Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 12:46 PM
250 online now:
Dr Adequate, PaulK (2 members, 248 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,489 Year: 15,312/29,783 Month: 1,256/1,502 Week: 13/241 Day: 13/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Netanyahu: "Seventy years ago, only Shanghai opened the door... to Jewish refugees"
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 33 (837568)
08-05-2018 11:24 PM


As the Israeli Prime Minister said, the Chinese city was one of a kind.

During the period when the Jewish people were being slaughtered, there was one place in the world that had "open borders", though not everybody knew it at the time.

quote:

China Road
Rob Gifford
NPR Correspondent

p.21

more than twenty thousand European Jews escaped in the late 1930s because Shanghai - open, international Shanghai - was the only place in the world that didn't require them to have a visa.


Visa free does not exist today but it existed in 1 place during the 1930s.

quote:

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu salutes 'haven' of Shanghai

City's role in providing a sanctuary for Jews fleeing the Holocaust in second world war is a source of pride, says Netanyahu on official visit

Tuesday, 07 May, 2013

....
"Seventy years ago, only Shanghai opened the door to provide a sanctuary to Jewish refugees," Netanyahu was quoted by Shanghai's Liberation Daily newspaper as saying. From the early 1930s, tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who fled Europe made Shanghai their home.

https://www.scmp.com/...u-visits-shanghais-old-jewish-ghetto


The much maligned "open borders" policy is very much attacked today (like it has been for the last 100 years), but we can look to history (for the precious few examples) see how it works for people verses the usual. More on the contrast with the typical "turn around right at the border" will come later in this post.

quote:

For many European Jews during World War Two, Shanghai provided a safe haven. Former US Treasury Secretary and World War Two refugee, Michael Blumenthal can still recall the time his family fled to Shanghai.

W. Michael Blumenthal said, "We came to Shanghai only for one reason, because it was the only place in the world we can go at that time. We had to leave Germany very quickly, or we will die. Other countries did not want us in, but Shanghai is an open city."

During World War 2, Shanghai accommodated about 30,000 Jewish refugees from the Nazi Holocaust. Most of them lived in the city’s northeastern Hongkou District. Even now, many still live in the area.

http://english.cntv.cn/program/china24/20130506/106995.shtml


Now an example of the total opposite from the 20s through 40s.

quote:

The second and highly complicated question was how to deal with the thousands of Jews from Germany or German-controlled areas who sought entry into the United States to escape the persecution. During 1933–1941 the basis of U.S. immigration policy rested on the National Origins Act of 1924. The 1924 Act established quotas of immigrants from all nations except for countries in the Western Hemisphere. Only 150,000 immigrants were allowed to enter the United States per year. Those who wished to emigrate had to obtain a visa from American consular officers in their respective countries. To do so applicants had to produce proof that they had sufficient assets of their own or provide guarantee of support from someone in the United States and provide passports, birth certificates, and police certificates. For Jewish refugees, many of the mandatory documents were difficult or impossible to obtain. In addition, with the Depression tightening around America, President Hoover in 1930 instructed American consuls to pass judgment carefully on each applicant to weed out those who were likely to become a public charge (dependent on social services of local governments). "Likely public charge" was referred to as LPC. Roosevelt allowed the Hoover LPC directive to stand for nearly four years until January 1937 when he ordered consuls to not operate under the idea of keeping visas to a minimum and to use probability, not mere possibility when enforcing the LPC clause.

The yearly immigration combined quota for Germany and Austria was 27,370. For the years 1933 through 1942 far fewer actually immigrated, amounting to only five percent of the quota in 1933, then increasing each of the following years to 65 percent of the quota in 1938 and finally one hundred percent in 1939. The percentage declined slightly to 95.3 percent in 1940 then plummeted to 17.4 percent by 1942. Actual immigration numbers varied from 1,450 individuals in 1933 to 27,370 in 1939. The total number of Jews admitted as immigrants from 1933 to 1943 was 168,128. Of these, 97,325 came to the United States from Germany.

