabitants.
And what is the issue there? Let’s prioritize our inhabitants then. It’s not like there’s not enough to go around.
There’s absolutely limited resources, specifically concernin what the government has the capability of handing out.
Unfortunately we have to think about “what’s in it for us?” If the answer is another mouth to put on welfare and medicaid then… Why?..
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
"what’s in it for us?
Ah, ok, you’re one of those. Might want to change your username
We don’t live in a world of abundance, abundance is a goal of humanity, were not there yet; and we don’t get there by printing money out of thin air and handing it out.
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
Billions of dollars is pennies compares what would be required to put the world on welfare, and those billions remove criminals and those preying on.l the generosity of our country.
we don’t live in a world of abundance
literally all studies about this make you wrong
iterally all studies about this make you wrong
You misunderstand, we live in a world that’s capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react; because they do not have an abundance of anything.
Who’s saying to “put the world on welfare”? This conversation isn’t about getting things for free from the government, it’s about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.
Edit: “preying on the generosity of our country” is hilarious
The initial premis of the argument that I replied to was questioning why people who were born in the U.S. are entitled to something that those who are not born in the U.S. are not.
I’m all for net tax payers entering the U.S. through legal routes. Methods that protect the immigrant from exploitation from employers.
That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don’t think they, you know, buy things and work?
Please don’t erect strawmen after not reading the entire conversation.
If your analogy is based on consumption it makes no sense.
Meanwhile, I could drop eat from mine response and the point stands with a dry place to sit.
My analogy is based on contribution and social contract.
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
You guys don’t care
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It’s really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
I’m saying spaceships for everybody.
