Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Reminds Voters That He Is Absolutely Against Open Borders

"If your point is, open the borders, my god, there's a lot of poverty in this world and you're going to have people from all over."

|

Sanders
Screenshot via The Hill

During a campaign event in Iowa over the weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a frontrunner for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination, rebuked an audience member who suggested the self-described democratic socialist supported open borders.

The audience member had begun to ask how Sanders would fund his vast social safety net if the U.S. were to adopt an open-borders immigration policy. Sanders interrupted him, countering, "Who do you think is suggesting opening the borders?"

The man responded by suggesting that Sanders had supported such a proposal, which is erroneous.

"I'm afraid you may be getting your information wrong," said Sanders. "That is not my view. I think what we need is comprehensive immigration reform. If your point is, open the borders, my god, there's a lot of poverty in this world and you're going to have people from all over the world, and I don't think that is something we can do at this point. Can't do it. So that is not my position."

This is nothing new for Sanders: In fact, during the 2016 campaign, he famously told Vox's Ezra Klein that open borders were a right wing "Koch brothers proposal" that would make "everybody in America poorer."

Generally speaking, this is not true—the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally. But Sanders probably realizes that the kind of comprehensive welfare state he would like to build—one that provides universal healthcare, minimum wage guarantees, and even free college tuition—will be more expensive and less politically popular if waves of immigrants qualified for it. Given a binary choice between liberating millions of people around the world from crippling poverty (while also lowering the costs of various goods and dramatically improving the U.S. economy) and making Medicare for All a reality, it's perfectly clear where Sanders stands.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

145 responses to “Bernie Sanders Reminds Voters That He Is Absolutely Against Open Borders

  1. Nobody needs 23 types of poor people

    1. The commentariat is hilarious today.

      #HonkHonk

    2. Nobody needs 23 types of border protection?

    3. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
      Check For info Here,
      CLICK HERE???????? http://xurl.es/m7biw

    4. Yet the crypto-socialists at Reason keep suggesting this is some sort of benefit to a country.

  2. Who wrote this, Robby or Shika?

    1. Shika wrote the linked NYT editorial on which this port is based.

  3. “If your point is, open the borders, my god, there’s a lot of poverty in this world and you’re going to have people from all over.”

    Why does Sanders not think that the money he wants to take from ‘the rich’ shouldn’t go to those who need it most? I mean, if you’re going to ‘take from the rich to feed the poor’ why would you use that money to feed people who can already feed themselves and ignore those who can’t simply because they had the misfortune to be born on a different side of a man-made line?

    Why would you stop at ‘wealth inequality’ when you have a real chance to strike at ‘luck inequality’?

    1. Because you wouldn’t get the votes for that. Some people seem to think Bernie is some marxist wildman. He’s a lot more pragmatic than this caricature.

  4. Given a binary choice between liberating millions of people around the world from crippling poverty (while also lowering the costs of various goods and dramatically improving the U.S. economy) and making Medicare-for-All a reality, it’s perfectly clear where Sanders stands.

    Of course. The former means relinquishing control while the latter means increasing control – and the personal privileges that come with it.

    1. A nation of dedicated conservatives have proved insufficient for preserving personal liberty. What we need is a carefully balanced fusion of conservativism and Marxism to keep out the undesirable influences that enter our country in the form of welfare-consuming parasites and violent felons who intend nothing but havoc when entering our porous borders. Only through a strong, central government can Americans be assured that their Constitutional rights will be kept safe from strong, central government. As the great American patriot Franklin Roosevelt once expressed, “the ends justify the means.”

  5. “The economy” benefits because a very very few very rich guys reap huge profits, and that number is part of “the economy”. Meanwhile, individual Americans who work for a living can’t get a pay increase because someone from Honduras will work for less money.

    That individual American then has to send his kid to a government school with bigger class sizes and kids who don’t speak English. He pays a higher property tax to fund the school where his kid gets a worse education.

    But the very, very rich business owner makes a big profit off the situation. Then uses it to pay writers for Reason. So nevermind the individual American.

    1. I’m not a rich business owner and I’m benefiting. I can afford to hire someone to come give the house a good cleaning every couple weeks. And to trim the palm trees or weed. Also, I’m getting cheaper food when I go out. There are tons of ways you can benefit from less expensive labor.

