DEBATE: I argue for open borders.

[benburch]

In this climate of isolationism, on "both sides of the aisle", I don't expect this idea to be received well, but I firmly believe that there is no problem of open and legal immigration that is worse than the problems we now have with tightly controlled immigration that forces world-be immigrants to enter the country illegally.

On the Statue of Liberty it says;

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

And that is my policy, too. America has never been weakened by any of the "wretched refuse" we have taken in; Quite the opposite! Immigration has always strengthened us.

I propose that anybody who is in the USA should be considered to be a Resident. All Residents would be subject to all of the same laws that govern all, including minimum wage laws. There would be no more abuse of illegal immigrants by making virtual slaves of them for little or no pay because there would not BE ANY illegal immigrants. There would be no more people dying in the desert in order to cross into the country. There would be no more crews of illegal aliens locked into a workplace. There would be no more women in sexual slavery indenture to their smugglers. All people in the country would henceforth be legal residents of the USA, and protected by the laws that protect us all.

People argue that many industries, especially agriculture, cannot survive without underpaid and unprotected labor. I reply that this is bullshit! If American goods do wind up at a competitive disadvantage with foreign goods, then the remedy is a protective tariff. The higher prices we would pay for food would be more than offset by the boost to our economy that having those workers (that are already here in any case) being paid a decent wage and being able to buy goods and services, fueling the economy.

People argue that we would have a flood of immigration, and that all of the jobs would be taken by immigrants. Yes, we would have a flood of immigrants. But jobs are NOT a zero sum game! The more people you have in a country, the more goods and services have to be provided, and hence, jobs are created to cover this deficit.

People argue that the country is overcrowded. And that is true in the big cities. But the vast majority of the country in un-populated "flyover" territory. There is plenty of room to expand. And the planet needs to provide for those people no matter where they reside.

People argue that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaide cannot handle the influx. Remember that all of these people will be LEGAL residents. They will pay taxes, including Social Security premiums. And remember that immigrants tend to be YOUNG people. This is a remedy for the aging of the population and the problems with providing for the social security "balloon" population.

People argue that this will have political consequences for the major parties. But remember, only citizens may vote. Only if these new immigrants care enough about the USA to study for and pass the citizenship exam will they have any political effect. And anybody who does that deserves to be heard.

DISCUSSION SOLICITED.

[xchrom]

1. i don't believe in it in all cases -- just with mexico.

and or canada.

but the case with mexico is that we are related to mexico.

we have there is simply no good reason not to recognize that profound fact and deal with it.

when it comes to labour issues -- we have the right to expect a liveable wage for working people period.
we are well past the day of exploitatin and as a society we have the right to expect employers to behave themselve and we should be willing to enforce that.

beyond that -- i would note that u.s. has built an economy that depends on workers from other places to fill in the bottom the wage index.

we went so far as to rape africa to make that happen -- so i have little sympathy for anti-immigration arguments{especially in the case of mexico}.

i would also go so far as to note that few people express outrage at the imported wokers from the e.u. and scadanavia who earn 20% more than native american workers and place their pressures own wages.
at those rates it doesn't take many to keep wages from climbing in that salary group.

[BootinUp]

2. couple thoughts

protection in the form of tariffs is a regressive form of taxation. Not really where I think we should go on commodity items. I would reserve those for high tech or fledgling industries.

And then open borders are considered a security risk these days. It would be loser for us in the next election.

[benburch]

4. It is a security risk that is made of pure fear with no truth in it.

It is not real because, as we can see, the borders are now and always shall be completely open to ILLEGAL passage.

And tariffs are not regressive. They foster domestic industry, raise domestic wages, create jobs, and LOWER costs to citizens because those taxes go to the federal budget, lowering other forms of taxation considerably.

[BootinUp]

8. Still disagree.

There can be more border security, its just a matter of political will.

I do believe there should be a program to enable those here that are not invloved in other criminal behavior to gain amnesty.

