I support open borders change my mind

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 45
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
So do immigrants, like when they are blood donors.

And they also take plenty of lives, crash cars, etc that would require a need for blood transfusions. 

You're obsessed with blood donation lol.

That was done to make sure that the immigrants learn English.  Granted, if we opened up our borders with the whole world, many of the immigrants would already know English since the English language is incredibly widespread amongst the world population.  More people know English than the number that know Chinese(around 20%).  Also, there is some instinctual assilimination that immigrants as a group already go through that would ensure that this number is over 20%.  I say this because here is my line of thinking:

-The US doesn't filter on the basis of religion.  Despite that, immigrants from India are more likely to be Christian if they reside in the US (around 20%) than if they aren't immigrants (around 2%).

I therefore think that if the US didn't filter on the basis of English proficiency, we would still get more English knowledge among the immigrants than random earthlings would present.  Immigrants tend to in many respects emulate the country they immigrate too.
20% of the world's population speaks English. So, you want to open the borders to 99% of the world's population and hope that they actually speak the language?

Think of it more like this: if you let in 50 million Latin Americans into the Southwestern US, who all speak native Spanish, do you really expect them to learn English when they don't need to, and can meet all of their needs and live comfortably with other Spanish speakers? No, they only learn it when they need to and have the ability to.

There aren't that many areas in the US where this is the case.  There are some, but not many.  Most people in CA and TX know only English in terms of languages.  Moreover, with open borders, people are mostly going to live in big metropolitan cities, far from the US border, and other immigrants would come so English would be used as a lingua franca and eventually as a primary language amongst the descendants of immigrants.

There aren't currently many areas of the US where you need to speak Spanish to get by, you are correct. But that is right now, when we have 1,000,000 immigrants per year. Now, if you let in 50x that from south of the border, that is obviously going to change. Not many cities that speak only Italian, German, or French in the US. You know why? Because we don't have 600,000 German speakers immigrating here every year.

A lebanese person and a Bolivian person having a kid will mean that the kid will easily learn ENglish and may be bilingual, but English would be their primary language.

How would they easily learn English if neither of their parents are proficient in the language? That is just silly.

Immigrants are more likely to own businesses than native born people.

They are also much more likely to strain the welfare system than native citizens.

And according to your very source, the quality of immigrant-owned businesses is worse:

Immigrant-owned firms have $435,000 in average annual sales and receipts,which is roughly 70 percent of the level of non-immigrant owned firms at$609,000. Examining the full distribution of sales reveals that 11.4 percent of iiiimmigrant firms have sales of $500,000 or more, which is similar to thepercentage of non-immigrant firms at this level.

4. Immigrant-owned businesses are slightly more likely to hire employees than arenon-immigrant owned businesses, however, they tend to hire fewer employees onaverage. Among immigrant owned businesses that hire employees these firms hirean average of 8.0 employees with an average payroll of $253,000. Employer firmsowned by non-immigrants hire an average of 11.9 employees with an averagepayroll of $429,000.

So, these immigrant-owned businesses employ less people on average, pay them less on average, and have lower sales (meaning less tax revenue and less benefit) on average.

Then why haven't we?

We haven't paid off the debt because of two reasons: we spend too much based on how much we tax. We generally lower taxes and raise spending. Also, we let in 1,000,000 immigrants every year and half of their households use welfare.


I'd abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax.  Anyone that buys anything for any reason would have to pay a tax on it.  This applies to native born people and immigrants.  I'd show them how to get good paying jobs with the education they have (there are so many jobs you can get with no college education, so hook the immigrants and anyone else who needs one with a job and they should be set).  They also could own a business, creating jobs for many other people (which immigrants are more likely to do) and unemployment would plummet.

Not saying I think this is necessarily a good point, but it is true that sales taxes are regressive taxes, meaning they harm the poor and are lenient on the rich. That may hurt efforts to alleviate poverty, since the EITC (earned income tax credit) which is a tax credit for income tax has really been one of the best policies of helping lower poverty. 

And unemployment is really a bad measure. It doesn't include people who aren't searching for work or those who are unemployed. You know what makes people stop searching for work? Immigrant laborers undercutting wages and making your labor near worthless. 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
We could jail all the violent drug dealing gangs and then there would be no one to bail the gangs out.
How’s that working in Mexico right now? Imagine the lawlessness in Mexico rn within the borders of America and tell me you’re going to put these people in jail. El Chapo escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico. 

Most Hispanics aren't bribed by the cartels. The ones that are get jailed.
Then you my friend clearly don’t know how cartels operate. They control every aspect of an area. They openly kill and bribe police officers in Mexico. It’s easy to say they’ll get jailed in the US when they fear extradition to the US. But that’s because they don’t have the control they have here.