      Because there’s nothing special about labor. Its an input – like steel or electricity. The less it costs, the less the final product costs.

      So, unless you think that individual American needs the raise for his psychological well-being . . . I don’t know what to tell you.

      Oh, and ‘rich business owner’ – you sound *exactly* like a Progressive talking about business with a starting assumption that owners are raking in the cash and employees are getting a pittance when, in the vast majority of the cases, the employees are taking home most of the money.

      1. Americans should sacrifice their children’s education and endure long term stagnation and hopelessness so you don’t have to do your own cleaning and gardening. Got it.

        1. Libertarians generally don’t care for such casual collectivization. Your argument would hold more water if you focused more on the actual people who “sacrifice their children’s education” or “endure… hopelessness”, and less on the fictional “Americans” which are actually wildly diverse in their levels of wealth and mental well-being.

          Also, it’s pretty rich you’re attacking Ag for creating jobs from his surplus wealth.

          1. Government education system exists whether libertarians like it or not. Tons of other government programs too. You can’t pretend them away.

            You want to import millions of people so we all have to pay a huge amount extra for government services for the population of Central America. And whenever one of us ? the people who pay for the services ? try to use them, we get to stand in line behind the newcomers who didn’t pay for them.

            You want to import those people, end all the government services first.

            Americans are indeed diverse. Stop treating whole classes of Americans like they don’t matter.

            1. You want to import millions of people so we all have to pay a huge amount extra for government services for the population of Central America.

              You’re the one who wants to pay for that stuff. You asked for it, not me. You’re the one wanting to fuck me over with that gun you’re holding.

              1. I didn’t ask for that stuff. I’m stuck with it. You want to make it much, much worse and then pretend like you have clean hands for directly doing the precise thing that made it worse.

                You people are like a guy who runs a stop sign and t-bones someone. And then you go to court and say it’s not your fault because you spoke in opposition to the stop sign.

                1. How does that make any sense?

                  1. It makes perfect sense. It is your denial of reality that makes no sense.

                    The “first principles” libertarian approach, amounts to open the borders, flood government services with new demands, watch the economy crash, but “good news”, you expect the welfare state to collapse.

                    Well, most of us share your goal, but believe your method will not get the result you believe it will. First, we don’t much care for the misery involved in your first step, then based on history, we expect a totalitarian state to be the result rather than a collapsed welfare state leading the libertarian paradise.

                    Historically, economic upheaval and social strife cause people to desire stability at any cost. And that first cost will be freedom.

                    So do we think you make any sense? no.

                    1. First, we don’t much care for the misery involved in your first step,

                      Of course you don’t – because then you’d have to bear the burden of taking care of yourself.

                      Instead you expect me to bear that burden.

                2. Agem practices the naive form of libertarianism like Jeff and ABC. They deny reality because it complicates their purity of ideas. It allows for a simplistic argument without real thought. Ots the same form of argument from socialists and communists, just on the libertarian scale. They push aside reality with a quick handwaive and pretend forst principles. It would be amusing to watch if not sad.

                  1. That kind of denial of reality is why opponents can so readily paint libertarians as unsophisticated thinkers.

                    1. Yup.

                      Most libertarians are unsophisticated thinkers. It has gotten to the point where I dont even want to identify as libertarian because I dont want to be grouped in with the open borders / pacifism in the face of invasion idiots that have infected this magazine and much of the ideology.

                      Open borders will lead to a totalitarian state way before it ever leads to an overall increase in freedom.

                  2. Yes, the ‘naive’ form – the one that asks the question ‘Why the hell am *I* always the one being asked to sacrifice for the benefit of others?’

                3. So you’re stuck with it – and instead of lashing out at the people who stuck you with it, you lash out at easier targets.

                  1. Mostly at you, because you are trying to make it much, much worse.

                    1. Make what worse specifically?

                    2. Taxes, schools, crime, wages, society, government. Much much worse.

                    3. So you hate liberal politics?

                    4. Half the words in that question could mean anything. So the answer is: maybe.

                      Politics in general are often worthy of being hated, regardless of whose politics they are and what the specific positions are.

                      What would be the point of asking such a question?

      2. “I’m not a rich business owner and I’m benefiting. I can afford to hire someone to come give the house a good cleaning every couple weeks. And to trim the palm trees or weed.”