And you can twist the federal budget to justify a tarriff sure. But to me the easier route to a fair redistribution of wealth is a progressive tax on income. If these CEO's and board members keep rewarding themselves in a disgusting manner then tax the hell out them.

Protectionsist policies become a tangled mess of back slapping favors to certain u.s. industries and certain countries and economic injury to others not in the gang. Best to limit that stuff.

I think we should want Mexicos economy to be healthy and we should continue to encourage investment there. That in addition to better border security is the ticket.

[benburch]

11. If border security were 5% better, would we be 5% safer? nt

[BootinUp]

12. Thats a very low goal don't you think n/t

meant as a reply to #11.

[benburch]

16. I'm just wondering when the benefit appears?

If we had 90% better security, would we be 90% safer?

Nope.

All a terrorist group would need to do is send ten guys so that one would get in.

And you cannot imagine that we could ever have 100% security, do you? Even East Germany was unable to attain that, and look at what trying did to their civilization.

[BootinUp]

19. A better analogy might be

There will be 20,000 that will try to cross the border tomorrow, 1 is a terrorist with a dirty bomb, the rest are illegal aliens looking for a life in America. If we can stop 50% of them, there is a 1 in 2 chance we can stop the bomber.

[benburch]

21. So, knowing this, they send two.

Don't underestimate them.

Oppression, victimization, and criminalization of immigrants will not make us safer.

[BootinUp]

22. I don't see where open borders

is a better option. If a terrorist organization is going to send multiple people across the border on the same day you are right in that they may succeed, on the other hand they have risked more chances of being caught and being discovered as well.

On immigration. I favor it, just not unlimited. And actually I haved worked with people like that in the past and I do whatever I can to help them.

[Inland]

31. Indeed, part of the assumption

is that there are huge communities of people who don't care enough about America to even bother to become citizens, and no assurance that they are even on the US side in the matter, much less willing to stick their necks out and squeal on a plot.

[Katherine Brengle]

3. I agree --

the economic advantages alone would make it worthwhile.

[PsN2Wind]

5. Let's see.............

Official estimates of eleven or twelve million immigrants in this country illegally and other estimates substantially higher. You refer to this as "tightly controlled immigration". Actually it is out of control, illegal immigration. What is your plan for the citizens that are surely to be displaced by the huge numbers that would come over your open borders? Or are you willing to allow them to become the new wretched masses?
I can't see the solution to the millions of jobs lost to the middle class by out-sourcing and off-shoring as importing labor to compete for the jobs that are left.

[benburch]

6. Jobs are not a zero sum game.

And if those people are here already, what harm would be caused by paying them the minimum wage and legalizing their status?

[PsN2Wind]

10. If we had your "open borders"?

How many people would you estimate would come here? Another 11 or 12 million or twice that, three times? Where are the jobs for them going to come from? Are we all going to just take in each others laundry? You have all the answers, educate me and those few others here that are more concerned with unemployed and underemployed citizens and legal residents of this country than the unemployed and often unemployable from other countries.

[benburch]

14. The jobs would come from increased demands for goods and services.

We always have about as many jobs as consumers. Early in the process, when people move here, apartment houses will need to be built, and that is jobs in construction, building supplies, insurance, etc. These people will make at least the minimum wage, and so will BUY things. For the 12 million now here illegally, this would be an immediate raise and would nearly immediately translate into spending in the local economy,

How many would arrive eventually? That depends on many factors, but I doubt more than 100 million in the next century.

[PsN2Wind]

17. Sure wish those jobs were available when I was younger

getting someone (whoever that might be) to pay me to build my own house would have really been great. We will all take in each others laundry.

[Inland]

45. I wonder why Mexico isn't rich, then? Not enough immigration?

Maybe what Mexico should do is have free immigration from Central America, Latin America, Asia and Africa. Because jobs always appear for immigrants and rises all the tides of all the boats.