How? They won't have the money to do extortion.
You’re a bit naive dude. If the US can’t stop cartel money laundering worth billions of dollars annually how do you plan on stopping them with Mexican cops in the ranks. Mexican judges, etc. They literally live off the money of cartels dude. Literally imagine the US as the new Mexico. 

The cartels haven't infiltrated every US institution.
That’s my point. They will. What are you going to do then?

8 days later

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
 open borders would remove their biggest stumbling block. 
I don't think open borders has a correlation as to whether or not drug cartels come here.  They come whether or not we have border security and often the people coming to the US are fleeing the drug cartels.  It's better to jail all the people involved with MS 13 rather than deporting them, maybe show the members where better jobs are so they don't have to resort to selling drugs illegally and without a permit in order to survive and let that expand our economy.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
And they also take plenty of lives, crash cars, etc that would require a need for blood transfusions. 
I'm pretty sure the deaths caused by car crashes don't exceed the number of lives that they save by means such as blood donation.  The solution to the car crash deaths could be training the immigrants the same way you train anyone else to drive a car.

You're obsessed with blood donation lol.
Well, it saves lives so I'd say the obsession is justified.

 if you let in 50 million Latin Americans into the Southwestern US
Most of the Latin Americans wouldn't settle in the south west.  Most would settle in big cities (like NY), and so would other immigrant groups.  Since there would be no common first language amongst the Latin Americans, the sub saharan africans, the arabs, and other groups, they would use English as a lingua franca just as immigrants did during the time of WWI when they settled in the US from Eastern Europe.  If they don't know English, either the immigrants themselves or their children would learn English on their own.

There aren't currently many areas of the US where you need to speak Spanish to get by, you are correct. But that is right now, when we have 1,000,000 immigrants per year. Now, if you let in 50x that from south of the border, that is obviously going to change.
If we let in 50x that from south of the border and if we let in other groups in superior numbers that do have English proficiency (such as immigrants from sub saharan Africa), then these immigrants and the native population will assiliminate the non English speakers within time.

How would they easily learn English if neither of their parents are proficient in the language?
Because they would learn it in our education system by bilingual immersion.  If your from Lebanon, being bilingually immersed in English in addition to Lebanese Arabic (which has a lot of English in it) would cause the immigrants to be bilingual in the event that their parents don't know English.  Moreover, in the event that their parents don't know English, translators exist which should allow for interlinguistic communication.

This is why I support banning welfare for everyone living inside the US.  If welfare is banned, any immigrant that came here to monch off of welfare would leave on their own if welfare were to be banned, which I support.

Immigrant-owned firms have $435,000 in average annual sales and receipts,which is roughly 70 percent of the level of non-immigrant owned firms at$609,000. Examining the full distribution of sales reveals that 11.4 percent of iiiimmigrant firms have sales of $500,000 or more, which is similar to thepercentage of non-immigrant firms at this level.

4. Immigrant-owned businesses are slightly more likely to hire employees than arenon-immigrant owned businesses, however, they tend to hire fewer employees onaverage. Among immigrant owned businesses that hire employees these firms hirean average of 8.0 employees with an average payroll of $253,000. Employer firmsowned by non-immigrants hire an average of 11.9 employees with an averagepayroll of $429,000.
Time for some math.

If your making 70% the salary and 67% the employees of native born businesses, but your over twice as likely to own a business to begin with:

7/10*2/3=14/30.  Multiplying by 62/28 (the proportionalized ratio of immigrant to non immigrant businesses), and you get 868/840.  Immigrant businesses tend to produce about the same number of jobs as a group as native born businesses.

Not saying I think this is necessarily a good point, but it is true that sales taxes are regressive taxes, meaning they harm the poor and are lenient on the rich.
The poor spend a lot on goods, but the rich spend a lot on investments, so having a sales tax and a capitol gains tax evens things out.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
How’s that working in Mexico right now? Imagine the lawlessness in Mexico rn within the borders of America and tell me you’re going to put these people in jail. El Chapo escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico. 
Mexico is very prone to bribes.  At this point, I'd probably shoot El Chapo since he constantly escapes jail.

That’s my point. They will. What are you going to do then?
I don't think they will infiltrate every US institution.  We should get rid of the drug cartels in the US, maybe shooting the leaders.  Moreover, most immigrants (like over 99% of them) want nothing to do with El Chapo.  They are fleeing the drugs and want nothing to do with them.  Most people that would come to the US with open borders aren't even Hispanic, so the notion that they would bring a bunch of illegal drugs here I don't see that happening, especially since we can and should rehab the drug users so they don't end up addicted to drugs again.  Whatever Portugal did to ease their drug problem worked, so I'd try the portuguese method in terms of eliminating the illicit drug use in this country.  My state is a sanctuary state and we don't have a huge drug problem, so I don't think the notion that the immigrants would turn the US into Mexico is accurate.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Mexico is very prone to bribes.  At this point, I'd probably shoot El Chapo since he constantly escapes jail.
Violation of the Constitution.