        I’ve got to break it to you: If you’re hiring somebody to clean your house, and come by to take care of your yard, you’re probably wealthier than 80% of the population.

        1. Dude, I make 24k a year.

          But fifty dollars every couple of weeks isn’t hard to manage.

          1. You pay $50 for someone to do yard work?

            Yard companies charge far more than that.

            1. The yard “company” I use charges me 50 bucks every 2 weeks.

              I don’t know if they are really a company, but a team of guys shows up, makes everything look great and they are gone in 30 min.

              They are fast, hardworking, and I think one of them kind of speaks English.

              1. And American kids can’t get an education in your town at the only schools their parents can afford to send them. Too many kids can’t speak English.

                With no way to get an education, they are doomed to blue collar jobs. And they can never get a decent paycheck because there are a never-ending stream of Central Americans to work for minimum wage or lower. So they have all the downside of living in Mexico, but many Mexicans actually have support from strong families. Many Americans lack even that.

                But your yard looks good.

                1. The town I grew up in (and now work in) has public schools that served me well. I was able to come up from being in the lower middle class (parents combined income of about 30k) to do very well for myself, and it didn’t cost my parents a dime. Just payed their property/local taxes, and I read books.

                  Everyone else has the same opportunity in my town, actually the schools are a little better now even.

                  They can do what they want with their lives, and if that is to cut grass at a rate significantly less than the other shops in town, more power to them. They do all the lawns around and it seems like they are cleaning up financially.

                  They can also go to the free schools I went to and get wealthy because murica. And that’s fucking sweet.

                  1. That’s the attitude that causes the problem. You think it’s ok to doom 20 or 30% of Americans to stagnation and hopelessness because you’re not in that 20 or 30%.

                    1. “”They can do what they want with their lives, and if that is to cut grass at a rate significantly less than the other shops in town, more power to them”‘

                      Personal freedom. That’s a good thing. Undercutting the bigger shops is a win for the little guy. That’s a good thing.

                    2. “You think it’s ok to doom 20 or 30% of Americans”

                      They have free will and are born into one of the best countries and societies in the history of civilization. That’s the winning lottery ticket there. In all of the times to be alive in history, to get to be a free american is truly awesome. What they do with it is on them.

                      I don’t cry tears of sympathy for the “forgotten man” or anyone else in their boat. It’s a meritocracy, get skills or get forgotten.

                    3. Well, they will get the skill to expropriate you via socialist taxation.

                      Why exactly should people you gladly want to throw under the bus have any respect for your rights ?

    2. What kind of job do you have that an uneducated immigrant from Honduras, who can’t speak English, can do?

    3. But the very, very rich business owner makes a big profit off the situation. Then uses it to pay writers for Reason. So nevermind the individual American.

      How does he make a big profit off the situation?

  6. i just don’t get how Reason refuses to make a distinction between illegal and legal immigration.

    Grandpa Gulag can go suck a rotten lemon.

    1. For the same reason we don’t make a distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ drugs – because one becomes the other solely on the say-so of the state. Otherwise there is, literally, no difference.

      There’s a difference between ‘certification’ of immigration and no-certification of the same. Where one group has a paper saying they’ve come into the country and the other just walks in.

      1. Yeh. I’m not buying that.

        1. If I understand your explanation correctly that is.

      2. But do we not still utilize government to uphold one of our biggest pillars of freedom? Without property rights, and a supposed impartial adjudicator, it is difficult to maintain that right. The immigration status derives from the boundaries of that country creating the rules for ownership in that country, thus necessitating a need for population immigration rules. All of that comes before social benefits are created by that same government in opposition to the property rights laws. I can talk open borders AFTER all of the soul sucking social programs are ended and not a moment before. If you keep both problems and expand both them how can you survive in the long term is beyond me.

  7. “Given a binary choice between liberating millions of people around the world from crippling poverty (while also lowering the costs of various goods and dramatically improving the U.S. economy) and making Medicare-for-All a reality, it’s perfectly clear where Sanders stands.”
    This is practically savage coming from you, Soave. Nice.

    To be clear, open borders would be a literal disaster.

    1. “open borders would be a literal disaster.”

      Is that scarier than a fake emergency?