[Horse with no Name]

61. Mexico is a very wealthy country

But the wealth is all amassed at the top and NONE trickles down.
I believe I read that 1% control 90% of the wealth (someone correct me if that is wrong).
With corrupton on both sides of the border, one only needs to look at Mexico to see what our country will be in 10 years if we continue the present course.
Now I guess the next question we should ask is, if the government witholds money from its people (not that they would EVER try to take away our Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Student Loans, etc), then when the economy hits the shitter, you can't find a job, there isn't any government assistance, your kids are hungry...what are you going to do?
If your kids were hungry TODAY, would you risk crossing into Canada illegally to find work so that they don't have to be hungry tomorrow?
Or, would you simply wait in line for several months to do it legally?

[Bridget Burke]

65. If you had no money, you could NOT get into Canada.

Waiting for months would not matter. So--make for the border!

[Horse with no Name]

66. That is true

I forgot about that caveat.
You're damn right--I'd do my best to get across that border.

[Cobalt Violet]

36. Minimum wage isn't a living wage.

It's still poverty.

[benburch]

71. One battle at a time!

I want the minimum wage raised to $10/hr, too, but that should be a different topic.

[pitohui]

60. they don't want blacks to have ANY jobs. ever. period.

that is the whole subtext behind the claim, they do work americans don't want to do

here in new orleans i hear it every goddamn day

the whole point of this call for open borders is to make sure no black man gets any of these contructions jobs, i hear people EVERY GODDAMN DAY excusing the fact that they're hiring cheaper illegals w. the claim that blacks are lazy, they don't code it when it's to your face, they only code it as "we need foreigners to take jobs americans won't do" when they're on the internet posing as progressives to divide us

but what they mean and what they say in person if you shut up and let them spew is flat-out the same old story -- blacks are lazy, according to them, they don't want to hire blacks

i'm v. discouraged

how dare the open border crowd even pretend they are not racists, their entire motive for this is racial and to save money on labor

period, end of sentence

[sweetheart]

7. agree

The drugs war ending is part of this as well, given the right to be presumed innocent
and travel a border like a person on god's earth, not searched and prodded like a cow
going from pen to market.

People should have franchise where they *are*... and we should embrace the highest
values in public that our civil society shows it will not tolerate suffering.

[Radio_Guy]

9. There will be no borders eventually

I strongly believe that one day, maybe not in my lifetime, but one day there will be no borders anywhere on Earth. We will all live in a free and open society where passports are no longer needed, all use the same currency, free and fair trade around the globe, and no more war. I may not see it, and (if I ever get any) my children may not see it. But it is coming and we need to work toward that goal.

[lonestarnot]

13. Here is a suggested reading for you.

Bolo Bolo p.m.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I would agree that we need to open our borders

I also think we should raise the minimum wage.

[benburch]

18. Absolutely.

Living wage for ALL.

No "guest workers" who would be virtually slaves with no "first cost".

[Minnesota Libra]

20. I doubt it but maybe reading another view will help people..............

....to realize there is another view and other considerations that just throwing open all our borders. It would be totally UNFAIR to close the northern border and swing the southern border completely open.

Many who are here legally from South America DO NOT want illegal aliens either.


Today's Immigration Battle
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-21.htm

[Inland]

23. Nobody says whether open borders are good for current Americans.

One would have to agree that it would be at best a huge experiment that could never be reversed if it doesn't work out well for Americans.

Some of the happy go luck presumptions are evident. For example, the huge open spaces in this country. You know why they are huge and open? There's no way to make a living on them. MOST counties in Illinois have LOST population since 1880. Sure, I suppose we could go back to huge communities of subsistence and just above subsistence farmers, but the immigrants already have that life. They would rather live in an urban slum in their own countries than live on the land in that manner. And who, exactly, is going to build the schools, hospitals, roads, etc? Not them. See below.

