Language

reply to Al (3)

Submitted July 8, 2007 - 11:37 am by Jonathan Mills
Al,

first of all, I've only ever heard the term 'open borders' in my time on the far left -- at meetings, on webgroups, etc -- used simply as a description of the policy they in fact supported. (I would have thought right-wing bigots would use somewhat more colourful language than that!)

But I think you've strayed somewhat from the original debate, which centred around whether or not cheap-labour immigration hurts (or could hurt) the native poor. (The second point is whether societies have the right to impose immigration controls).

I don't think you've countered the arguments I've made -- or you started to, but haven't responded to my counter-arguments to them -- rather, you've brought up somewhat unrelated topics like the war on drugs, or the fact that capital makes use of (effectively) open borders. (I think countries should have the right to control their investment rules, too -- I don't see how this somehow negates the existence of the immigration debate). And I don't think it's the neoliberals who are now 'whining' about open borders -- most of the business lobby (in any Western country, including the US) tends to support large-scale immigration (I would argue because of its effect on undermining local wages and labour standards).

You seem to think the US-Mexico situation is 'unique' -- nothing could be further from the truth. It is almost an exact replica of the relationship between Europe and Africa, or Australia/New Zealand and the Pacific Islands (Samoa, Tonga, Fiji etc). Poor people want to get into richer ones. Richer countries exploit the poorer ones, making them relatively even poorer and thus increasing the desire on the part of the poor to escape.

Now, I said in my original post (or one of the earlier ones) that to take the position that this should be allowed because it helps people in the poor countries is a philosophically perfectly sound, even admirable (my words) position: I just want to be clear about the impact (if any) on the people in the rich countries, because it is the poorest in the rich countries who will (arguably) suffer.

There's nothing more I really have to say about this -- as I mentioned to Bill, I simply don't have the economic and statistical knowledge to do more than present the arguments in the general way I have. Feel free to have the last word :-)

Reply

Our Policy on Comment Submissions: Co-publishers of Narco News (which includes The Narcosphere and The Field) may post comments without moderation. All co-publishers comment under their real name, have contributed resources or volunteer labor to this project, have filled out this application and agreed to some simple guidelines about commenting.

Narco News has recently opened its comments section for submissions to moderated comments (that’s this box, here) by everybody else. More than 95 percent of all submitted comments are typically approved, because they are on-topic, coherent, don’t spread false claims or rumors, don’t gratuitously insult other commenters, and don’t engage in commerce, spam or otherwise hijack the thread. Narco News reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, so, especially if you choose to comment anonymously, the burden is on you to make your comment interesting and relevant. That said, as you can see, hundreds of comments are approved each week here. Good luck in your comment submission!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

User login