      1. Does it need to be or even matter? But yes, it is.

      2. Maybe. What countries in the world have open borders?

        1. I’ll even modify this to which countries in the world have a more lenient immigration policy.

          Is there any country in the world that will allow me entry without a passport?

          1. Lybia, Somalia, and I think in Venezuela you can buy one on the fly

  8. Although I will vote for any Democrat (except Tulsi Gabbard) in 2020, I’m not some mindless partisan hack. I can criticize Democrats when they’re wrong. And Bernie is wrong to oppose open borders now, just as he was wrong on this issue in 2016.

    #BorderEnforcementIsFascism

    1. In fact, by saying this Bernie has severely damaged his chances of getting the nomination. As Hit and Run readers know, polls show more and more voters agree with the statement “immigration is a good thing.” Which proves the Koch / Reason immigration agenda is rapidly going mainstream.

      1. OBL, you gotta parse better. He clearly intended to say he isn’t for it yet. Get all of his programs in place first and then open the borders. He already took off one mask, let everyone adjust to that new gave first.

        Why am I now thinking Sanders looks exactly like a Scooby Doo antagonist?

        1. You’re right, now I’ll have trouble getting that image out of my brain.

  9. Sanders has always believed his country should remain behind some kind of curtain. Perhaps one made of iron.

    1. Communists like Sanders want to keep everyone in and out.

      1. “Everyone” knows who they are.

  10. Wait! Open borders are a right wing Koch brothers proposal? I thought that open borders were supported by the left.

    So is The Bern alt-right for his opposition to open borders? Or are the Koch brothers a couple of lefties that the rest of the Democratic field can get behind?

    1. Open borders are for the Globalist Corporatists.

      Corporate Profits Uber Alles!

  11. The bolshies on my twitter feed are weeping and gnashing over this one. They really think America should take everyone. The reason is that of course they are all future voters for socialism. Bernie is shooting himself in the foot here. Makes Trump look like a genius.

    Still Shillin for Jill 2020 approves this message.

    1. I’ve been saying for a while, of those folks are in such a desperate place then we should force them to emigrate to another country. I hear it worked well for Andrew Jackson.

    2. I’ve often said, using a comical mixed metaphor, that “the road to serfdom is paved with open borders.”

  12. Maybe the situation will be self-correcting – the more socialism, the fewer people will want to come to the US…

    1. It certainly worked for Venezuela!

  13. The Berlin Wall.

    You cannot control without it. No in no out without permission.

    Bernie knows this. To control the activities of the people economic or otherwise you must prevent free flow of goods, services and labor. You cannot allow people to move back and forth at will.

    To force the economic agenda for the collective good he must control the border.

  14. “Generally speaking, this is not true?the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally.”

    Only if we were selective about who we let in.

    It’s perfectly possible for the economy to get bigger, and almost everybody to get poorer. In fact, that’s what unrestrained immigration of low skilled workers does.

    1. At a minimum we need to ensure that the median immigrant is paying the average Federal tax burden.

    2. Yes, I keep hearing from the young genius’ that robots are going to do all the manual labor. So, all the lower skilled folks are going to be out of a job? And if so, what are you thinking the 20 million illegals who can’t read or write ANY language going to do?

  15. Most likely Sanders simply realizes that open borders are political poison. So do the other Democratic candidates. (I mean, believe it or not, the fact that Trump says “:the Democrats are for open borders” doesn’t mean it’s true…)

    1. Of course, when a bunch of Democrats reflexively say, “Border enforcement is fascism”, it kind of undermines their point.

  16. It seems awfully disingenuous to attack Sanders for opposing “Open Borders” only to then say “the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many ‘more’ people enter the country ‘legally’.”
    .
    “Many” “legally” is a far cry from “open borders”.

    1. Mr. Soave couldn’t put false dichotomy past you.

    2. So weird that the same people who say only a fraction of total immigration into the US is coming from the southern border have little to offer about liberalizing immigration for those not coming from the southern border.

  17. Which is the position held by probably 80% of Americans.

  18. “Generally speaking, this is not true?the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally. ”

    With true Open borders, the GDP would go up, but the GDP per capita would stagnate or go down.

    1. Given the low productivity of the likely average immigrant under an open borders regime, per capita GDP would certainly go down.

