The entire Americas from the top of Canada down to the bottom of Argentina should have open borders

[Yavin4]

Just like Eurozone, people, business, and capital should move freely throughout the Americas. Just like someone born in Virginia and live and work in Texas, we should be able to be born any where in the Americas and live and work any where else in the Americas.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The entire world should have open borders.

People should be free to come and go as they please. Citizenship in a country is a different matter, but just as the fat cats can move their mega-bucks around the globe seeking profit wherever it can be found, so should peasants be free to work wherever wages are best.

[Yavin4]

2. Agreed. Just like the Eurozone, you have citizenship in one country

But, you can work any where. I would love to work in Brazil for a few months, Costa Rica for a few months, Vancouver, Portland, etc., etc., etc.

[LittleBlue]

3. That would be suicidal

We would instantly have half of Central America coming here with nowhere to live. Would be 100x worse than Europe right now. Tent cities everywhere, crime skyrocketing, water shortages, etc. It would bankrupt our welfare system.

We'll talk when those countries defeat organized crime and get their living standards more similar to ours. It would take them decades to do what the EU did, IE aligning the legal systems of all countries to be compliant with a consensus.

[Elwood P Dowd]

4. I'm afraid you're correct on this. (nt)

[mrmpa]

5. If corporations have their way.........

the living standards in these countries will never be similar to ours. The corporations was the US living standards to be similar to those in these countries.

The global economy should be about raising the standard of living in other countries not lowering our standards.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Yeah, took 50 minutes to cross from Brazil to Argentina today. I vote for no borders anywhere.

[pampango]

7. It only happened in Europe because a couple of devastating wars convinced Europeans

that 'bridges' (open borders to people and trade) were more conducive to peace and prosperity than were the 'walls' (border controls and tariffs) that they had relied on before. That generation of Europeans created 70 years of peace and prosperity where it did not exist before, but it has largely died off. People (at least the conservatives, for sure) there are going back to the way they thought before.

I doubt anything similar will happen in the Americas, barring a cataclysm like the wars in Europe. Just like Europeans early in the 20th century, Americans look at our neighbors with a lot of "US vs THEM" mentality. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing in my lifetime.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. No thanks n/t

[Meldread]

9. I support this idea in theory.

I support the idea of open borders. In fact, I support all nations having open borders.

...all of this, of course, is in theory.

In reality, I think there needs to be a process, similar to becoming part of the Eurozone. I think we can learn a lot from the triumphs and mistakes of the Eurozone and improve upon the model. The goal should be to not only open it up to all the Americas, but also the rest of the world.

People and trade should be free to flow. At least to those who make accommodation to become part of the agreement.

[tritsofme]

10. The refugee crisis has put the future of open European borders in serious jeopardy.

They are moving in the opposite direction, and Britain notably does not participate.

I'm not sure I understand the advantage American citizens get from unlimited and uncontrolled immigration from Latin America.

While Americans and Canadians would technically have the same rights, the practical effect would be huge movement from South to North.

[Throd]

11. A bad idea in theory which would be horrible in practice.

[Octafish]

12. As it is now, only the rich get to travel that way.

Money is the universal welcome.

[B Calm]

13. Sounds like one world government.

[pampango]

14. What!? Next you are going to want open borders from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific to

the Gulf of Mexico! Do you want to destroy life as we know it? You have to reduce the mobility of people if you want to achieve any level of prosperity.

I much prefer "Trump" walls (or at least strict border controls) between each state. Imagine how much better off we would be in Ohio if people from Kentucky didn't come up here to take our jobs. Imagine how much better off people in Kentucky would be if folks from Tennessee didn't come up to take their jobs. And so on and so on until you get to Mississippi. I am not sure who is going to take their jobs so maybe Mississippians will not be big fans of domestic "Trump" walls.

