How to solve the migrant crisis.

[me]

Let me start by saying I’m all for immigration and completely open borders to enable opportunity seekers from anyplace to move anyplace else. With two big, critically important, caveats: 1) there can be no welfare or free government services, so everyone has to pay his own way, and no freeloaders are attracted 2) all property is privately owned, to minimize the possibility of squatter camps full of beggars.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/weekend-edition-doug-casey-on-how-to-solve-the-migrant-crisis

[Z]

And when the robots comes and thee are no jobs, then what, hot shot?

--
Z

[mg]

Bernie Sanders said that the idea is “a Koch Brothers proposal,” a
“right-wing proposal” Here's an article on the subject:

-----------

"Open Borders”: A Gimmick, Not a Solution

AUGUST 5, 2015| BY RICHARD ESKOW

Newsweek recently published an article by Daniel Bier with the
headline “Bernie Sanders on Immigrants: Silly, Tribal and
Economically Illiterate.” The piece, when it is not distracting the
reader with rather unimaginative vitriol (phrases like “lame
socialist agenda” are hardly Pulitzer material), bases its argument
on a trendy libertarian idea called “open borders.”

Like many libertarian ideas, “open borders” is bold, has superficial
intellectual appeal – and is incapable of withstanding thoughtful
scrutiny. It would benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the
many, here and abroad.

The “Open Borders” Debate

The latest controversy began when Sanders (for whom, it should be
noted, I work) was asked about immigration in an interview with
Vox’s Ezra Klein. The “open borders” concept is a simple one: allow
workers to travel freely from country to country in search of
employment. Proponents argue that this would improve the lives of
people in poor countries, because they could earn more by moving to
nations like the United States.

They also claim it would, magically, do very little harm to workers
in nations like this one – even though proponents also frequently
suggest eliminating the minimum wage at the same time.

Klein, it should be noted, didn’t simply ask Sanders about the
open-borders idea. He argued for it, forcefully. “You said being a
democratic socialist means a more international view,” Klein said to
Sanders. “I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it
leads you to conclusions that in the U.S. are considered out of
political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of
immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.”

Sanders responded that it the idea is “a Koch Brothers proposal,” a
“right-wing proposal” (he presumably felt that Klein, a former
Democratic blogger, was not a right-winger), and added that

“It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with
the concept of a nation state…

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border
policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour,
that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we
have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do
everything we can to create millions of jobs.

“You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America
today? … You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of
low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs
for those kids?”

Libertarian Pushback

To Bier, Sanders’ mention of the Koch brothers is gratuitous – as if
it were absurd to suggest the Kochs’ own economic interests have
motivated their ideological investments. (Don’t libertarians believe
everyone is primarily an economic actor?)

Bier claims that it is “patently untrue” that an open borders policy
“would make everybody in America poorer,” and cites a study from the
(Koch Brothers-funded) Cato Institute as evidence. Unfortunately,
that study based on a far lower rate of immigration than an open
borders policy would produce, rendering his interpretation of it
meaningless.

The work of economist Ha-Joon Chang, by contrast, provides
compelling evidence that an open borders policy would exert a
powerful downward pull on American workers’ wages.

Devaluing Other Countries

Bier then gets to the core of the open-borders argument, writing
that

“labor is enormously more productive here. As a result, identical
workers can earn 280 percent more here than in Mexico; workers from
Yemen and Nigeria, 1,300 percent more; Haitians, 2,200 percent
more.”

It is inhumane, he suggests, to deny workers the opportunity to
multiply their earnings by such impressive percentages.

But that interpretation is, to borrow a phrase, “silly, tribal, and
economically illiterate.” Bier fails to consider a fundamental
principle of economics: when the supply of labor increases, wages go
down. A massive influx of foreign workers would lead to a steep
plunge in those multiples. What’s more, there are often significant
cost-of-living differences between the United States and these
workers’ countries of origin.

And this argument is “tribal” because advocates like Bier (and
Klein) apparently don’t understand that other nations, despite their
relative poverty, have virtues of their own. That should be a
source of deep embarrassment for them.

For most migrants, their native lands hold ties of language,
culture, family, and community. It should not be necessary to endure
the pain of displacement merely to earn a livable wage. To claim
otherwise, as open-borders advocates implicitly do, is to reflect
the xenophobic belief that everybody would be happier here than
anywhere else.