  19. ” I think what we need is comprehensive immigration reform. If your point is, open the borders, my god, there’s a lot of poverty in this world and you’re going to have people from all over the world, and I don’t think that is something we can do at this point. Can’t do it. So that is not my position.”

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform usually just means Open Borders on the installment plan. Reward those who broke US immigration law with the legal right to remain in the US, then wag your finger at the world and say “No more illegal immigration. We’re super cereal this time!”

    Is Bernie for deporting *any* otherwise law abiding illegal alien in the US? Will he even use the term “illegal alien”?

    I’m guessing No on both counts. He’s for open borders.

    Best I can tell, anyone who breaks into the country can stay, but he might actually limit the H1B paperwork.

    Bernie on Immigration
    http://alturl.com/svxqw

    1. ‘In the same speech Bernie promised that if Congress did not pass comprehensive immigration reform, if elected President, he would use executive powers to provide “deportation relief to the parents of U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents and so-called DREAMers.”‘

      Deportation Relief means no one ever has to go back.

      “Parents of US citizens” = “crank out an anchor baby, and you’ll never have to leave”.

      1. A point that is avoided like the plague whenever open borders people speak. What is the point of legal vs. illegal immigration if your children automatically become citizens and you can’t be removed?

        1. If you’re unwilling to say “No” to foreigners who want to live in the US and are without some gross defect like a criminal history or a communicable plague, you’re for open borders.

  20. Right-wing Bernie: close the border, more guns!

  21. I hope some heads explode over the fact that Bernie and Trump agree on this issue.

    1. Socialists and Trump probably agree on how to wipe their ass too. What’s your point?

      Bernie and Communists like him need to absolutely control the state’s borders for people coming in and leaving.

      Trump was voted in to prevent illegals from crossing the Mexican border.

      NOT same-same

      1. Very true. The fact that Bernie and Trump both advocate top-down collectivism should not get stand in the way of the fact that the latter should be hailed as a hero of American patriotism while the former is a remnant of the leftist scourge that should have been eradicated during the McCarthy era. After all, only one of these men come from the party of Obozo and Crooked Hillary.

        1. Trolls. Hate dissension from the Narrative script.

  22. “Who do you think is suggesting opening the borders?”

    The man responded by suggesting that Sanders had supported such a proposal, which is erroneous.

    “I’m afraid you may be getting your information wrong,” said Sanders. “That is not my view. I think what we need is comprehensive immigration reform.

    Comprehensive immigration reform is open borders.

  23. The only people who are for “open borders” are a few principled libertarians. Otherwise it’s a right-wing smear.

    Why can’t they ever tell the truth about anything? Do they not think that their constant need to exaggerate and lie about their opponents’ positions might have something to do with the quality of their own?

    1. The only people who are for “open borders” are a few principled libertarians.

      The only people who admit it are principled libertarians. Leftists lie about their preference. Why do they need to lie about their own policies in order to win support? It seems an open admission their policies are not popular.

      1. If you can’t see that “open borders” is a nonsense smear, then you are deliberately not trying to think.

        No Democrat would advocate such a thing, not just because it’s nonsense, but because it’s politically suicidal.

        Not that that will stop lying Trumpbublicans from lying about it. They can’t tell the truth even when it would help them.

        1. They don’t support it openly because it is political suicide. But we don’t automatically accept people’s word for what they oppose. For example leftists routinely assert conservatives are racist but your justification above would prove this false. So why do leftists believe we must take their word rather than test it as we do all other positions? This left wing privilege only exists within left wing institutions, in the free world they have to accept the same standards as everyone else.

          So how do we distinguish between people who support something unpopular but hide it from those who truly oppose it? We compare the principles they claim to support with their other statements to note discrepancies. So for example we can note cities dominated by left wingers often declare themselves sanctuary cities. We note that high profile politicians who enjoy general support among Dems and the left refer to border enforcement as immoral. It’s routine for Dems to refer to immigration control as racist or xenophobic. These positions fundamentally conflict with border enforcement but they are perfectly consistent with support for open borders.

          Then of course we have the historical precedent that the left / Dems proved they oppose border enforcement when the Reagan immigration plan was enacted. So when the left / Dems pretend to offer border enforcement for amnesty the true offer is amnesty for nothing. Serial amnesty without enforcement is open borders.

