Leftist Marchers Want Open Borders

You can't have background checks with open borders. That's why I've stated repeatedly that we shouldn't have open borders. Refer to my first post on this thread if you need more clarification on that.

You seem to be under the impression that I don't want any legal requirements. If that is the case, then you haven't been reading my posts.

1) Those two things are not mutually exclusive. 2) If any member of "world's poorest" can pass a background check and show that they can either support themselves or have someone here who is willing to support them until they get on their feet, there is no ethical, rational or economic reason for denying them entry.

I'll try again:

Criminal background checks good.
Country-of-origin quotes and other arbitrary restrictions bad.

That's what I've been arguing from my first post on this thread.

Cool. I'll let you know if I need any more non sequiturs. I'm full up right now though.

 

Good thing I didn't advocate open borders. We were talking about globalism. Capitalism is inherently globalist. Always has been. If you haven't read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, it goes into further detail on this.

 

Capitalism operates within the rules government sets

So it can be globalist or protectionist

But multinational corporations are a threat to national sovereignty if left unchecked

 

Capitalism is inherently antiprotectionist. Hell, most of Wealth of Nations is about pointing out the economic irrationality of protectionism and nationalist economics (aka mercantilism).

 

" . . . the future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of a past that did not really exist in any case. And I think that everyone here, especially the class of 2016, understands that viscerally, internally, intellectually. You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world."

So saith John Kerry, May 6, 2016.

Like the protest placards say, No Nations, No borders.

The implication is one-world government.

 

Agreed, just more of the radical cultist right trying to push their fake narrative that liberals want free and open borders for anyone to just walk in without any obstruction at all which is completely false but what do you expect from a cult.

 

Both sides are being overdramatic. For most of our country's history we had no visas. You wanted to come here legally? All you had to do was step over the border or step off of the boat. I want more security than that, but the simple fact is that these open borders didn't result in one world government, no nations or anything of the sort.

 

In no way was the wealth of nations anti protectionist

It merely attempted to explain how economic forces interact with eath other and why capitalism is the best way for a nation to build wealth

 

Then I'm afraid you haven't read it.

And was a robust defense of international trade as being better for the nation than protectionism. Did you skip that part?

 

Oh please, your cohorts have already dropped the ruse:

 

Not cover to cover recently

Trade is good up to a point

But unrestricted free trade is not good for wealthy nations if the people living there want to survive as a wealthy nation

 

"The first White House fence was erected by Thomas Jefferson in 1808. It consisted of wooden split-rail barriers on three sides of the grounds and a retaining wall called a “ha-ha” on the other side, where the South Lawn then bordered the Potomac River wetlands.

“It was to keep livestock from coming into the area around the house. It was not meant to keep people out,” said William Bushong, the chief historian at the White House Historical Association.

Over the next century, the old fences were eventually replaced with wrought-iron. But Bushong said the new fence was mainly for decoration, not for defense. In fact, the White House gates were left open much of the time, and members of the public could stroll in to visit the gardens or to wait for an appointment in the president’s waiting room. In 1842, an intoxicated painter got close enough to President John Tyler to hurl rocks at him. He missed.

The openness of the White House grounds began to change for good after an incident in the late 1890s. Bushong said that President Grover Cleveland’s daughter Ruth was with her nanny on the South Lawn when they were surprised by a group of people who had wandered in the open gates.

“A group of visiting women picked up Ruth and began to coddle her and kiss her and pass her around, and this really freaked out Mrs. Cleveland,” Bushong said. The grounds were closed, and the fence became a tool to keep people out. “The whole nature of the house and grounds as a public space really closed in the 1890s.” End quote

Good fences (especially if a surveyor has marked the precise location points) make good neighbors.

Secure, enforced borders make for a strong, free people.

In Jefferson's time the American people still respected property.

 

If you read it again, it is the central theme of book iv. He talks about how "protectionism" only really protects special interests in production while hurting consumers. He goes into how trade creates wealth, which is one of the central themes of capitalism.

 

One of the most creative dodges I've ever seen on PF. But glad to see that Trumpeters still can't tell the difference between private property and public spaces.

 

Go ahead and hurt me as a consumer. Just get all my able-bodied young neighbors and all residents employed and paying taxes, not taking from taxes.

 

The access to the white house has been rigidly secured and controlled for a hundred years, even for tours of everyday citizens, as it must be to avoid utter chaos.

The white house is government property, the same kind of property that if just a little bit of it is stolen by a GI, that GI is very severely punished.

 

Trade produces more jobs overall for the country. More wealth = more jobs. Protectionism sacrifices total jobs for special interests.

 

The nation is not a house nor is it comparable to one. For most of our country's history, we had open borders. We survived just fine.

 

Why the hell are so many able-bodied people on the dole sucking life out of the treasury then? What the USA was doing before Trump did not work.

 

Every civilization has an end point. The only question is when.

 

Yes, I get the non sequitur.

Your assumption that international trade caused welfare abuse is as much of a fantasy as your assumption that Trump has solved the problem of "able-bodied people on the dole."

 

Exactly.

 

How about a numerical limit? Or if 100 million a year meet your minimum qualifications, you would wave them through?

Negative Ghostrider.

The Wage Impact of the Marielitos

 

I can give you a shorter and more modern reference by hat old liberal pirate warren buffet that points out why trade deficits are bad for our notions economic health

http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warren-buffett-foreign-trade/

He is for balanced trade but not anything-goes free trade that globalists advocate

 

Now is not then

We have no need for millions of poor people who contribute nothing to our economy