The concept that we would obtain young, working people is also wrong. We get that NOW, because of the laws. Remove the laws and there's no reason not to bring grandma and the kids here, no reason not to retire here, and no reason not to glom onto benefits, no reason not to make the social security claim.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's also an assumption, entirely warranted, that some aren't going to care about the USA. I have no idea why I would want an *unlimited* (and I mean that only in the sense that I think a billion people is without a limit practically) number of people physically present and interacting who don't care about the US and without feeling any personal stake in me, mine or my society.

See, I don't believe that working a job is the sine qua non of being a good member of society. I'm not a huge believer in homo economicus as our essential social being. I don't believe people obey laws, give to charity, attend town hall meetings, or vote because they are employed here. I think those things happen because they give a shit about a society they are part of.

So when those millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of immigrants come here, will they be in favor of building schools that will serve future generations? Volunteering for the army? Building highways? Cooperating with the police? Picking up litter? Or will they be against all those things and waiting for the day they can take their money and anything else that they were able to gain in terms of education "home" as soon as they see an advantage? Is anyone even asking if they believe in things like law, equality, democracy? What's to say that there isn't going to be a barricade going up the next week?

Conversely, exactly how long do you think that the citizenry is going to have the exact same laws for wages and safety apply to these immigrants? If there is such a thing as a social compact, or a basic feeling of comity and a two way street, and the immigrants hold themselves outside of it, then certainly the voting citizens are going to feel the same way. That is, US citizens don't feel all THAT bad about Mexicans making less than the US minimum wage in Mexico. Why should they care more that Mexicans make less than the US minimum wage in the US? Because we assume that there IS no magic that causes people to become part of the larger community just by the fact of moving across the border, no change in attitude AT ALL is going to be had. End result: a permanent class of peons or a permanent effort to maintain immigration as a foreign aid program.

Not that there's anything wrong with a foreign aid program, but in this case, it's borne entirely by our working classes that have to face the competition and and by intake communities with small or nonexistent tax bases. Can't we just cut a check if we want to do something nice, rather than engage THEM in a social experiment of hoping it works out for the best for them? By what right do I have to tell the second generation of an immigrant family that, guess what, the bottom rung of the ladder is removed because a flood of cheap labor is now coming in to compete with them? They bought in in every sense. They became citizens. They are here to stay. They are going to live or die with me and mine. Didn't I owe them something FIRST?

Bottom line, the focus shouldn't be what we can do for non-Americans. It's got to be for what's best for Americans. I'm for immigration, but there's this attitude on the board that there's simply no difference between aiding those who wish to immigrate and doing what's best for Americans is simply wrong, or at the very least, a gamble with their lives on a once in the history of the world experiment. No thanks.

[benburch]

24. Like I said.

"Huddled Masses" in the past have only strengthened us. And this will be the case now. We would improve conditions for ALL Americans.

[Inland]

25. The past isn't applicable.

There hasn't been uncontrolled immigration since the steamship era. Just the ability to get here means that immigration isn't going to behave in the same manner and have the same effect.

There's no evidence that open borders would improve conditions for current Americans, and it's certainly logical to assume that huge amounts of labor would depress wages for current americans. I'm not looking to gamble their future and the future of the country in order to help someone who may never care about me or mine. Simple as that. I'd rather have the inequitable, dysfunctional and dishonest status quo.

[PsN2Wind]

44. Careful Inland

Your thoughtful presentation of the likely problems we will face and the unknown problems that cannot ever be undone once this policy is in effect, is sure to prove to many here you're a racist, xenophobe and all around nasty person. Especially to those here who have zero empathy for those citizens and legal residents that are already unemployed or under employed but tremendous sympathy for the unemployed or unemployable of other countries.
I'm one of those sentimental individuals that think we should be making an effort toward lifting the people in this country legally, by birth or legal immigration, all out of poverty before we try to do that for people here illegally.
I have to wonder which side they would be on if someone were to start a thread that we demand all jobs to be out-sourced if it would help those in other nations. After all that would be cheaper to the tax-payer than the schools, prisons, medical facilities, etc. that will be required once this law is enacted and the "family reunification" begins.