          1. I forgot to mention the left’s new bugaboo: abolish ICE.

        2. From Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union address:
          But there are some areas that the federal government should not leave and should address and address strongly. One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

          Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.

          Poor Tony. Gotta love the Interwebs.

          1. Thanks for confirming what I wrote?

        3. I’m not for open borders, I’m just against enforcing any and all immigration laws. You see the difference, right?

    2. Excuse me but I think you meant to say that Bernie Sanders is a racist fascist Nazi who hates brown people.

      1. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples”

  24. Whatever, in my book he’s still Bernie the Commie, Con, Crook.

  25. One thing I love about Sanders, and pretty much the only thing I even like about him, is he’s a crotchety old man who knows exactly who he’s pandering to and DGAF about anyone else or if anyone else knows it.

    1. I hope Sanders wins the Democrat Primary.

      It will be glorious when Trump gets an even larger Electoral College win from 2016s EC count of 304-227.

      1. It would be funny if Trump beats Sanders in the popular vote.

  26. Generally speaking, this is not true?the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally.

    This is an untrue statement.

    1. But Sanders probably realizes that the kind of comprehensive welfare state he would like to build?one that provides universal healthcare, minimum wage guarantees, and even free college tuition?will be more expensive and less politically popular if waves of immigrants qualified for it.

      The welfare system we have no wouldn’t be sustainable if we opened the borders.

      Perhaps my definition of open borders differs from Robby’s.

      Open borders could be defined as “letting many more people enter the country legally”. If we open the borders and declare anyone entering is here legally, then our social safety net system would collapse. Perhaps what Robby means is a more relaxed immigration system where more people than NOW are being allowed into the country legally, after careful vetting, including verifying an ability to work and pay into the system.

    2. ‘ “the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally”

      This is an untrue statement.’

      It’s not even false. It’s an equivocation.

      Abstractions don’t accrue “benefits”, because they have no preferences. People accrue benefits.

      Open borders would benefit the foreigners allowed to come in.
      It would benefit those Americans with fixed assets to sell them, like homes, and those Americans who would employ them.
      It would harm those Americans who wished to buy fixed assets, like homes, and those Americans who would face their competition in the labor market.

      Never fall for the conceptual sleight of hand which talks about a policy improving the US economy when the *people* of that economy are changed by that policy.

    1. More people without limit on the number of people is open borders.
      More people without the will to deport those who violate any pretend limits is open borders.

  27. Australia is a great laboratory to see what happens with increased immigration because it’s a smaller country and has a lot less illegal immigration.

    There experience shows that immigration does actually grow the economy. That certainly benefits business.

    BUT GDP per capita actually goes down a little because the new immigrants drag down the average and suppress wages, and it exacerbates housing shortages and inflation.

    It may well enhance overall quality of life but world wide not nationally.

    1. “grow the economy”

      The Chinese Army invading Australia, murdering all Australians, and settling 200 million Chinese would “grow the economy” too.

      Is there a word in Chinese for “lebensraum”? The Australians better hope not.

      When anyone talks about “the economy” as an abstraction, always analyze what happens to the actual people involved.


  28. This is nothing new for Sanders: In fact, during the 2016 campaign, he famously told Vox’s Ezra Klein that open borders were a right wing “Koch brothers proposal” that would make “everybody in America poorer.”

    It’s only wrong when he says ‘everyone’ will be poorer. In fact, only people who are in competition with these newly minted job seekers will be poorer, since competition lowers prices. Unfortunately, in America there is a wage floor so this means they’ll be unemployed instead.

    And he’s also not wrong. It is a Koch proposal, and as supporting evidence that’s super easy to provide simply look at Reason.com and their editorial slant.

    1. “In fact, only people who are in competition with these newly minted job seekers will be poorer, since competition lowers prices.”

      But Reason has proven time and again that the law of supply and demand was repealed when it comes to importing foreign labor!

      Also, it’s not just labor.

      Those who own fixed assets like homes benefit from the higher housing demand.
      Those who want to buy/rent fixed assets like homes are hurt by the higher housing demand.

      Reason hasn’t yet proven that the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply when it comes to importing foreign housing demand. When they do, I’ll retract this claim.

