• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Open-Borders Ever Viable?

Are Open-Borders Ever Viable?


  • Total voters
    30
The American Indians (Natives.) had open borders.

How did that work out for them?
No they didn't, hence why they often shot arrows at colonists trespassing illegally on their lands. There is a difference between having open borders and being conquered by superior military technology. That latter is what happened with American Indians.
 
Still no answer. What country has open borders now?
There are open borders between every U.S. state, many of which have larger economies than most countries in the world. The same basic arguments against immigration from country to country apply to immigration between states.

The three main objections to open borders seem to be this:
1. Immigrants will bring diseases
2. Immigrants will take jobs from the country they move to and damage the economy
3. Immigrants will pay few taxes but take advantage of social services, such as free education.

Does anyone have any other primary point to add to that list?
 
(For conservatives and other closed border advocates)

A common conservative argument against open immigration is that we have a massive and easily manipulated welfare system that will be taken advantage of by immigrants in the event of the borders being opened.

If our welfare state were to be fixed or eliminated, would open borders become a viable option? If not, would there ever be a time where you think it'd be viable and what would that entail?

Curious question.

I think the question should be more clearly defined, i.e., "open borders between the states" or "open borders between countries of North America". It matters how the issue is phrased.

The U.S. has always had open borders between the States. What we have not had is open borders between North American countries, i.e., Canada to our north and Mexico to our south. However, our immigration policies concerning both countries have been far more liberal than they've been for other countries that are not part of the North American continent. In fact, most people don't seem to realize that until the late 1800's (and again around the 1930's), America really didn't put up too much of a fuss about Mexicans cross the Mexico/U.S. border. It's not until now that Mexicans freely crossing over into the U.S. really became a problem...at least in the eyes of most Republicans/Conservatives.

Now, to be fair I understand better than most would believe why the illegal Mexican (Hispanic) alien issue is of such concern today than it was 20...30...40 years ago. However, I'll save that discussion for another debate. But to answer the question, no. Open borders between counties is a bad idea.
 
No they didn't,
hence why they often shot arrows at colonists trespassing illegally on their lands. There is a difference between having open borders and being conquered by superior military technology. That latter is what happened with American Indians.




If they didn't have open borders, how did the colonists first land in the Americas, when the native inhabitants greatly outnumbered them?
 
If they didn't have open borders, how did the colonists first land in the Americas, when the native inhabitants greatly outnumbered them?
Is that a serious question? The United States does not have open borders, yet people land in the United States undocumented all the time, same as the colonists. The fact that people manage to land somewhere without the permission of the existing residents does not mean the landing is permissible. That is complete nonsense.
 
Is that a serious question?
The United States does not have open borders,
yet people land in the United States undocumented all the time, same as the colonists. The fact that people manage to land somewhere without the permission of the existing residents does not mean the landing is permissible. That is complete nonsense.




Open or closed many thousands of undocumented aliens are crossing the USA's borders every year.
 
Open or closed many thousands of undocumented aliens are crossing the USA's borders every year.
Correct. Do you have a point relative to mine? Why are you even quoting me?
 
The countries in the European Union pretty well have open borders with the citizens moving effortlessly from country to country for work or pleasure. But they have a situation much different than we do with the various countries enjoying a kind of economic and cultural parity with all the others, sharing cultural similarities including disease control, hygiene, laws etc. But they don't provide welfare to each other's citizens and you just don't move from one country to another and go to work without going through due process to get proper permits etc. Also non-EU citizens are required to have much more regulation than those who live within the EU.

Canada and the USA could probably pull that off. But Mexico is very different from the USA and Canada--there is far more abject poverty, far more criminal element, and government authorities that are widely regarded as corrupt and self serving. And our system of government does not allow us to deny welfare or other benefits to anybody and we would take the whole brunt of opportunistic citizens from other countries while we ourselves would get stuck with the bill and virtually no benefits.
 
The countries in the European Union pretty well have open borders with the citizens moving effortlessly from country to country for work or pleasure. But they have a situation much different than we do with the various countries enjoying a kind of economic and cultural parity with all the others, sharing cultural similarities including disease control, hygiene, laws etc. But they don't provide welfare to each other's citizens and you just don't move from one country to another and go to work without going through due process to get proper permits etc. Also non-EU citizens are required to have much more regulation than those who live within the EU.

Canada and the USA could probably pull that off. But Mexico is very different from the USA and Canada--there is far more abject poverty, far more criminal element, and government authorities that are widely regarded as corrupt and self serving. And our system of government does not allow us to deny welfare or other benefits to anybody and we would take the whole brunt of opportunistic citizens from other countries while we ourselves would get stuck with the bill and virtually no benefits.
The countries in the EU are not all economic equals. The differences between Eastern and Western Europe are quite stark, with economies sized from 7,000-2,700,000 euros. The GDP of Mexico is actually larger than Canada, and the GDP differences between Canada, Mexico, and the US are far less than many of the countries in the EU. With regards to per capita GDP, Mexico is 3 times less than the US. But many in the EU are the same when compared to the wealthiest member states. If you include Luxembourg, the differences are nearly double that of the US and Mexico.

It would also be incorrect to say that the cultures in the EU are all similar. There are many different cultures, as different as the US and Mexico. Additionally, there are many different cultures across the United States already.

Our welfare system does not grant all immigrants full benefits either. Only citizens get most welfare benefits, not even legal permanent residents.

A system where immigrants from Mexico can live and work legally in the United States (but not become instant citizens) similar to the process in the EU would be a major improvement in our current immigration system, in my opinion.
 
The countries in the EU are not all economic equals. The differences between Eastern and Western Europe are quite stark, with economies sized from 7,000-2,700,000 euros. The GDP of Mexico is actually larger than Canada, and the GDP differences between Canada, Mexico, and the US are far less than many of the countries in the EU. With regards to per capita GDP, Mexico is 3 times less than the US. But many in the EU are the same when compared to the wealthiest member states. If you include Luxembourg, the differences are nearly double that of the US and Mexico.

It would also be incorrect to say that the cultures in the EU are all similar. There are many different cultures, as different as the US and Mexico. Additionally, there are many different cultures across the United States already.

Our welfare system does not grant all immigrants full benefits either. Only citizens get most welfare benefits, not even legal permanent residents.

A system where immigrants from Mexico can live and work legally in the United States (but not become instant citizens) similar to the process in the EU would be a major improvement in our current immigration system, in my opinion.

You read concepts into my post that are much different to what I posted. Let's just agree we have hugely different perspectives and let it go at that, however, as it will hijack the thread to take each component point by point.
 
You read concepts into my post that are much different to what I posted. Let's just agree we have hugely different perspectives and let it go at that, however, as it will hijack the thread to take each component point by point.
I hardly see how having a debate about open border policy is hijacking a thread about..open borders. I did not read anything into your post at all, which is why I imagine you did not offer one example of me doing so. If you want to avoid discussion, that is fine with me regardless.
 
The American Indians (Natives.) had open borders.

How did that work out for them?

No they didn't. They didn't have clearly defined borders... as an opposing tribe member or white settler what it was like when they wandered onto a tribes land.
 
Plenty of countries have open borders to those who follow the rules. As an American, I can visit over 150 countries with nothing more than a US passport and a return ticket. All because of negotiated agreements between the US and those countries. In none of those countries can I move without a visa.
 
Back
Top Bottom