I don't think they will infiltrate every US institution. We should get rid of the drug cartels in the US, maybe shooting the leaders. 
You thinking it won’t happen doesn’t matter when that’s exactly what happened historically in other nations such with the prime examples being Mexico and Colombia. Shooting their leaders also doesn’t do anything. It just creates a power vacuum like the one experienced after Pablo Escobar’s death and after the imprisonment of Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo.

Moreover, most immigrants (like over 99% of them) want nothing to do with El Chapo. They are fleeing the drugs and want nothing to do with them. 
They can’t flee because they will be followed by the cartels in an open borders scenario.

Most people that would come to the US with open borders aren't even Hispanic, so the notion that they would bring a bunch of illegal drugs here I don't see that happening, especially since we can and should rehab the drug users so they don't end up addicted to drugs again. 
Not really. In 2016 the vast majority of illegal immigrants came through the Southern border and they were disproportionately Hispanic. Drug addiction can be fixed sure. But imagine if the drugs currently stopped by CBP were allowed to come unfettered. How many drug addicts would you have then? How much violence would they cause? Saying you can fix the problem after it has occurred is stupid when you can fix the problem at its root by stopping the flow of drugs as much as possible.

Whatever Portugal did to ease their drug problem worked, so I'd try the portuguese method in terms of eliminating the illicit drug use in this country. My state is a sanctuary state and we don't have a huge drug problem, so I don't think the notion that the immigrants would turn the US into Mexico is accurate.
If you live in California then your state is a mess. The only reason why it hasn’t gone under is because of Silicon Valley. Even now a bunch of businesses are moving out of California. Also you’re comparing apples to oranges by trying to say the Portuguese method would work in the US. Culturally it’s different and the amount of drug access is significantly lower in the first place. There are so many diverging factors. Your state doesn’t have a massive drug problem because the border is still federal territory and hundreds of agents protect it day and night. With that gone, drugs would surge through the borders without hindrance and would definitely envelope the state with a drug problem.
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is bad for American workers, who, at 157 million are roughly half the population. People will migrate from low-wage economies to high-wage economies. Immigrants compete with the workers who are already there and depress wages. You've said that immigrants start their own businesses. Well, that's true, but they also work. Have you actually looked at the data and appreciated the impact that a flood of immigration would have on wages? I don't think you have. Who wants to compete with $5/day laborers from India? No thanks.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You kinda changed my mind a little bit.  What if we had open borders with the whole world except for Latin America with the only requirement for entry from Latin America being you can't be a drug addict and if you are a drug addict, then you have to go through rehab before you come into the US?  Other places in the world don't have drug problems to nearly the same extent as Latin America.

In 2016 the vast majority of illegal immigrants came through the Southern border and they were disproportionately Hispanic.
This is because they can't access plane tickets if they are here illegally.  If we loosen our immigration requirements and let more Latin American immigrants here, then more people will come on planes, so less enter through Texas and more enter through places like NY.

Culturally it’s different and the amount of drug access is significantly lower in the first place. There are so many diverging factors.
How are we culturally different from Portugal to a relevant degree?  The war on drugs has failed and has resulted in more drug use.


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
This is bad for American workers, who, at 157 million are roughly half the population. People will migrate from low-wage economies to high-wage economies. Immigrants compete with the workers who are already there and depress wages. You've said that immigrants start their own businesses. Well, that's true, but they also work. 
They are more likely to start their own businesses than native born people are, so they create more jobs on a per capita basis than native born workers.  More jobs means more demand for labor, which means more salary for the workers.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
You kinda changed my mind a little bit.  What if we had open borders with the whole world except for Latin America with the only requirement for entry from Latin America being you can't be a drug addict and if you are a drug addict, then you have to go through rehab before you come into the US?  Other places in the world don't have drug problems to nearly the same extent as Latin America.
Then drugs still come in, just via foreigners lol. If there are people coming unhindered then the cartels benefit. As for the drug rehab, it wouldn’t work. Vast majority of Latin Americans don’t have the funds to do drugs anyways. Sicarios more often then not don’t do drugs either. You can’t fight the drug war without shutting its foundation and that’s Latin America. You can’t have an open border because cartels will take advantage of it. That’s what they already do. Take innocent people and tell them to deliver the load to the other side.

This is because they can't access plane tickets if they are here illegally. If we loosen our immigration requirements and let more Latin American immigrants here, then more people will come on planes, so less enter through Texas and more enter through places like NY.
Huh? That’s not the point. The point is that drugs will flow easily across an open border. There will always be people who seek to cross the Southern Border because of family and relatives. It’s not going to reduce drug trafficking across the border.