  29. Who exactly in our national conversation is actually advocating in favor of open borders, though?

    I hear Democrats talking about “open southern border”, but they could care less about making immigration easier for everyone not emigrating from our southern border. Reason basically parrots the exact same talking point. “Open southern border” is not “open borders”, nor is it a very respectable or legitimate position. It’s just another flavor of identity politics.

    1. I’ll believe that Reason and their funders actually care about “open borders” when they begin to demand that immigration quotas be lifted and that the US expand immigration visas beyond the current family based system. As it stands, Reason and its funders are only concerned with an open southern border and most assuredly not open borders.

    2. Democrats seem to complain about our horrible immigration policies. Yet, totally ignoring that we have of the most lenient immigration policies in the world.

  30. Open borders would turn this country into a massive refugee camp! There will be poor always but we all don’t need to jump in the mud because other people are already in the mud. Its funny how people would not allow a refugee into their home, or write them a check for an apartment, but they will okay our government to go into debt doing that. We should look at foreign affairs the way that we look at our own domestic situation. We will help where we can and where it is reasonable. People can twist words all day long but no one really wants open borders if you are a legal US citizen.

    1. I think we should move or create a sponsorship program. If someone is willing to sponsor them in their home, with their money, then let them come in.

      1. like if someone offers them a job, and they use their own money to pay for housing? why would they have to live with a native born family?

    2. “Open borders would turn more of this country into a massive refugee camp!”

      FTFY

  31. Only morons think you can only let everyone in with totally open borders or let no one in with totally closed borders. There is a lot of room in between for those with brains that function relatively well.

  32. AFAIK, no one is proposing will allow first generation immigrants enter the country en masse just to go on welfare. You can’t do that here or in Europe without some sort of legit asylum status. Most studies have shown that immigration has long term benefits that far outweigh the short term increase in public costs, and only temporarily puts downward pressure on the lowest skill jobs. And really, if you grew up here, and can’t compete with someone without an education and who doesn’t speak English, i don’t what to tell you. That sucks. I don’t see why we should protect you from competition.

    Given the existence of the welfare state here, assuming it’s not going anywhere, and that the native born population’s birth rate is less than replacement level, it’s more likely that less immigration would put greater pressure on public finances than there otherwise would be, leading to higher taxes etc, greater inflation (which is just a way of taxing savers and people on fixed income), i.e. less freedom. Yes, first generation immigrants put more pressure on public finances initially, especially local governments because of the educational costs, but, again, the federal government’s own data on this suggests that the long term benefits outweigh these costs, meaning it would cost us more in the long run in terms of opportunity cost not to allow more immigration.

    1. “AFAIK, no one is proposing will allow first generation immigrants enter the country en masse just to go on welfare. ”

      No one has to propose it, because that is how it works now.

      Illegals are free to consume a great many public resources and social service benefits the moment they step foot in the country. Bring a kid, and they get more. Crank out an anchor baby, and they hit the jackpot.

      This “but they aren’t eligible for welfare benefits” is just an equivocation on welfare state social service spending generally and particularly social services they aren’t *legally* eligible for, no matter how often they actually receive those services.

      1. “This “but they aren’t eligible for welfare benefits” is just an equivocation on welfare state social service spending generally and particularly social services they aren’t *legally* eligible for, no matter how often they actually receive those services.”

        They don’t receive these benefits, like TANF, but their American-born children do, to the parent’s benefit.

        1. american born children aren’t immigrants. if you want to look at the cost of immigrant’s children, again, you would compare the increased tax revenue and economic growth that results from increased population compared to the short term costs. When you look at this properly, you will see that 2nd generation immigrants are a straight up boon for us.

          A 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found immigration “has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S.” –

          “First-generation immigrants cost the government more than native-born Americans, according to the report ? about $1,600 per person annually. But second generation immigrants are “among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.,” the report found. They contribute about $1,700 per person per year. All other native-born Americans, including third generation immigrants, contribute $1,300 per year on average.”

      2. “No one has to propose it, because that is how it works now.”

        -The law on immigration and welfare is clear: When a person becomes a legal permanent resident of the United States, they are required to pay taxes but they are ineligible to receive almost any welfare benefits until they have resided in the country for at least five years.

        “Illegals are free to consume a great many public resources and social service benefits the moment they step foot in the country. Bring a kid, and they get more. Crank out an anchor baby, and they hit the jackpot.”