During the nine years from 1933 to 1941 the immigration laws were not changed. Those in Congress in favor of liberalizing the laws for humanitarian reasons were thwarted by those who actually argued for more restrictive provisions. Those favoring more restrictive measures argued that with unemployment rampant there was no room for new immigrants. Neither side succeeded in changing existing law.

Roosevelt also declined to alter the immigration quotas for largely political reasons. Public opinion polls indicated that as late as December 1938, despite almost unanimous condemnation of Kristallnacht, 83 percent of Americans would oppose a bill allowing for the admission of more immigrants above current quotas.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/...magazines/religion-1931-1939


The fact that the Jewish population dropped from 18 million down to 12 million (due to the United States of America sending the Jewish migrant's sea vessel away from the American shore back to Europe) should be enough to let us all say "never again" to the anti-immigration policies.

And on the $$$ issue. (which is all some people care about and - HINT - it isn't Jewish people despite the common slander)

Our economy would surely be much stronger today if the migrant refugees were allowed to live in our country as opposed to being sent away from the border and re-routed to the place that would bring them their certain deaths.

A hint to the evangelical "Christians" who let $$$ cloud judgment (and lets face it, there are enough prejudices to start with that cause judgment to be screwed up BEFORE THE ECONOMIC ISSUES AROUND IMMIGRATION GET TYPICALLY CONFUSED)

Why is "Open Border" policy such a dirty club to bludgeon pro-immigration folks with?

How is it that closed borders and tight immigration controls are seen as so virtuous?

I really want to know?

IMO, Sanctuary Cities should be seen as a great effort to keep the torch of the very human spirit aflame AND TO KEEP HOPE ALIVE. It is a fight for sound national economic policy and a declaration of support for the Constitution's "life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness" endowment from the God (almost) everybody claims to worship.

To oppose Open Borders is to oppose the very values that come from every higher calling and higher purpose worth fighting for in existence.

To impose border controls and deportations is simply the ultimate act of mankind collectively acting like animals that will never be able to see(or sense) beyond the shortsighted predatory instincts that only enable short term survival (for the successful predator) but prevent long term prosperity and spiritual growth.

Oppressive borders that aren't vigorously challenged are quite simply the stuff of spiritual desolation and death of the soul.

They kill the human spirit and they leave a trail of dead souls that are seen as less valuable than earthworms and maggots.

Never turn away the stranger seeking his or her very survival.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 2:51 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1878
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 33 (837570)
08-06-2018 1:29 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Netanyahu: "Seventy years ago, only Shanghai opened the door... to Jewish refugees" thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 33 (837573)
08-06-2018 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
08-05-2018 11:24 PM


During the period when the Jewish people were being slaughtered, there was one place in the world that had "open borders", though not everybody knew it at the time.

So in your view, taking in refugees means "open borders". Sorry, I don't accept that characterization.

The fact that the Jewish population dropped from 18 million down to 12 million (due to the United States of America sending the Jewish migrant's sea vessel away from the American shore back to Europe

That ship had 6 million people on it? All six million of the exterminated Jews were bound for the US and refused entry? I think your heart is in the right place, but the US is not single-handedly responsible for the Holocaust. What do such claims add to the dialogue?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-05-2018 11:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-06-2018 11:55 PM NoNukes has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 33 (837627)
08-06-2018 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
08-06-2018 2:51 AM


quote:

So in your view, taking in refugees means "open borders". Sorry, I don't accept that characterization.

Shanghai allowed ANYBODY to come in without a visa.

I cannot know what those polled think "open borders" means.

It should be understood to allow anybody to come in without a visa or at least allow anybody to come in (after a routine no frills border checkpoint just as a formality with no real consequences) and not be kicked out.

