It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Open Borders Really Bring Utopia or Colonialism?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Open Border Imperialists

This is the basic question which I feel is being asked by the speaker in this video. I would ask for those who have a few moments to watch, too take a few more moments and think about what was said.

I am of the opinion this is a very good reasoning against open borders and the unlimited migration which would come from it. I do not find fault with those who think it is an overall good idea. Rather, I agree more with the results of the long term unintended consequences which are sure to follow. Of course, in the short term there are the factors of crime and the spread of diseases which come from any group of foreign peoples suddenly injected into another society. The video does not go into these factors but they should also be considered when the advent of open borders is discussed. The speaker also does not discuss the legality involved with the issue of immigration.

Again I ask for those who would reply to first watch the video so you will have some knowledge of what others are discussing.




posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

Just curious - do you have a list/sources/quotes of any current US members of the House of Senate who advocate open US borders?

Fro the sake of this question, I will attempt to define the term "open borders" so that we are talking about the same thing:


An open border is a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control. A border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls or intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto). An example of the former is the Schengen Agreement between most members of the European Economic Area (EFTA and the EU). An example of the latter has been the border between Bangladesh and India, which is becoming controlled. The term "open borders" applies only to the flow of people, not the flow of goods and services,[1] and only to borders between political jurisdictions, not to mere boundaries of privately owned property.[2]


Wiki


ETA:

The reason I ask is at the start of the video ( i did not watch the whole thing because it seemed reductionist and derivative) the presenter does not identify exactly who is promoting open boarders.
edit on 10-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I can't watch the video, but assume I will agree with you.

I think a big problem is that people who are against the wall are label as promoting open boarders. I don't know a single house representative or senate member promoting this. I also don't anyone in my personal life. Boarders should not be "open".



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart
I can't watch the video, but assume I will agree with you.

I think a big problem is that people who are against the wall are label as promoting open boarders. I don't know a single house representative or senate member promoting this. I also don't anyone in my personal life. Boarders should not be "open".


If Democrats are not for open borders, why do they support sanctuary cities, block ICE enforcement, and want to provide benefits to illegal immigrants?

Honest question...



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: headorheart
I can't watch the video, but assume I will agree with you.

I think a big problem is that people who are against the wall are label as promoting open boarders. I don't know a single house representative or senate member promoting this. I also don't anyone in my personal life. Boarders should not be "open".


If Democrats are not for open borders, why do they support sanctuary cities, block ICE enforcement, and want to provide benefits to illegal immigrants?

Honest question...


Hey hey now, get that logic nonsense outta here!



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey
The use of the Schengen Agreement in the article about open borders is erroneous. The agreement was not about open borders but completely abolishing borders in the EU (except the UK which refused to sign Schengen). This not only allowed free movement of people but more importantly free movement of goods and services.
In principle the idea of open borders in equal societies would work well. But various countries are NOT equal whether it's life style, working conditions, control of the populace by religion or tyranny, the list is endless.
As is happening in the EU countries ARE being taken over (though gradually which can't be denied) by immigrants not warfare.
Now what would happen say in Saudi Arabia if I with a few million of my countrymen moved into the country and through the majority took the country off the Saudis. Would they stand for it? If open borders are implemented this has to work both ways.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

The speaker sites his sources as he goes along. The video was made by and for the British audience but the over all discussion should be applied to all the developed nations.

As to those in congress who would advocate an open borders policy. I do not a list of names. I do not think many would openly say they back the idea, though many do not argue against it.

It as been my experience for clear understanding of a position, one needs give a speaker time to express their points before accepting what they have said in the beginning. I have found many "nuggets" of wisdom while listening to people with whom totally disagree. Even if they are wrong, we can still learn from them.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I can't speak on behalf of them, but I take it as they want more asylum, but not more illegal people crossing the boarder.

I could be wrong as I don't follow every politician, but I don't see anyone advocating free movement across the boarder.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: Edumakated

I can't speak on behalf of them, but I take it as they want more asylum, but not more illegal people crossing the boarder.

I could be wrong as I don't follow every politician, but I don't see anyone advocating free movement across the boarder.



They don't have to we have 20 million illegals in this country how much more open can it get? Its been an ongoing issue for decades that hasn't been fixed. If it truly was a problem to them it would have been fixed.

My neighbor likes cats.

Really I never heard your neighbor say he liked cats did he tell you he likes them?

Well no he didn't say he did.


Then how do you know he likes cats?


He has 6 of them in his house.


edit on 10-1-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I can't speak to your entire questions, however:




If Democrats are not for open borders, why do they support sanctuary cities


As I recall, I first heard of sanctuary cities in about 1982. In central America at that time, several US backed central American right wing dictators were killing dissidents, in particular Catholic priests and nuns. The Catholic church offered these immigrants "sanctuary" in churches in several states, and lobbied for local municipalities to offer similar agreements for political refugees. In addition, local police noticed that crimes committed against the refugees was not reported by victims, for fear of deportation back to countries where they feared they would be killed. Some local municipalities decided to not report immigration status to the federal government in hopes that local crime rates could be reduced, and that people, regardless of there immigration status, were not seen as easy targets for crime.

That is some (not all) of the background on how the sanctuary cities evolved. Of course, as in all human endeavours, there have been unintended consequences to sanctuary policies which started out as a way to protect vulnerable people from persecution.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


OK. I'm easy. Ignore the Schengen Agreement portion of my post.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind




It as been my experience for clear understanding of a position, one needs give a speaker time to express their points before accepting what they have said in the beginning. I have found many "nuggets" of wisdom while listening to people with whom totally disagree. Even if they are wrong, we can still learn from them.


I went back and watched the whole thing out of basic fairness for your argument.

He identifies a "pandemic of globalist" and "progressives" as the culprits for advocating for open borders.

I think he lost me when he started talking about "the white man's burden." I don't think that term is a dog whistle. I think that comes out and says what he really means, and everything that the "white man's burden" implies.

Interesting video though. I did not know people still felt this way in 2019.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ker2010

I think we have two different definitions of open borders then. I read open borders as freely to move between sovereign states as one sees fit. How I can easily move from Illinois through Indiana to my lakehouse in Michigan. Not I moved from O'Hare airport in Chicago To Puerto Vallarta last fall.

Also, one of my biggest objections to narrowing border security to the actual border is the millions of illegals already living throughout the United States.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
There were "Open Borders" before, and there was Colonialism after Borders were created

before invisible lines were drawn, and people worshipped the idea of a nation-state, people were nomadic, animals, nature, people, it amuses me the patriots who want "freedom" and yet want to constrain everything with invisible lines



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
There were "Open Borders" before, and there was Colonialism after Borders were created

before invisible lines were drawn, and people worshipped the idea of a nation-state, people were nomadic, animals, nature, people, it amuses me the patriots who want "freedom" and yet want to constrain everything with invisible lines


So, you also noticed this was one of the points the speaker was making when he spoke about the conflicting "libertarian" views of freedom of movement and the property owners rights to privacy.

I thought the best point he made concerned how the developed countries would be basically "colonizing" lesser countries by assuring their governments about how to provide for their citizens and take on the "imperialistic" roles which most of the world's citizens decry.
edit on 10-1-2019 by tinymind because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join