[Inland]

72. That's okay, the monster will out soon enough.

I can only go around in circles so long. I don't have an extreme position, and that means I can't get any concessions at all. I either can't get anyone to face the question of whether we owe more to fellow Americans than to foreigners, or if I can, suddenly immigration becomes a win win situation no matter how many get let in, as in this thread, where the very fact some immigrant appears asking for a job means one job is created without depressing wages. Like it was magical beans that were immigrating, all building beanstalks when placed on US soil. It's fairly frustrating.

[PsN2Wind]

74. It's a monster for sure

Probably the greatest social experiment we will ever actually witness in our lifetime. And if the effects are bad or even worse than bad it cannot be reversed. We will once again have people, in this case McCain and Kennedy, passing laws that while having zero effect on them or even anyone they personally know, could well mean the end of others livelihoods. No trials or studies, it's like going "all in" with a pair of deuces. You're betting everything on what you really hope will happen.

[pitohui]

62. nice post inland

thanks

[UTUSN]

26. Sorry, not getting it. Is this a parody thread? "Open borders"

is nowhere on any radar screen that tracks serious discussion. And I'm sure that Maltese MALKIN and Dan COULTER will love to use this against us.

[Inland]

27. It's on the screen and it isn't.

There's a number of posters calling for no immigration controls at all. But I think it's more often because the poster knows it will never happen, not because there's a bona fide belief in it.

[benburch]

30. Well, it SHOULD be on the radar screen.

Because it is the correct solution to the problem.

[LSK]

33. feel free to point out the flaws of this argument

Because you think Dan Coulter would attack it means it must be a valid idea.

[Inland]

37. Which is really the only motivation to make the argument.

Frankly, I don't think anyone is really seriously proposing it, because everyone knows it would never happen. It's just a cheap and easy way to take an opposite position to people they don't like much for the sake of being contrary. I never cared for that much, and to the extent I do, I don't see the point of taking a position that's so clearly flawed and careless that it makes Coulter and Malkin look good by comparison. I'll just be reasonable: that's sufficiently unlike Coulter and Malkin to satisfy my desire for distance.

[benburch]

51. I thought I was seriously proposing it.

Did you mean to say that you think I am being dishonest?

[Inland]

53. I'm saying it's easy.

Easy in the sense it's impossible and no responsibility will ever be taken for a failure.

[benburch]

56. I believe it is not impossible at all.

And that it is likely to be the solution we arrive at eventually. I just wish we would arrive at it now and save so many years of pain that will elapse before it is forced upon us by the failure of all other "solutions".

[UTUSN]

68. "flaws/argument" - It's more the entire CONCEPT.

Debating theoretical deal-ies, like # of angels on pinheads, is a futile exercise, besides that I'm not pedantically sophisticated enough to do it. And that O'LOOFAH/MALKIN/COULTER would attack IT is not the point--they would attack US as being not-for-national-security, wacko-lala-out-of-touch-dreamers, unpatriotic, and countless other big and little things ---and don't discount LITTLE things, because the national discourse is for LIMBOsevic and the rest to use junior high school tactics of ridicule to discredit us. Think GORE and the internet and the earth tones and KERRY windsurfing and DUKAKIS attending concerts of atonal classical music. All HANNITY does at the very mention of good Liberal Ted KENNEDY is to go "HIC!" while the audio of Senator KENNEDY is playing----no "debate" of ideas. If benburch was not parodying, and IS that idealistic, I kowtow to him as a great idealist, but one whose point will be used against us in the nitty gritty, ugly, short run.

[benburch]

73. Nice way to belittle an argument you don't like.

Address the CONCEPT then. What is wrong with it? If you can.