The 100% opposite of "None is too many" immigration border controls.

quote:

That ship had 6 million people on it? All six million of the exterminated Jews were bound for the US and refused entry? I think your heart is in the right place, but the US is not single-handedly responsible for the Holocaust. What do such claims add to the dialogue?


The St Louis was not the only ship that had Jewish refugees on it far from it.

The issue of just one city having visa free travel ANYWHERE in the world (and only for a time that no longer is in effect) in the last 100 years means that the problem is very widespread. It is the rub of the problem.

The links below (including a 2002 Guardian article) show us that 500,000 Jewish refugees were turned away from the U.K.

As for the St. Louis, it was docked for 1 month in Havana and it did try to enter Canada.

https://www.jpost.com/...efugees-fleeing-Nazi-Germany-555918

quote:

Canada turned away Jewish refugees

They needed Canada’s help and Canada said no.

It was 1939 and 907 Jewish refugees aboard the German transatlantic liner St. Louis were seeking sanctuary from Nazi Germany. Canada refused to take them in and the ship sailed back to Europe, where 254 would later die in concentration camps.

A display now on at the Museum of Industry in Stellarton tells the sad tale of the St. Louis and its ill-fated passengers.

Although the story does not put Canada in a good light, it’s one that should be told, Debra McNabb, the museum’s director, said Thursday.

“It’s the job of a museum not to censor history,” said McNabb.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/...-turned-away-jewish-refugees


The United Kingdom took in 1 in 10 asylum seekers (and only if the country didn't have to pay any costs)

quote:

Current bigotry against asylum seekers, it’s chilling to discover, closely mimics prewar anti-Jewish sentiments, and in both instances has been legitimised by British immigration policy. Rather than relaxing entry requirements for Austrian Jews after the Anschluss - Germany’s annexation of Austria in March 1938 - the British government tightened them, introducing new, strictly controlled visas precisely to restrict their numbers. More than 65,000 Austrian Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

According to Whitehall And The Jews, 1933-1948 (Cambridge University Press), Louise London’s definitive account of British immigration policy and the Holocaust, “The process...was designed to keep out large numbers of European Jews - perhaps 10 times as many as it let in.” Around 70,000 had been admitted by the outbreak of the war, but British Jewish associations had some half a million more case files of those who had not.

Although British immigration policy was liberalised after Kristallnacht - the pogrom launched by Goebbels in November 1938, in which dozens of Jews were killed and more than 1,000 synagogues burned down - London challenges the idea that prewar Britain was a haven for those fleeing Nazi brutality. “The myth was born that Britain did all it could for the Jews between 1933 and 1945. This comfortable view has proved remarkably durable, and is still adduced to support claims that Britain has always admitted genuine refugees, and that the latest harsh measures against asylum seekers are merely designed to exclude bogus applicants. . .We remember the touching photographs and newsreel footage of unaccompanied Jewish children arriving on the Kindertransports [ by July 1939, 7,700 had arrived, compared with 1,850 admitted into Holland, 800 into France, 700 into Belgium, and 250 into Sweden]. There are no such photographs of the Jewish parents left behind in Nazi Europe. . .The Jews excluded from entry to the United Kingdom are not part of the British experience, because Britain never saw them. . .Memories of the unsuccessful public campaign to persuade the government to rescue Jews from mass murder faded quickly.”

What’s more, those that were granted entry were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse. Elsewhere, Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US’s unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).

Astonishingly, Britain’s postwar record isn’t much better. Although the immediate aftermath of the second world war saw the arrival of a large number of refugees, very few were Jewish Holocaust survivors. British postwar immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews (and non-white immigrants) because it didn’t consider them assimilable. Today, asylum seekers are routinely accused of fomenting the racism that they encounter. Similarly, cabinet minutes of 1945 claimed that “the admission of a further batch of refugees, many of whom would be Jews, might provoke strong reactions from certain sections of public opinion. There was a real risk of a wave of anti-semitic feeling in this country.” Yet they had no compunction in admitting the entire Ukrainian membership of the Galician division of the Waffen-SS.

https://www.theguardian.com/....immigrationandpublicservices


This is a widespread problem.