Close to Slavery

In fact, the open-borders crowd sometimes comes embarrassingly close
to making the kind of argument that was once deployed in defense of
slavery: Sure, they have a tough life in this country, but it must
be so much better for them here than it was in their old country.

If that comparison seems harsh, consider this: The Southern Poverty
Law Center issued a report on “guest worker” programs in the United
States – programs which might be considered a model for the open
borders concept – and entitled it “Close to Slavery.”

“Far from being treated as ‘guests,’” the report said, “these
workers are systematically exploited and abused.” The report also
found that the program “harms the interests of U.S. workers, as
well, by undercutting wages and working conditions for those who
labor at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.”

The conditions endured by past “guest workers” have been nothing
short of horrifying. They include young people on student guest
worker visas forced to work 25-hour shifts without overtime while
paying exorbitant rents to sleep in their boss’s basement; and
seafood workers forced to endure 16- to 24-hour work days, and
80-hour work weeks, laboring until their hands went numb but
threatened with beatings if they stopped.

Proposals like “open borders” aren’t made in a vacuum. We already
know how such programs lead to abuse – and the victims are likely to
be immigrants themselves.

The Downward Spiral

Bier argues that workers from other countries should work for $2 or
$3 per hour once they get here. That, in a nutshell, is why Sanders
is right and the open-borders crowd is wrong. The open-borders idea
is inextricably linked to an approach in which US wages, along with
those of foreign workers, are trapped in a race to the bottom.

This approach would lead to a downward spiral for the middle class,
as powerful corporate forces impose their will on an inexhaustible
supply of cheap and replaceable labor.

Bier mocks the idea that an open borders policy means “doing away
with the concept of the nation state.” But his policy prescription
would leave a sovereign people unable to set its own minimum wage or
determine its own employment policies.

False Choice

Perhaps the term “open border” should be replaced with the phrase
“cheap lawnmowing,” since that is the essence of the argument as one
writer presents it. In characteristically hyperbolic libertarian
style, Jason Brennan’s “Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know”
says this about the idea:

“Most people on the progressive left actively try to restrain the
world’s poorest and most vulnerable people from making life-saving
and life-changing trades with willing employers. They thus condemn
the world’s poor to death and misery. The progressive left is
delighted with me when I donate money to the poor through OxFam. But
the left forbids me from hiring the poor to mow my lawn, even though
that helps them more than an OxFam donation.”

This is a false choice. The world’s masses will not be forced to
choose between perpetual poverty on the one hand or taking a weed
whacker to Jason Brennan’s crabgrass on the other. That is where the
thinking of Sanders and his colleagues is far more sophisticated and
systems-based than that of Bier, Klein, or other open-borders
advocates.

An Ugly Misstatement

One of those advocates is Dylan Matthews, who works for Klein at
Vox. Matthews repeats many of the libertarians’ discredited
arguments. He even accuses Sanders of “treating Americans’ lives as
more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.”

That is an ugly misstatement of Sanders’ position. Sanders, himself
the son of an immigrant, is a strong supporter of immigration and
immigrants’ rights who wants to ensure that we have fair and humane
policies in this area. He supports the DREAM Act, and believes the
Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
should be expanded to include the parents of citizens, the parents
of legal permanent residents, and the parents of DREAMers.

The issue isn’t immigration. The issue is fair play for all working
people. Principled opposition to “open borders” can and should be
based on the recognition that the rights of all workers – immigrant
and native-born, in the US and overseas – are eroded when workplace
protections are weakened anywhere, and when human lives are
subjected to the global flow of capital.

Changing the System

Sanders, unlike his open-borders opponents, recognizes that the
global workforce faces a systemic problem. The concentration of
wealth and political power, both in the US and globally, is
diminishing workers’ wages and making them less able to improve
their own working conditions.

That problem must be addressed systemically, with a transformation
that is both economic and political. The principal instrument for
that change is the democratic nation-state, an entity which the
open-borders concept would seriously weaken.

In that sense, open borders resembles NAFTA-style corporate trade:
both give corporations the ability to apply their economic power
across national boundaries in pursuit of maximal profits at minimal
cost, either by outsourcing jobs to workers overseas or paying
minimal wages to workers at home.