Walls protect US from THEM. Just ask The Donald and Marine Le Pen of whom you should be afraid. It is THEM! And most of THEM are poor people who want what you have and whom you need to keep as far away from you as is humanly possible.

[hunter]

24. I was born in California.

Fuck all the rest of you loser states...





Refugees from the dust bowl were often fiercely upset that Mexican and Filipino farm workers were not simply tossed aside when white people, their fellow citizens (if you know what I mean...) came looking for work.

Frankly racism and nationalism suck. Throw some nonsensical economic ideologies and religious beliefs into the mix and you've got the perfect recipe for war.

The U.S.A. is a nation of nonsensical economic ideologies and religious beliefs, sure not as bad as some nations, but not a great shining example for the rest of the world either.

[Yo_Mama]

15. It would be a total disaster. Why do you hate Canada? The hard-right wants this

so that they can destroy social welfare infrastructure. Once the native tax-paying population sees most of their taxes go toward funding other populations, the support for the welfare state is destroyed.

Also the corporatists want this. It's so much fun to import one hundred Indian IT people, pay them a dollar an hour working 90 hours a week, and have them live eleven or twelve in a room.

[pampango]

16. The hard-right wants open borders? I don't think so. The hard-right wants border walls. Huuuge ones.

The hard-right opposes immigration. They oppose accepting refugees. They love to talk about deporting millions of 'illegal' immigrants. They hardly seem like the ones who will lobby for 'open borders' to let in as many immigrants and refugees as can walk across the border.

Who is fighting the existing 'open borders' in Europe? The hard-right. Marine Le Pen, Neil Farage, Geert Wilders and a host of others on the right want to get rid of 'open borders'. While they cannot yet argue for actual 'walls', they want to permanently reinstate the border controls that existed before WWII and before the EU and Schengen. It is liberals who fought for and are fighting for maintaining the EU's and Schengen's open borders.

'Open borders' are not going to happen in the Americas for a long, long time. (Though I suppose they would have said that in Europe in the 1930's.) For it to ever work here, you would need some kind of common government - like the EU - to administer the 'free travel/live/work/trade' area. Given the howls you can expect from the 'national sovereignty' lobby, I think it is safe to assume that no American politician in his/her right mind would ever advocate for the Americas what Europe has for itself (until the hard-right comes into power in enough European countries to shut the borders down permanently there to and turn it back to the '30's).

[polly7]

17. No thanks.

We like our social programs, health-care and everything else we've worked hard for.

[malletgirl02]

18. Do you want open borders or social welfare?

You can't have both.

[pampango]

20. Tell that to Sweden. n/t

[malletgirl02]

21. If you read the European press

It seems to be breaking down as a result of the refugee crisis. Before the crisis Sweden could offer a large welfare state simply due to its northern location. With the increase in immigration there are signs of strain. The right wing in Sweden is gaining influence, and also Sweden had to limit immigration.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/sweden-asylum-seekers-refugees-policy-reversal

Denmark also started to severely means test it benefits for refugees.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/denmark-to-force-refugees-to-give-up-valuables-under-proposed-asylum-law

[pampango]

22. For decades Sweden has had open borders (EU/Schenen) and great social welfare benefits.

There is indeed a limit but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Prior to the refugee crisis (2013) Sweden's foreign-born population was 16% compared to the US' 13%, yet Sweden had a much superior social welfare network.

In the Americas there would have to also be a limit and any 'open borders' policy (which will never happen in reality) would have to be phased in gradually and governed multilaterally (which would freak out the RW "North American Union" theorists.

You are right. Being so open to refugees may have been a step-too-far for the Swedes but that is how Swedish liberals operate. And you are also right that the Swedish right has always been opposed to immigration and now to refugees and is and will benefit from the refugee influx.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. When I'm able to tax, regulate, and enforce laws in Argentina, get back to me. nt

In the meantime, citizenship means something. Specifically, it means that your government should promote your wellbeing.

[malaise]

23. They're open for all but

humans - oh the irony!