Thursday, November 22, 2018

Steve Sailor - "The Left Case Against Open Borders"

The Left Case against Open Bordersby Angela Nagle
 If Trump is for immigration controls, then the Left will demand the opposite. And so today talk of “open borders” has entered mainstream liberal discourse, where once it was confined to radical free market think tanks and libertarian anarchist circles.
While no serious political party of the Left is offering concrete proposals for a truly borderless society, by embracing the moral arguments of the open-borders Left and the economic arguments of free market think tanks, the Left has painted itself into a corner. If “no human is illegal!,” as the protest chant goes, the Left is implicitly accepting the moral case for no borders or sovereign nations at all. But what implications will unlimited migration have for projects like universal public health care and education, or a federal jobs guarantee? And how will progressives convincingly explain these goals to the public?
During the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, when Vox editor Ezra Klein suggested open borders policies to Bernie Sanders, the senator famously showed his vintage when he replied, “Open borders? No. That’s a Koch brothers proposal.”1 This momentarily confused the official narrative, and Sanders was quickly accused of “sounding like Donald Trump.” Beneath the generational differences revealed in this exchange, however, is a larger issue. The destruction and abandonment of labor politics means that, at present, immigration issues can only play out within the framework of a culture war, fought entirely on moral grounds. In the heightened emotions of America’s public debate on migration, a simple moral and political dichotomy prevails. It is “right-wing” to be “against immigration” and “left-wing” to be “for immigration.” But the economics of migration tell a different story.
This article has generated a lot of angry responses from Nagle’s former allies on the left about how Nobody is for Open Borders, so why is Nagle even mentioning this?
Here’s the Current Year’s conventional wisdom on Open Borders:

We’re not for Open Borders. That’s silly. Practically nobody is for Open Borders.
We’re just against everybody who is against Open Borders, you hateful racist xenophobic nativists.
The Unz Review


Konrad said...

The debate about borders is a way to distract public attention from the U.S. military and economic imperialism that create refugees. Neither the right nor the left condemn things like the destruction of Libya, or things like U.S. support for coups and for neoliberal dictators, or things like NAFTA and CAFTA which create the most refugees of all.

As refugees stand at the gates, some Americans say let’s admit them, while other Americans say let’s exterminate them. No Americans think about why refugees stand at the gates in the first place, and why they are becoming more numerous. As of this writing there are 61 reader comments at the Unz review blog. Not one of them mention U.S. complicity in creating refugees.

We are a nation of cruel idiots. Fools. Frankos.

Kaivey said...

I didn't read the comments. Yes, imperialism causes the immigration. Africa is a rich continent, but it is being looted by the West. Western companies don't even pay any tax to the african countries they take the resources from.

Konrad said...

"Africa is a rich continent, but it is being looted by the West."

Africa is like Latin America. U.S. morons (e.g. Franko) call these places “sh*tholes,” ignoring the fact that whenever Africans or Latins try to improve their situation, the USA sponsors coups, installs dictators, and so on.

For the Frankos of the world, calling a place a “sh*thole” is a projection of the “sh*thole” in their heads.

Many Africans have tried to improve their nations, only to be assassinated under U.S. orders. Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Muammar Gaddafi, Walter Rodney, Tavio Amorin, and many more were socialists or semi-socialists who wanted a better life for their people, and were therefore directly or indirectly murdered by Washington.

Incidentally I include Idi Amin on this list. Everything said about Amin in the corporate media is lies. Amin displeased the Empire when he expelled all Israelis from Uganda.

It’s the same in Latin America. Whenever they try to improve their situation, Washington attacks, while the Frankos cheer it on. Sh*thole! Sh*thole! Art majors! Sh*thole!

Andrew Anderson said...

Ancient Israel had open borders since foreigners were no threat to Hebrew wage-labor since almost all Hebrews were land owners and benefited from foreign wage labor.

But there's nothing to be learned from the Old Testament according to Franko.

Except we would have avoided a lot of trouble if we had taken it seriously wrt economics as I've pointed out over the years.

More and more I fear the US corresponds to Babylon the Great in the Book of Revelation.

lance sjogren said...

As to the leftist notion that all of Latin America's problems are caused by US interference in their internal affairs.

Probably the most egregious interference in a Latin American country was the US overthrow of the election of leftist Allende in Chile.

The long term legacy of this intervention is that Chile is now the #1 or #2 most prosperous nation in Latin America.

It would appear that if there is any criticism due the US regarding Latin America that we are to blame for not interfering more.