Africa is attempting to eventually get visa free travel for the 54 countries but there will be opposition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 2:51 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 1:17 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 2:45 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 33 (837628)
08-07-2018 12:38 AM


Africa has a major open border plan: Agenda 2063
Africa is really trying to take steps that will really propel the economies and humans rights forward.

Trump talks big about bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA), as opposed to big multi-country deals (like the once 12 nation TPP, which Japan has thankfully and amazingly salvaged as an 11 nation deal SINCE WE ARE OUT), but he has attempted NO NEW DEALS so we are still left with the same 18 nations that we have entered into 1 on 1 deals with (NAFTA AND CAFTA were with multiple nations and those 8 are included in the 18 I mention), and he is talking about tearing those up.

Don't expect much leadership from our country in helping Africans (either in trade deals or helpful immigration reforms), but they are attempting to at least integrate their people with the open borders dream.

quote:

Africa with open borders: A possibility or a pipe dream?

Whether described as ‘African Unity’ or ‘integration’, and whether for ideological or pragmatic reasons, overcoming the fragmentation of the continent has been an enduring theme in African statecraft since the 1960s. The borders dividing Africa’s 55 states from one another, so this reasoning goes, have lessened Africa’s global presence and kept markets small and anaemic. They have also prevented its citizens from reaching out to one another and taking advantage of the vast potential that the continent has to offer.

Adopted in 2015, the African Union’s (AU’s) long-term development blueprint, Agenda 2063, pledged to bring about free movement of African citizens across the continent. It envisioned that all visa requirements for travel by Africans within the continent would be abolished by 2018, and a common African passport introduced by 2025.

How is this progressing?

According to the 2017 Visa Openness Report – an initiative of the African Development Bank, the African Union Commission and the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Africa – progress on creating a ‘visa-free Africa’ has been modest. The report looks at the accessibility of Africa’s 55 countries to visitors from each of the others.

It analyses the requirements that each African country imposes on visitors from other countries on the continent in terms of a three-phase model: how many countries’ citizens are required to obtain visas prior to travel; how many countries’ citizens are able to obtain visas on arrival; and how many countries’ citizens can enter the country with no visa at all.

In 2016 (the period covered by the report), there were 2 970 requirements imposed by African countries on other African citizens – in other words, each of the 55 countries had a visa or non-visa requirement for each of the other 54 countries. Of these, a little over half (54%) were for visas to be obtained prior to departure. This suggests that, on balance, Africa’s borders remain closed. Just over a fifth or requirements (22%) were for no visas, and around a quarter (24%) were for visas on arrival.

Only one country, the Seychelles, was truly ‘visa free’ – it granted citizens of every other African country entry with no visa, and had no requirement that they obtain one upon entry.

The greatest strides in openness have been made among island states, and East and West Africa. Rwanda and Ghana stand out as countries that have made particular progress. Ghana introduced a new visa regime in 2016, extending visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to the citizens of all AU countries. Rwanda has been opening up its borders to African travellers since 2013 – accommodating all AU visitors with visas on arrival – and recently announced that this would be extended to all countries at the beginning of 2018.

Most recently, Kenya has followed suit in opening its borders. In late November 2017, newly inaugurated President Uhuru Kenyatta announced that citizens of all African countries would be able to obtain a visa on arrival.

https://www.africaportal.org/...rs-possibility-or-pipe-dream


Good for Africa!

The EU is turning into a collapsible disaster (hopefully it doesn't get to the point of collapse) and the worst nightmares are really bad. Even Nick Clegg and Jeremy Corbyn oppose free travel of EU member states, and right wing governments are popping up everywhere.

Don't expect much support from Europe as Europe can hardly hold itself together.

Russia just reached a visa free (on visitations but not jobs, student, immigration) bilateral deal with South Africa, so Africans are getting symbolic support from an old ally.

