Posted on 10/07/2015 8:50:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A better option than exclusion would be to restrict migrants’ eligibility for benefits.
Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are once again searching for better ways to curtail immigration. In America, Republican candidates are pondering bigger, better border walls. In Europe, leading politicians are hoping someone figures out a way to end the Syrian refugee crisis by bringing peace to the Middle East. In the midst of these passionate debates about how to curtail immigration, almost no one is talking about whether immigration should be curtailed in the first place. This is the debate we should be having.
Some of the greatest victories of social justice in 20th-century America have, in the end, cost us less than nothing. The end of Jim Crow laws, which restricted blacks’ right to work for any willing employer, didn’t only help blacks; it also enriched our whole society by allowing black workers to fully use their talents. The entry of American women into traditionally male jobs, similarly, was not a victory for women alone; wasting half the country’s skill, determination and ingenuity would have been a tragic loss for the U.S.
These successes should make us wonder if we’re overlooking other ways to make our society juster and richer at the same time. As it turns out, such an opportunity is hiding in plain sight: Instead of redoubling our efforts to curtail immigration, we should return to the historic American policy of open borders—admitting everyone eager to come build a better life for themselves....
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
The case for open borders is closed.
What in Gods name is he chattering about?
The US never had “open borders”. If that was true, what was Ellis Island, a watering station?
It’s absurd crap. Ask the Spanish if they could get anywhere North of the Bexar after 1836.
^THAT.
A professor who writes “juster” is not very credible.
Bringing in 30,000,000 gardeners and roofing laborers will not build our society.
Glad someone else caught that.
We should close the border to all Middle Eastern immigrants unless they can be verified as Christians or Jews.
Deport all illegals that can be found.
Limit immigration to a quota, (20,000 to 50,000) with no more than 5% coming from any one country.
The Libertarians like that approach. Open borders with no access to welfare.
Still have the issue of educating their kids, taking care of them at the ERs, and entry level job loss.
There’s just too much disparity between “developing” cultures and the west to allow unfettered access.
Those who did land were welcome but were officially on their own completely. No welfare, no government handouts. They were usually met by previous immigrants from their own country who would assist them in finding lodging, usually for a price. Many failed and returned to Europe, broke.
Either the author is completely ignorant or deliberately lying. We have never had open borders, in fact we had much stricter immigration laws in the past (immigrants needed sponsors, any suspected political radicals were summarily tossed, immigration quotas, etc.)
30% of immigrants couldn’t manage and returned home, according to Ms Coulter.
Will the guys sneaking (well it wouldn’t really be sneaking anymore now would it?) Bombs and Chemical Weapons into the Country care if they can’t get an EBT Card?
“A better option than exclusion would be to restrict migrants’ eligibility for benefits” but not only, just a good start. Then see how many flee on their own. If not enough, then more limits. I’m thinking low cost per results.
“Juster”, haha.
Or not. "The Irish need not apply" signs were common.
They often ended up only in the most dangerous (teamsters, longshoremen, police, firefighters, construction work, powder monkeys, miners) or servile jobs (maid, cook, gardener).
Precisely, it is absurd. Who educates the children? Who pays for sickness? How much will their presence drive down wages of average citizens? Do these people believe in borders?
He is fine with 30 million illegal immigrants because they are gardeners and not professors.
And he is fine with bringing in “Syrians” because they only crucify Christians, not professors.
Fine, as long as they all go and live at his house.
The analogy to a personal residence would be to not leave the food on the table but leaving the front door wide open and expecting that the only people walking through are the ones asking to fix your plumbing or mow your lawn.
But if I’m a crook, why would I not prefer to ply my trade in a more prosperous society?
Not only that, but sooner or later all the bleeding hearts would be clamoring for “equal rights” for the immigrants, and signs in Urdu, and medical benefits, etc. etc.
This guy is obviously naive in the extreme.
I recommend he leaves the door to his home wide open so he can enjoy the benefits of his visitors.... and get re-acquainted with reality.
What’s ironic is that at the end of his diatribe, he acknowledges that some restrictions would be necessary, so in essence he argues against his own position. And if he had thought things out through for another 10 minutes, he would have realized that those restrictions would hardly be sufficient for a well ordered society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.