[elliekelly]

> clearly the treatment of these individuals does not deter the countless daily immigrants who nevertheless choose- willingly- to take the risk

Have you ever met a refugee? I suspect not. Every refugee I’ve ever met had no interest in leaving their country but felt they had to for the safety of their family. They’re well aware they’re breaking the law and the consequences they face if they get caught. But when you’re desperate even the possibility of your family being separated and caged and treated entirely inhumanely is a better prospect than sticking around a war-torn country or a dangerous political environment.

Should we jail the starving person who steals a loaf of bread? The homeless person who “camps” without a permit? The old man with cancer and without health insurance who politely and half-heartedly attempts robs a bank in order to get access to health care[1]? Maybe that last one, sadly. But my point is that desperation can make a “criminal” out of anyone.

Edit - Link to the unfortunately true story for anyone interested.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nc-man-allegedly-robs...

[staybythebay]

Where and how do we draw the line, as a country? I can empathize with the struggle of refugees. Is the answer open borders? I would think not, but then, what is?

[elliekelly]

> Is the answer open borders? I would think not

(At the risk of wading into a topic that can easily go off the rails, I'll preface this by saying that I'm absolutely in the minority here, but...)

I really wouldn't have a problem with open borders at all. In fact, I think it makes sense from a humanitarian and an economic perspective.

We have open borders between and among the states in the U.S. and it works great. Same goes for the E.U. And the internet is basically a giant borderless market for information. I'd even go so far as to say that the internet has suffered real harm over the last decade or so as governments have been forcing internet service providers to arbitrarily "recognize" borders more frequently.

Free trade is good economic policy. Why does that somehow not apply when it comes to the free movement of people? And for the most part we actually do allow "people" to freely cross borders - as long as they're a legal person and not a natural person. A corporation can enter just about any market with an afternoon's worth of paperwork.

I'm just not sure I see the distinction that justifies the free movement of information, goods, and services but not the free movement of labor.

And, of course, economics aside, I'm one of those "crazy" people who believes that if we have the means to help someone, we should. If we have the choice between showing hospitality or hostility to an uninvited guest I'd much rather take the opportunity to make a new friend.

[NotSammyHagar]

Very few people are for open borders. Humane treatment of human beings is what so many people are for. If you don't like the possibility of immigration for those in desperate straits, you should talk about that reality instead of arguing it's open borders or nothing.

[ianai]

There’s an argument for open borders. Immigration grows markets directly. Especially when population growth is negative as it is. The push against immigration isn’t rooted in economic reasonings.

Where I see a lack is in jobs and job growth. But jobs will definitely be created in response to the demand created by new people. Immigrants are even better than population growth through having babies because immigrants come from a distribution of ages. So demand growth isn’t concentrated at things babies want but closer to what all people want.

Edit-this is particularly helpful to grow the social security revenue.