Real Talk About Open Borders

American Rattlesnake ^ | May 22, 2016 | Gerard Perry

[OddLane]

One of the chief misconceptions about my immigration views is that they’re born of willful intransigence. The conceit that my political philosophy was shaped years ago-true, to a large degree-and has been unyielding in the face of overwhelming evidence which logically refutes it-completely baseless-is surprisingly widespread among my critics. The truth is that I’m actually desperate to be persuaded, to be convinced that open borders is somehow a desirable-or even workable-state of affairs.

Admitting that you’re wrong, especially about sincerely, long-held convictions, can be psychically devastating for some individuals. One need only read David Horowitz’s disturbing memoir Radical Son to get a sense of how traumatic reevaluating your core ideological beliefs can be to a human being. That said, I am not by nature an ideologue. My identity and my sense of self worth are not wrapped up in the outcome of a particular domestic or international debate. Although not a consequentialist, I do accept reality as it is, which is why I find the intellectual defense of mass, 3rd world immigration to the West so utterly unconvincing.

I want to be persuaded that I’m wrong, but over the past 2 decades I’ve yet to encounter an even minimally persuasive argument explaining why I am. The most compelling defense of open borders I’ve heard was offered by Julian Castro, the son of a ’60s Chicana militant whose children have been able to profit from the political cachet of faux multiculturalism and our country’s drastically altered demographics. Empty suit though he is, at least he had a rudimentary understanding of the issue being discussed, unlike almost every open borders libertarian I’ve tried to engage on this subject.

[OddLane]

ping

[jsanders2001]

Open borders I like a human being with HIV; no immune system to repel the disease which ends up killing the host. Now build the wall.

[B4Ranch]

I don’t mind if you want to be charitable and generous to the downtrodden. As a matter of fact I will contribute to your efforts—anonymously. Why do I insist on donating anonymously?

Because I have a budget that I maintain every month. If everyone knew that the softspot in my heart existed they would all be in line for their handout which would rapidly advance to become reparations.

You decide how much of your money you wish to contribute and if you allow me to determine how much I should add in and we’ll remain friends.

[Redwood71]

It all comes down to one thing: when asked at the border their profession and they say nuclear scientist, with an education at a major university, and ten years in hydro-electrics in Mexico, or they say career criminal with a six grade education and has spent the last 15 years in a Mexican prison for armed robbery and battery and both can prove it. Pretty simple after that. We already have enough criminals, and we may not have enough scientist.

red

[Dogbert41]

An open boarder is nothing more than an open front door, only bigger. And the owner is saying, “help yourself”.

It’s really that simple.

[RitaOK]

Thanks for the ping. This is quite a study, referring to this essay. I didn’t finish it, but I will.

I am one of those that appreciated the orderly intake of refugees at Ellis Island.

However, it is the first time I knew or realized that possibly no refugee during the Ellis Isalnd intake was anyone but white.

My first reaction is maybe that is why it worked. It is that awful? They were either Jews, or Catholics?

This question leads to thinking why it worked.

At that time America came first. Those who were religious came and those who received them were religious, much more so than today. Immigration strengthened America because the new inhabitants were Jews or Catholics, and had faith in common.

I need to read the article again and in full. I appreciate the ping very much.

Rita

[OddLane]

Initially.

Ellis Island opened in 1892-about 2 years after the federal government assumed control of immigration.

This was before Wong Kim Ark, which extended citizenship to children born of Chinese parents inside of the United States-if they lived in this country.

Citizenship had already been extended to freedmen, but wasn't granted to American Indians until the 20th century.

So most of the rules of the Naturalization Act of 1790 although amended several times in the interim, still applied at the time.

[RitaOK]

Stunning history there. Thank you for the additional info.

Perhaps I am guilty of romanticizing Ellis Island, the movies of the old movies from 40’s and 50’s were still popular and so pro-American and glorious when I was growing up.

Even the immigrants and refugees were portrayed as moral, grateful and fairly marveling at America.

Thanks. Rita