I’ve always believed that borders matter. Every country has the right and the responsibility to control who enters and who stays. And if someone enters illegally and commits a crime? I believe they should be deported.
But I’ve noticed that many in the West, especially on the American political left are strongly in favor of weakening border controls, or at least making it very hard to enforce immigration laws. I’m genuinely trying to understand the thinking behind this.
Is it:
A way to import future voters to secure political dominance?
Cheap labor to keep wages down for the working class?
Personal guilt over colonialism and slavery, projected into dismantling their own borders as a form of “justice”?
A belief that national identity itself is harmful, and that borders should eventually disappear?
A way to increase your house price so you can sell/rent at a greater profit?
Do you see rising crime as a bug or a feature? Is there another hidden goal that I don’t see?
At what point do they consider the costs to the working class, who face wage competition and rising housing prices? How do they justify the strain on schools, hospitals, and welfare systems? Or the impact on legal immigrants waiting years to follow the law, while others skip the line?
I’m asking honestly: Where does this lead? Does a country still exist if it can’t control its borders? Or is the ultimate goal to dissolve borders altogether in favor of some global ideal?
I’d love to hear directly from people who support open borders or looser immigration controls. What’s the vision, and how do you see it playing out in reality?
No other nation has as large an immigrant population as the United States. With the important exception of those descended from Indigenous peoples or enslaved Africans, few people in this country can trace even part of their ancestry to an immigrant, whether recent or centuries old.
It’s the benefits that creates the issue. Freedom to move and work anywhere is fine to a degree, when people who take advantage of this freedom also cover their own costs in terms of healthcare, children’s education etc. Otherwise it’s going to become an issue.
It’s clearly hard to negotiate selectively. For example, they’re struggling like hell to figure out how to house asylum seekers in the UK right now. In terms of legality.
It’s made for some pretty surprising election results.
I don’t doubt that but I do believe it should be controlled. There should be more pathways for specific skills needed.
And it’s not always about economics. Social issues matter to everyday people as well like having large areas of immigrants that don’t assimilate or even demand the people there to “respect their way of life” instead of respecting the local culture.
Sure, in theory, many economists agree freer movement of labor can boost global GDP. But that’s based on simplified models, like what you’d see in an intro economics class, where everything else is assumed to remain constant.
In the real world, things don’t stay constant. We’ve seen countries like the U.S., Germany, Sweden, and the UK experience significant challenges alongside immigration: wage suppression for low-skilled workers, housing shortages, pressure on public services, and social tensions.
Also, that “90% consensus” usually refers to regulated, controlled immigration, not open borders or large-scale illegal migration.
Having a history of immigration doesn’t automatically mean any level of immigration today is sustainable or beneficial. Immigration policy has always involved limits, rules, and tradeoffs even during America’s Ellis Island era.