How are we culturally different from Portugal to a relevant degree? The war on drugs has failed and has resulted in more drug use.
You can’t end the Drug Wars. It’s cheaper to transport Colombian cocaine and Mexican marijuana to the United States than to México. Portugal can’t be as exposed to drugs that’s why they can recover faster. Us on the other hand always have had a steady demand and flow since the 1970s. You can’t end the Drug trade, you Can only reduce it. Opening the borders won’t reduce it, it will be like giving candy to a child. They won’t have fear of extradition because their entire cartel will be there to support them. Extradition is the single largest tool we have against cartels and with open borders it’s moot.
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
They are more likely to start their own businesses than native born people are, so they create more jobs on a per capita basis than native born workers.  More jobs means more demand for labor, which means more salary for the workers.
Pew research says 10% more likely, which isn't very substantial. The economic impact of immigration is largely a transfer of wealth away from the workers and in to the hands of immigrants in the form of wages and their employers in the form of cheaper labor costs. Those are the two groups which benefit. Wealth and income inequality is pretty bad in this country right now. Opening the borders would make it worse, especially with regards to unskilled labor. The poorest in this country would lose. Closed borders protect their livelihoods. Remember that the government is to be loyal to the interests of its citizens, not foreigners who wish to enter and work. Their interests don't matter.

Occasionally there are bona fide labor shortages in particular sectors of the economy justifying the importation of labor, like healthcare workers, tech workers, or seasonal farmhands. Though, I'm rather skeptical whenever companies or special interest groups lobby for more immigrants. Bill Gates always wants more H1-B visas. Gee I wonder why.

10 days later

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Then drugs still come in, just via foreigners lol.
How would they if the drug addicts get filtered out and if the drug dealers aren't allowed entry?

Vast majority of Latin Americans don’t have the funds to do drugs anyways.
If that's true, then the vast majority of Latin Americans coming in won't be drug addicts.

Take innocent people and tell them to deliver the load to the other side.
What if we just checked everyone who was from Latin America if they had drugs and if they didn't, they were let into the nation?

It’s cheaper to transport Colombian cocaine and Mexican marijuana to the United States than to México.
Why?  If your main concern is drugs, then why can't we have open borders with Africa for example since Africa isn't as loaded with illicit drugs as Mexico is?


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
Pew research says 10% more likely, which isn't very substantial.
10% MORE likely to start businesses means that they already have some chance of starting a business, and then they are a little more likely to start a buisiness then native born people.  Also, where's your link?

The economic impact of immigration is largely a transfer of wealth away from the workers and in to the hands of immigrants in the form of wages and their employers in the form of cheaper labor costs.
There are also immigrant employers that hire native born people and this helps reduce unemployment.

Remember that the government is to be loyal to the interests of its citizens, not foreigners who wish to enter and work. Their interests don't matter.
The citizens would benefit as well because they would have an easier time paying off the debt with lower taxes because there would be more taxpayers in the nation to pay it off.  Moreover, they can get more jobs since there are some immigrants who would own businesses and these businesses would be disproportionately more common than US born businesses.  I guess when your accused of taking people's jobs, your more likely to generate them.

Occasionally there are bona fide labor shortages in particular sectors of the economy justifying the importation of labor, like healthcare workers, tech workers, or seasonal farmhands. Though, I'm rather skeptical whenever companies or special interest groups lobby for more immigrants. Bill Gates always wants more H1-B visas. Gee I wonder why.
He wants more labor for his company.  I think that open borders, or practically open borders would benefit the following:

-Immigrants, whether they own a business or don't, because they can settle here.
-Native born businesses, because of the more plentiful labor that they can enjoy to expand their business.
-Native born workers, because they have more job opportunities that are provided by immigrant businesses.

Thoughts?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
How would they if the drug addicts get filtered out and if the drug dealers aren't allowed entry?
How are you going to filter them if the border is open lol.

If that's true, then the vast majority of Latin Americans coming in won't be drug addicts.
Sure but it’ll make Americans druggies, which is bad lol.

What if we just checked everyone who was from Latin America if they had drugs and if they didn't, they were let into the nation?
That’s border security my man. Your entire premise fails if you are screening people at the border lol.

Why? If your main concern is drugs, then why can't we have open borders with Africa for example since Africa isn't as loaded with illicit drugs as Mexico is?
Violation of Constitution specifically the Equal Protection Clause. It’s unlawful discrimination lol. You either have security for everyone or for none.

35 days later

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I disagree with open borders, though it's a bit hard to put it into words.
Greece once had city-states for example, rather than a country.
Open borders between cities 'were achieved, but only once significant cultural cohesion was achieved,
As well as understandings of where people's loyalties lie,
And an understanding that the people in your community agreed upon similar laws.

Tribalism exists, whether primitive, or modern,
And that's not 'bad, so much as a reality, I see it.
Groups have an interest in safeguarding their property and persons.