it’s baffling to me how the idea that “being born here does not make me entitled to services more than someone who wasn’t born here” is controversial among “leftists”
we all need food, we all need housing… why should it matter that my birth coordinates happen to be within an arbitrary drawing on the map ffs
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration, and generally people that support those governments are also called “leftist”.
The same goes for many social democrats and socialist reformists. Even unionists often oppose migration because migrants are imported by the capitalist order to use as scabs (see “guest workers” in 1970s West Germany).
All basically want a walled garden in which leftist ways of living can flourish, usually with the idea to export them later.
But especially in activist and discourse spaces, people tend to be in a pretty narrow band from pop liberalism to anarchocommunism. Socialists, socdems, and unionists tend to be busy with their job, because that is what their praxis calls for. And state communists tend to walk away exasperated when people condemn genocide.
But anarchocommunist praxis is for a large part prefigurative sharing of information, ideas, and tentative structures. So we’re relatively loud and as unemployed as we can get away with.
Basically no one believes in open borders, only some weird fringe anarchists who posts memes like the one above that are largely irrelevant in the real world. It’s always just been a straw man from the right or just weird online fringe anarchists who hold the position.
The reason communists are critical of the US/European hostility towards immigrants is not because we want open borders but because western countries bomb, sanction, coup these countries and cause a refugee crisis then turn around and cry about those immigrants coming to their country.
Because we have limited resources and a country definitionally priorities its citizens over foreigners. If it doesn’t; then you basically no longer have citizens, you just have inhabitants.
That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don’t think they, you know, buy things and work?
Irregular immigrants contribute to the communities they exist in. They help their neighbors, they perform work, they pay taxes via sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact, by the metrics of tax contribution, they contribute a higher percentage of their income back to their local municipalities than most citizens. Saying they don’t contribute is outright racist.
We don’t live in a world of abundance, abundance is a goal of humanity, were not there yet; and we don’t get there by printing money out of thin air and handing it out.
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
Billions of dollars is pennies compares what would be required to put the world on welfare, and those billions remove criminals and those preying on.l the generosity of our country.
You misunderstand, we live in a world that’s capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react; because they do not have an abundance of anything.
that would be arguing that i am speaking as if everybody’s needs have been met NOW which I am not saying. Don’t deliberately misinterpret my comment. Don’t pretend that part of why Nigerians don’t have abundance is not imperialist colonialism 2.0 wrapped in the flag of freedom, democracy and development.
Who’s saying to “put the world on welfare”? This conversation isn’t about getting things for free from the government, it’s about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.
Edit: “preying on the generosity of our country” is hilarious
The initial premis of the argument that I replied to was questioning why people who were born in the U.S. are entitled to something that those who are not born in the U.S. are not.
I’m all for net tax payers entering the U.S. through legal routes. Methods that protect the immigrant from exploitation from employers.
it’s baffling to me how the idea that “being born here does not make me entitled to services more than someone who wasn’t born here” is controversial among “leftists”
we all need food, we all need housing… why should it matter that my birth coordinates happen to be within an arbitrary drawing on the map ffs
I have notice any leftists who consider that idea controversial. Mostly just Liberals/Democrats
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration, and generally people that support those governments are also called “leftist”.
The same goes for many social democrats and socialist reformists. Even unionists often oppose migration because migrants are imported by the capitalist order to use as scabs (see “guest workers” in 1970s West Germany).
All basically want a walled garden in which leftist ways of living can flourish, usually with the idea to export them later.
But especially in activist and discourse spaces, people tend to be in a pretty narrow band from pop liberalism to anarchocommunism. Socialists, socdems, and unionists tend to be busy with their job, because that is what their praxis calls for. And state communists tend to walk away exasperated when people condemn genocide.
But anarchocommunist praxis is for a large part prefigurative sharing of information, ideas, and tentative structures. So we’re relatively loud and as unemployed as we can get away with.
Basically no one believes in open borders, only some weird fringe anarchists who posts memes like the one above that are largely irrelevant in the real world. It’s always just been a straw man from the right or just weird online fringe anarchists who hold the position.
The reason communists are critical of the US/European hostility towards immigrants is not because we want open borders but because western countries bomb, sanction, coup these countries and cause a refugee crisis then turn around and cry about those immigrants coming to their country.
I think what you’re seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:
Because we have limited resources and a country definitionally priorities its citizens over foreigners. If it doesn’t; then you basically no longer have citizens, you just have inhabitants.
That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It’s really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don’t think they, you know, buy things and work?
Removed by mod
I’ve read the whole thread, how do you think I got down here?
This is what you just said. Can you explain how I mischaracterized it? I feel like I just reworded this sentence pretty directly.
If your analogy is based on consumption it makes no sense.
Meanwhile, I could drop eat from mine response and the point stands with a dry place to sit.
Removed by mod
Irregular immigrants contribute to the communities they exist in. They help their neighbors, they perform work, they pay taxes via sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact, by the metrics of tax contribution, they contribute a higher percentage of their income back to their local municipalities than most citizens. Saying they don’t contribute is outright racist.
And what is the issue there? Let’s prioritize our inhabitants then. It’s not like there’s not enough to go around.
deleted by creator
There’s absolutely limited resources, specifically concernin what the government has the capability of handing out.
Unfortunately we have to think about “what’s in it for us?” If the answer is another mouth to put on welfare and medicaid then… Why?..
The government has no problem handing out hundreds of billions to ICE and the Pentagon - there absolutely is enough.
Ah, ok, you’re one of those. Might want to change your username
We don’t live in a world of abundance, abundance is a goal of humanity, were not there yet; and we don’t get there by printing money out of thin air and handing it out.
Billions of dollars is pennies compares what would be required to put the world on welfare, and those billions remove criminals and those preying on.l the generosity of our country.
literally all studies about this make you wrong
You misunderstand, we live in a world that’s capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react; because they do not have an abundance of anything.
that would be arguing that i am speaking as if everybody’s needs have been met NOW which I am not saying. Don’t deliberately misinterpret my comment. Don’t pretend that part of why Nigerians don’t have abundance is not imperialist colonialism 2.0 wrapped in the flag of freedom, democracy and development.
Who’s saying to “put the world on welfare”? This conversation isn’t about getting things for free from the government, it’s about who is able to enter the country. It is proven thus far that immigration into the US is a net benefit, they commit fewer crimes than citizens and earn their way.
Edit: “preying on the generosity of our country” is hilarious
The initial premis of the argument that I replied to was questioning why people who were born in the U.S. are entitled to something that those who are not born in the U.S. are not.
I’m all for net tax payers entering the U.S. through legal routes. Methods that protect the immigrant from exploitation from employers.
Thanks for clarifying.
Immigrating to the US legally in 2026 is a slow, restrictive, and broken process. Opening it up wouldn’t be the end of the world.