[UTUSN]

75. I tried to be very polite to and respectful of you and believe that I gave

my reasons for the CONCEPT being just out of bounds. It would take some kind of Utopian universe for such a concept as "open borders" to exist. I don't call that "belittlement". I would dearly love for such a condition to be possible. I should think that it is obvious that human nature being the mix it is of pure and base motives, that it will take eons (which we don't have) of our much further intermingling and leveling out before we can handle such a concept in practice. But I'm losing my point that in the very short run, like TODAY, any discussion of this topic is just fuel to our common enemies. You and I are not enemies, though I'm posting (and unfortunately kicking) out of personal disappointment. I *have* given my reasons as clearly as possible.

[benburch]

76. Fair enough...

but I don't think it is utopian at all. It is what we will be forced to do eventually, and if we do it sooner rather than later, a lot of human pain will be averted.

[UTUSN]

77. As the medieval debaters realized, there is a point where we must just

disagree.

[benburch]

79. Actually...

they realized that there is a point where you sic the inquisitors on your opponents and have them put to death... :evilgrin:

[mondo joe]

28. I suggest an experiment.

Open the borders to your home. Let anyone stay there who wishes to, at any time and for as long as they like. Make sure to get the word out so people know it's an option, or the experiment is invalid - a homeless shelter would be a good place to begin.

Your expenses are not a zero sum game. Yes, your utilities and grocery expenses will go up, but so will the number of people contributing to the expense (though of course some of them may not contribute much, if anything).

You may feel you don't have much room, but most Americans have a ridiculously large living area relative to the rest of the world. By being creative you should be able to accommodate at least 5 people. Maybe more.

:-)

[Inland]

29. But part of the experiment is also whether they ever leave.

Suppose that the experiment is declared a "failure" in that the owner gets poorer, or finds his toothpaste being pilfered or nobody washing the dishes. He says, "okay, everyone out". The experiment is still continuing to see if the "guests" leave voluntarily. Maybe they didn't understand that the experiment was to see if the owner enjoyed the experience. Maybe they think it's unfair for them to pack up and move in just to be forced out later. And maybe your nosy neighbor will come over and tell you how much better the entire neighborhood is from the experience...without offering help, natch.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

40. Shame on you.

I didn't see "an attitude that immigrants are worthless". What he said was, some of your self invited guests may not be productive. The same would be true for open borders. For open borders, the only criteria is that they GET here, and I would be pretty surprised if some immigrants either weren't productive or brought unproductive family members in that circumstances.

To call someone a racist because of a realistic assumption pretty much shows that there isn't much interest in a realistic discussion.

[benburch]

49. Sorry, really did read it that way.

Thanks for explaining your position further.

By the same token, some of the people born here are nonproductive too. And I would wager in larger proportion than immigrants.

[Inland]

52. Hey, how much work are you and I getting done this A.M.? nt

[benburch]

54. Don't know about you...

But I've been monitoring my streams and archives since 6 AM. :)

[Inland]

55. Well, then, half of us are unproductive time wasters. nt

[benburch]

57. I'm about to go waste time at lunch...

later.

[mondo joe]

41. I have never in my life said or believed that immigrants are

worthless. You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing your fellow DUers of racism for no reason but disagreeing with you.

[benburch]

50. My apologies, as I did read it that way.

The implication I read was that you thought that they would all be freeloaders.

[mondo joe]

69. Apology accepted. Thanks.

[LSK]

32. i agree n/t

[Jose Diablo]

35. I agree completely

Something else, I don't like people jumping over a fence to get in. If they want to come in, go through the front door and introduce yourself, then if you aren't objectionable, come on in and welcome.

If someone is trying to get get in by not going through the front door, then shoot the MF'er.

[NNN0LHI]

We steal their land, divert their water, and then some people wonder...

...why the Mexicans come here? Think about it.

Don

[harpo]

38. I think that would drive down the money americans get paid...

not to mention it would probably kill most unions. Hire 1000 mexicans and fire the folks with pensions...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I agree. Like it or not, our economy needs them.

You make very good points.

[Inland]

43. ALL of them, being all the people who want to come?

I'd like to see some proof of that. There might be a question of whether the economy needs the levels we have now, legal or not, but is the need so limitless? And are you so sure that you can end the program and send people back if the need turns out not to be limitless? I don't care much for the idea of an experiment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. As I said, I believe in open borders.