The Economist has a good article on the African dream


    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (837629)
08-07-2018 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by LamarkNewAge
08-06-2018 11:55 PM


Shanghai allowed ANYBODY to come in without a visa.

Not having a visa means no requirements for entry in order to visit. That does not mean that anyone could stay forever.

I cannot know what those polled think "open borders" means.

You put the term in "scare quotes". What the heck were you implying that the term was supposed to mean?

And you still did not explain who the US turning around a ship is responsible for the death of 6 million Jews. And if the UK took in 1 of 10 asylum seekers, that would seem to be doing their share.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-06-2018 11:55 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-07-2018 8:31 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11321
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 33 (837630)
08-07-2018 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by LamarkNewAge
08-06-2018 11:55 PM


Its The Money
... those that were granted entry (to Britain) were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse.
I think that guarding the expenses is a reasonable approach to unchecked immigration. The United States needs people who will contribute to our society rather than becoming an expense.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-06-2018 11:55 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 3:21 AM Phat has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (837633)
08-07-2018 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
08-07-2018 2:45 AM


Re: Its The Money
I think that guarding the expenses is a reasonable approach to unchecked immigration. The United States needs people who will contribute to our society rather than becoming an expense.

Sure. I will buy that. But does that translate to fewer laborers and more white-collar workers? What the heck is merit? Are a strong back and a powerful work incentive not indicative of a contributor?

Because when some people make this argument, what they are pushing is not allowing people here from shit hole countries like Nigeria, who turn out to be among the most educated folks to come here, and a desire for more Australians who seem to have it pretty good at home, and who don't want to come here.

The fact is that no country has a claim to have the best and brightest. Folks come here with potential and make the best of our opportunities and education and become valuable. What country do you have to come from in order to make the best of what's here?

Convince me that "folks who can contribute" is not just racist double talk.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 2:45 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 4:22 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11321
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 33 (837634)
08-07-2018 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
08-07-2018 3:21 AM


Re: Its The Money
Convince me that "folks who can contribute" is not just racist double talk.

Anyone can contribute if nothing more than simply getting a job and paying taxes...which is needed for our future social security.

What we don't want are people who need our largesse more than they are willing to contribute...and that can be individuals from any country.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 3:21 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-07-2018 6:45 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 9:49 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 10 of 33 (837635)
08-07-2018 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
08-07-2018 4:22 AM


Re: Its The Money
Phat writes:

What we don't want are people who need our largesse more than they are willing to contribute...and that can be individuals from any country.

But exactly how do you test for that before allowing people a chance to contribute. And what about natural born US Citizens who need our largess more than they are willing to contribute? Should they be deported? What about infants and children who are too young to contribute much yet?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 4:22 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 33 (837642)
08-07-2018 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
08-07-2018 1:17 AM


Look at Turkey and the 3-4 million Syrian refugees. Look at Lebanon.
quote:

You put the term in "scare quotes". What the heck were you implying that the term was supposed to mean?

And you still did not explain who the US turning around a ship is responsible for the death of 6 million Jews. And if the UK took in 1 of 10 asylum seekers, that would seem to be doing their share.


I was saying that "Open Borders" might not mean the same thing to people who say they support it (like the 24% who supported it in the Harvard Harris poll).

It would pleas me if they really were all in for genuine Open Borders (as many have been advocating for years on both the right and left - though more so on the right with the left having support only from a few OLD fossils - old Marxist types)

As for 50,000-70,000 Jewish refugees being a fair "share" taken in by the U.K. (which had a very large national population for the time), I find that so utterly false that I really can't say much more.

I can't attack you for playing devil's advocate, but man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 1:17 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 33 (837644)
08-07-2018 9:05 AM


Open Borders supported by ultra conservative libertarians like CATO Institute
I lost a post in reply to Phat.