As we said at the outset, “open borders” is a superficially
attractive idea – until it’s subjected to critical thinking, at
which point its true nature is revealed. Its proponents attempt to
make a “moral case” in its defense. But there is no moral case to be
made for sacrificing democratic decision-making and national
sovereignty to oligarchic and corporate whims.

“Open borders” is a recipe for the further commodification of human
beings. It treats people as economic inputs to be moved about the
globe at the whim of global capital. It is neither rational nor
humane, and it has yet to receive the thorough public debunking it
deserves. We need a systemic solution to global wealth inequality,
rather than intellectual gimmicks designed to promote exploitation
and sow confusion.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author."

https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/

[El Castor]

Sigh. When liberalism fails, you turn to socialism -- liberalism on
steroids. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Sanders
would love to turn us into another Cuba, North Korea, or some other
socialist shit hole. Only a dark conspiratorial mind could believe
that conservatives support open borders. Sanders is just an old excuse
monger of the left with nothing to offer but commissars and poverty.

[mg]

I'm not a True Believer of either flavor -- left or right. I'm not a
socialist or a capitalist, or a liberal, or a conservative. The only
reason that I supported Bernie is the same reason that I later
supported trump, and that is because he was nonestablishment.

However, I do think that corporations support immigration, and guest
worker programs, from third-world countries in high numbers because
it has the effect of lowering wages, especially during periods when
citizens are reducing their family size as a result of their
economic situation.

[El Castor]

I'm sure you are right -- some corporations do support immigration,
but that is due to a shortage of certain kinds of labor, not just a
matter of lowering wages. Where are the tomato pickers and car
washers? They're in Guadalajara or a robot design board, not on a
street corner in Harlem or a Millennial's bedroom in mommy and daddy's
basement. That said, "conservatives" may support H1Bs and reasonable
immigration and temporary work permits, but they don't support OPEN
borders -- liberals do. Bernie can't speak the truth on that score,
because in doing so he would be critical of his own base.

Trump and Bernie are populists, but of two different flavors. Trump
might succeed, but Bernie would be a disaster. Just my opinion. (-8

[mg]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:06:18 -0800, El Castor

When I responded to this thread earlier today was the first time
that I ever heard the term "open boarders". So, I don't know who is
in favor and who is against. The reason I posted the quote from
Bernie is simply because it popped up when I did a search.

In general, my guess is that corporations would probably be in favor
of any arrangement that allows people into the country to work, but
would be against any arrangement that allows them to become citizens
and to vote. Democrats, on the other hand, would probably be in
favor of scheme that allowed people from third-world countries into
the country to become citizens since it increases their voting base.
However, Democrats who make money from corporations would obviously
also develop the corporate preference. Without looking it up, I'm
sure that Obama and Hillary would be all in favor of temporary work
visas and I'm guessing that the two nonestablishment candidates,
Trump and Sanders wouldn't.

[me]

Just as businesses have no constitutional right to profit so it is that labor has no constitutional right to wages. Legislating such rights is in-American.

A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government. The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care.

Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that some slave must supply you with health care...does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns? “

The 2002 Badnarik Presidential campaign website had this jewel:

“In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths: The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government... The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges..."

In contemporary America, Politics as Usual is about dispensing privileges - creating new rights for some at the expense of others. Did people forget America was supposed to be about safeguarding individual liberty and limiting government? Government makes laws. Laws create privileges for some and steal inalienable rights from others in the process. Laws steal choices. They make you obey someone else’s choices. It’s like being told where to sit on the bus. Laws make you do things you would not want to do if you were free. In today’s America all other political parties legislate to prohibit and limit choices for some people and mandate the choices of others.
http://www.endit.info/what.shtml

[dav...@agent.com]

me <werner...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I’m all for immigration and completely open borders.
>1) there can be no welfare or free govt services, so everyone

>has to pay his own way, and no freeloaders are attracted
>2) all property is privately owned, to minimize the possibility
>of squatter camps full of beggars.
>http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/weekend-edition-doug-casey-on-how-to-solve-the-migrant-crisis

What's your plan for world peace?

[me]

World peace is temporary no matter the plan as is world war.

[dav...@agent.com]

me <werner...@gmail.com> wrote:

>World peace is temporary no matter the plan as is world war.

"Again wit dem negative waves." -- Oddball, in Kelly's Heroes