Not just here, all over. But, I'll settle for just here.

[Inland]

48. But not because the US economy will benefit.

As long as we know what we are getting into, or at least, know that we have no clue what we would be getting into.

[pitohui]

63. this is just free market cant

we can't argue on the chevy/tahoe thread that we have limited resources and we are running out...and then hop over to the immigration thread and argue that we have magically unlimited resources because through the magic of markets and open borders that jeebus will fix it and there will never be a problem so we shouldn't set limits

guess what, guys, rain doesn't follow the plow and jobs/resources don't follow the poor immigrant


more than a little hypocrisy here

flyover country, that is just rude, i'm probably going to be grumbling abt that for days, pretty damn easy for ben and co. to bargain away somebody else's home

[Blue_In_AK]

42. There should be a "North American Union"

with free travel and exchange back and forth between Alaska, Canada, USA and Mexico. Maybe we would find out that we're not so different after all.

[rucky]

47. I'm with Thom Hartmann on this one...

check his article on the Greatest Page

you have most definitely made me think, though (as usual).

[pitohui]

58. what's to discuss if you have no concept of reality?

the world is divided between those who believe life should conform to their fantasies abt it and those who accept what science teaches us, which is that life has limits

if you imagine that the usa has infinite resources to take an infinite number of people, then you prefer to worship the scribbles on a statue than to preserve our wilderness and our natural resources, and i would imagine you are a person who lives indoors and it matters not to you what happens when our environment is completely chewed up and eaten by overpopulation

why should one bird, one flower survive in the trample across the border

let alone the cheap labor issue, the fact that people can't bargain for a fair wage when an infinite supply of others are in line to do it cheaper, never mind the fact that any rational security procedure calls for knowing who is entering and leaving your borders

some people don't think america worth defending, i don't understand that mentality so i have no way to debate it

it seems to be a religion

you worship as you do because of a scribble written 100 years ago -- by a french person

it is no more sane or rational than worshipping as you do because elron hubbard said so 50 years ago, it is quite completely without sanity or merit

there's a point where you can only have rational discussion with those who have REASON to debate with

how can i "discuss" bullshit feel good bogus emotions?

you are ignorant, ben, and you need to inform yourself, i mean that not as insult, but as a technical description, "flyover" country as you so politely call it is not underpopulated, it is overpopulated and rapidly running out of water in its aquifers

didn't we already do the whole "dust bowl" thing?

[KittyWampus]

59. Borders are necessary for Organization. Totally Open Borders

are effectively no borders at all. It would mean chaos which is very close to what we have NOW. A complete lack of Organization which leads one part of the Body Politic to turn against the other.

[benburch]

70. I think it would strengthen the body politic greatly.

And make other nations more invested in our success than they are now, and thus lower the chance of war.

[Xenotime]

64. Open borders is the only thing that will save this country...

I suggest each country (France, Mexico, Canada, etc..) has a small territory here in the states. Then, there's no more importing. It's the only way that our country can survive in the future. We have taken more than our fair share.

[Bridget Burke]

67. Let the Unions guard the borders....

Not to keep anyone out, but to ensure that everyone coming in gets their message.

Your idea is definitely worth considering. For one thing--you've hacked off all the Right people.

[babylonsister]

78. BkMrked. nt

[Gregorian]

80. They come because it's better here.

There is a potential difference. An electrical current flows when there is a potential difference. And the same thing applies for two different societies. A fence will not be needed when that difference is gone. Because it's not better here. It's better at home. And it saddens me to think that they would leave home in order to live a life that gives them what they need.

It only takes a little common sense. Not guards and a fence.

Most importantly:

I honestly believe that we are fighting to keep our standard of living. All of the talk about illegal immigration. The invasion of Iraq. It's all an attempt to fight instead of realize the inevitable- that our standard of living is artificially high.

[mdmc]

81. were all humans