There are a ton of studies that show like 80% growth in a single year. Some recent studies show 80% growth to the world economy each and every year with 100% open borders worldwide.

This is a superb article with like 30 hyper links (plus a video in the actual text) backing up the claims.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/

Here is a great article that was published just days after I was posting here (in a few threads) in July 2017.

quote:

If borders were open

A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer

Yes, it would be disruptive. But the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen

Jul 13th 2017

A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL is lying on the ground. An economist walks past it. A friend asks the economist: “Didn’t you see the money there?” The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been $100 on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is not actually true. But occasionally it is. Michael Clemens, an economist at the Centre for Global Development, an anti-poverty think-tank in Washington, DC, argues that there are “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”. One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open borders.

Workers become far more productive when they move from a poor country to a rich one. Suddenly, they can join a labour market with ample capital, efficient firms and a predictable legal system. Those who used to scrape a living from the soil with a wooden hoe start driving tractors. Those who once made mud bricks by hand start working with cranes and mechanical diggers. Those who cut hair find richer clients who tip better.

“Labour is the world’s most valuable commodity—yet thanks to strict immigration regulation, most of it goes to waste,” argue Bryan Caplan and Vipul Naik in “A radical case for open borders”. Mexican labourers who migrate to the United States can expect to earn 150% more. Unskilled Nigerians make 1,000% more.

“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.

The potential gains from open borders dwarf those of, say, completely free trade, let alone foreign aid. Yet the idea is everywhere treated as a fantasy. In most countries fewer than 10% of people favour it. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, it is a political non-starter. Nonetheless, it is worth asking what might happen if borders were, indeed, open.

To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.

Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity and peace. It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada. The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists. Their poverty would thus become more visible to citizens of the rich world—who would see many more Liberians and Bangladeshis waiting tables and stacking shelves—but much less severe.

If borders were open, how many people would up sticks? Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabia.

Gallup’s numbers could be an overestimate. People do not always do what they say they will. Leaving one’s homeland requires courage and resilience. Migrants must wave goodbye to familiar people, familiar customs and grandma’s cooking. Many people would rather not make that sacrifice, even for the prospect of large material rewards.

Wages are twice as high in Germany as in Greece, and under European Union rules Greeks are free to move to Germany, but only 150,000 have done so since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2010, out of a population of 11m. The weather is awful in Frankfurt, and hardly anyone speaks Greek. Even very large disparities combined with open borders do not necessarily lead to a mass exodus. Since 1986 the citizens of Micronesia have been allowed to live and work without a visa in the United States, where income per person is roughly 20 times higher. Yet two-thirds remain in Micronesia.

Despite these caveats, it is a fair bet that open borders would lead to very large flows of people. The gap between rich and poor countries globally is much wider than the gap between the richest and less-rich countries within Europe, and most poor countries are not Pacific-island paradises. Many are violent as well as poor, or have oppressive governments.

....

Would large-scale immigration make locals worse off economically? So far, it has not. Immigrants are more likely than the native-born to bring new ideas and start their own businesses, many of which hire locals. Overall, migrants are less likely than the native-born to be a drain on public finances, unless local laws make it impossible for them to work, as is the case for asylum-seekers in Britain. A large influx of foreign workers may slightly depress the wages of locals with similar skills. But most immigrants have different skills. Foreign doctors and engineers ease skills shortages. Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work.

https://www.economist.com/...ent-would-be-78-trillion-richer


The Economist has had some more articles on Open Borders in 2018 and they are superb.

The Fortune article (which I did not quote) responded to many false assumptions and arguments, but here is how it closed.

quote:

Cheap immigrant labor forces down wages.

To disprove this fallacy, we can turn to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies—a think tank that opposes immigration—which found that immigration has virtually no effect on wages. Other research even shows that new arrivals lead to an uptick in the earnings of the domestic workforce. Hard-working immigrants boost productivity, which brings paycheck payoffs to everybody. All too often, moreover, the alternative to hiring immigrants is to outsource work to other countries. And that, ironically, does force wages down.