        -without an SSN, that’s going to be difficult. Immigrants as individuals are actually less likely to use welfare benefits on the net. Not only do they not come here to use welfare, many of them must prove financial independence before their visa gets stamped.

        Studies that have shown immigrant HOUSEHOLDS are more likely to use welfare, but this is misleading, because a household with an immigrant father, but other people in the home (not necessarily even blood related) who use public services while the head of household does not, would count in many studies as an immigrant household using public services.

  33. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it. http://Www.home.jobs89.com

  34. “Generally speaking, this is not true?the U.S. economy would benefit massively from simply letting many more people enter the country legally.” Libertarians seem to be as illiterate as socialists when talking about the economy. Economy is the management of scarcity. If there is no scarcity, there is no economic advantage. If you suppress scarcity of work all the workers will end up poorer and they already face the threat of automation. You want proof? Go for instance to Brazil or India; they have all the workers they want. Is their economy so booming that’s a place people want to move to?

    1. “Libertarians seem to be as illiterate as socialists when talking about the economy.”

      The Globalist Corporatists are not as economically illiterate as socialists when talking about the economy, but they’re as *dishonest* as the postmodern Left.

      Does anyone truly think that the Koch’s don’t understand that open borders lowers their labor costs?

    2. Immigration works for free markets. it doesn’t work in the welfare state that we currently have.

      1. actually, because of demographic trends and native birth rates, the opposite is true. Without new workers, our tax base is shrinking, squeezing public finances and the welfare state. Immigration is why the US hasn’t turned in to stagnant Japan. Study after study has shown that immigration benefits us much more in the long run than it costs in the short run, and actually increases wages for all but the lowest skilled laborers in the near term.

        There was this guy named david ricardo who showed how free trade increases the wealth of all involved. Labor is a good. therefore free trade means the free movement of labor.

        This Lew Rockwell / Ron Paul race baiting argument needs to die. It doesn’t make sense (welfare states don’t benefit from shrinking tax bases, and freedom certainly isn’t enhanced when tax rates go up to pay for it), and the strategy was blatantly a way of trying to bring trumpkins into the libertarian camp. This is why all you see here nowadays are complaints about some mythical, leftist conspiracy, sky is falling fear of refugee hordes, and outright racist remarks.

  35. Interesting how the liberals/socialists show their hand… “It’s all about ME and what *I* get! I only virtue signal about caring for third world people.”

    Well, at least Bernie’s spending seemingly has *some* limits.

  36. Thanks for being fair and not promulgating the BS that right wingers do no matter whether it’s true or not.

  37. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  38. The U.S. birth rate is 1.8 births per woman, down from 3.65 in 1960, according to the World Bank. Demographers consider 2.1 births per woman as the rate needed to replace the existing population.

    According to the Pew Research Center, if not for immigrants, the U.S. workforce would be shrinking. That would create a host of problems for the federal government.

    Despite what the lew rockwell mouth breathers say, thank god for immigrants. Can’t have a immigration and a welfare state? More like can’t sustain our public finances without immigration.

    We’ve known free trade benefits nations on the net since at least Ricardo. Labor is a good. The free movement of labor therefore benefits nation economically per Ricardo, unless you want to challenge Ricardo on this.

  39. Well it was Milton Friedman who said open borders is not compatible with a welfare state. Maybe Bernie actually gets it on that point. The problem is he wants a welfare state.

    1. milton friedman was wrong about it. our public finances would require higher taxes give native birth rates if we didn’t let immigrants in. sounds like less freedom for me and immigrants if we try to keep them out.

  40. “comprehensive immigration reform” The term politicians use to pretend they care about immigration.

  41. “the U.S. economy would benefit massively ”

    Bull and SHIT. The overall GDP would go up… And the average income and standard of living would plummet… Not exactly what most people consider positive things. Sure we COULD make the US a nation of 700 million people, with a GDP merely 1/4 higher than today… But we would become a shit hole country.

    GDP per capita is really THE ONLY thing that actually makes life better for people, and open borders will not help that. Immigration restricted to only highly skilled people, however, will do exactly that. Anybody with half a brain realizes these things, which is why even a majority of idiot leftists aren’t TRULY in favor of actual open borders.

Please to post comments