They’re too lazy to work.

There’s no evidence that immigrants are more likely to apply for assistance than native citizens. In reality, if you correct for income and job status, immigrants actually take less advantage of the welfare state.

Once they’re here, they’ll never leave.

This brings us to a fascinating paradox: Open borders promote immigrants’ return. Take the border between Mexico and the U.S. In the 1960s, 70 million Mexicans crossed it, but in time, 85% returned home. Since 9/11, the U.S. side of the border has been heavily militarized, which has discouraged immigrants from going back. “We annually spend billions of taxpayer dollars on border enforcement that is worse than useless—it is counterproductive,” observes a sociology professor at Princeton University. “Migrants quite rationally responded to the increased costs and risks by minimizing the number of times they crossed the border.”

Opening our borders is not something we can do overnight, of course—nor should we. Unchecked migration would certainly corrode social cohesion. But we do need to remember one thing: In a world of insane inequality, migration is the most powerful tool around for fighting poverty.

Rutger Bregman is the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek. The book was translated from Dutch by Elizabeth Manton.


I was glad to see Nigeria mentioned. I had that nation in mind in this thread.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19457

The growth would be unreal. More from the Fortune article.

quote:

In fact, plenty of research shows that there is no better way to make the world wealthier—a lot wealthier—than migration. Four different studies have shown that, depending on the level of movement in the global labor market, the estimated growth in “gross worldwide product” would be in the range of 67% to 147%. Effectively, open borders would make the whole world twice as rich.

ALSO if anybody wants to research thins, put this search term into google or bing

OPEN BORDERS KOCH

quote:

An ageing population
As the global population continues to age, the opening of borders will become even more important to ensuring a strong labour supply. In 1950, there were only 14 million people living over the age of 80. Today there are 100 million, and the UN Population Division (UNPD) predicts there will be nearly 400 million by 2050. As fertility continues to fall below replacement levels in all regions except Africa, experts are predicting rapidly rising dependency ratios, while the OECD workforce is expected to drop from 800 million people to 600 million by 2050. Immigrants are therefore crucial to maintaining the size of a country’s labour force.

The problem is particularly acute in North America, Europe and Japan. In a report titled Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Population?, the UNPD stated: “In the absence of migration, the declines in population size will be even greater than those projected and population ageing will be more rapid… If retirement ages remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working population through international migration is the only option in the short to medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.”

https://www.worldfinance.com/...ld-do-for-the-global-economy


This was sort of my argument in the May 2017 thread.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 10:13 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (837649)
08-07-2018 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
08-07-2018 4:22 AM


Re: Its The Money
What we don't want are people who need our largesse more than they are willing to contribute...and that can be individuals from any country.

So no refugees then? Are you requiring folks who come here to be financially well off before they get here? To be already educated? So no young folks either?

In my opinion, your policy would be extremely short-sighted absent some actual malicious intent.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 4:22 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-07-2018 10:19 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11321
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 33 (837652)
08-07-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by LamarkNewAge
08-07-2018 9:05 AM


Re: Open Borders supported by ultra conservative libertarians like CATO Institute
I think that while it would help the economy in general, it would prove to be a strain on the existing middle class, which is already shrinking. The competition would be something we would be unprepared to handle.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-07-2018 9:05 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11321
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 33 (837653)
08-07-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
08-07-2018 9:49 AM


Re: Its The Money
So no refugees then?
Of course we need some. Too many would in my opinion lower average wages.
Are you requiring folks who come here to be financially well off before they get here?
Not at all. I just dont want too many eager workers who only require minimum wages.
To be already educated?
Of course we need some. Michio Kaku has argued before that America has a secret weapon. 100% of the PhD candidates are foreign born.
So no young folks either?
Balance is the key. Balance and moderation.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 9:49 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 08-07-2018 12:00 PM Phat has responded
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2018 2:35 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018