Name one good reason why we shouldn't have open border immigration...

Name one good reason why we shouldn't have open border immigration? Why do you deserve to live in great countries just because you were born there?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6JbGC1Ine6M
youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk&t=0s
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

1. To track the movements of criminals
2. To hinder the drug trade
3. To stop the flow of terrorists into other countries
4. To control trade
5. To regulate immigration

And so many other reasons.

Now do us all a favor and fuck off forever you leaf faggot.

Much the same reason you have a door to your house. You know the world isn't full of Girl Scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses, so it's a helpful survival trait to screen people and make sure they won't fuck up your household.

to avoid human garbage filling every place that is worth a damn, human garbage reproduce faster than humans so its not worth it

>1. To track the movements of criminals

Should they not be forgiven once they've atoned for their crime?
>2. To hinder the drug trade

If we had open borders drug trade would not be a problem.
>3. To stop the flow of terrorists into other countries

If we let these people into our great countries it will de-radicalize them and they can join in the western way of live.

>4. To control trade

Why would you want to do this?

5. To regulate immigration

There would be no need to regulate it in a open border society

This is being shared all over my normie wall

youtube.com/watch?v=6JbGC1Ine6M

>NO BORDERS!

>Does that mean I can freely enter your house or apartment when I please?

Whites will move to one corner of the world and the horde will just follow

That fast, eh? We should let the rest of Sup Forums know.

1. More bodies = increased labor supply = lower demand for labor = devalue of labor = lower wages and standard of living, and higher unemployment

2. Security

3. Destruction of American culture, as assimilation is no longer possible.

>and they can join in the western way of live.
But will they? No, they will not. We now have parallel societies within our small country.

Because if you let everyone in it wont be a good nation any more.
If you can't comprehend this, then you don't understand economics. And you obviously don't think other cultures have other values than your own.

youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk&t=0s

>If we let these people into our great countries it will de-radicalize them and they can join in the western way of live.

Nice bait

Property rights.

Population of industrialized countries: About 1 billion

Population of developing countries: About 6 billion

There's the reason why open borders won't work. People will always flock to where the money is.

>we hate because we're taught to hate
Stopped watching right there.

Because brown people show up where white people are and lower their quality of life

It's not because in racist though I just believe in sovereignty

But to be honest if everyone coming through were white or east Asian borders wouldn't be necessary and I wouldn't care

I'm torn on this one.

Yes, there's an obvious ethical argument for open borders.

People disagree on some basic things, and we'd end up fighting if we all lived in the same country.

If you have open borders you'll have to give up democracy. A dictatorship police state could rule a country with open borders, but you just could not get people to agree.

I don't hate dictatorship, so maybe that's alright. I could live in China pretty happily. If the cost of unlimited immigration is not having the freedom to protest, that's okay. I wasn't using it anyway.

MY KIKE-O-METER IS OFF THE CHARTS

TFW you remember our population is far above Earth's carrying capacity

Collectivism is theft.

Rules exist for a reason. To prevent chaos.
The sheer stupidity of niggers never fails to amaze me.

I bet you believe in collective decision making via the invisible hand of the free market, don't you.

And capitalists claim they aren't collectivists.

Because we have big fucking guns and you do not.

Niggers, spics, muslims and catholics

Everyone in the world would move to western countries.

Well, they are willing to commit terror attacks and we are not. If guns are okay why isn't terrorism?

>open borders

Ok so I'll knock up a few slags and get them to break into your hoise and give birth in your bed, now they are your children and you can pay for them?

Right? I mean why do you deserve to live in a big house, right?

>wrong

Because fuck off, we dont want you here.

because ur a faggot, case closed

Fuck off leaf, you're worse than Sweden

Unlikely. When we opened up the EU less than 5% of Eastern Europe moved west. And Romania is a total shithole.

I don't care about what they want they can fuck off. it is why i live in a western country and they do not.

But that's a good objection. If you're living in a big house with lots of money and everyone else is starving you should have it taken away from you and put to better use.

bingo.

>Name one good reason why we shouldn't have open border immigration? Why do you deserve to live in great countries just because you were born there?


You live in a house/apartment don't you? what if we just removed your door and let any person, criminal, terrorist run willy nilly inside your home.

This isn't about the land, it's about going to places to get free gibsmedatz

Lefties:

"Fucking white people and their imperialism why couldn't they stay in fucking Europe rather than encroaching on POC countries Africa for the Africans if you're white in Zimbabwe then don't come crying to me because you don't belong there and Mugabe was right to kick you out!!!"

Also lefties:

"Oh yeah but borders are just lines in the sand so there's really no such thing as white countries"

You live in a Chinese investment property, mate.

...

Muslim

By making an argument you presuppose individual liberty and property as a normative foundation.

What is true for the indivdiual is true for a group of individuals, at what point in abstraction does this magically cease to be the case?

I had a feeling it was going to be that cunt Jane Elliott

that's all that needs to be said

MY KIKE O METER JUST SCREAMED OY VEY

But if you lived in a mansion and everyone else was in poverty, it would be right to force you to let them in.

I don't think that's a contradiction. Even if you don't believe in countries you can criticize the West for trying to control other people via imperialism.

If the land is for everyone, can I squat in their living quarters?

Really? are you sure about that our are you just repeating the latest maymay.

reality of the world is our forefather handed down to us what we have now and what we have now will be handed down to our children not to some foreign cunt with a gross sense of entitlement. If they want it they can come and get it.

Too many undesirables who will fuck it up for everyone

Because we live in a welfare state. We have the right to do everything we can to reduce the amount of property that gets taken from use against our will by the gov't. More low income people entering a welfare state will lead to more debt and taxation.

I would happily trade and end to welfare and taxation for free and open movement across borders.

Because my fucking ancestors killed for for the land we have today. Now we're just giving it the fuck away to a bunch of fuck heads who can't even get their own country under control. White people are inherently territorial, get the shit out.

Open borders would be okay under a one world government where everyone is taxed. But that's not happening so you can't logically have open borders.

Alternatively, we could get rid of all forms of taxing like property taxes, income taxes and more which effect people who live here primarily, and shift the tax burden largely onto shopping taxes, utility taxes, and necessity taxes on things like water paid for by the consumer. That way undocumented illegals are forced to pay their fair share to stay alive and function day to day even when working under the table.
Though... it could be problematic for people who live on the border who could just cross over to Mexico to go shopping.

Property is just a relationship, nobody has a fundamental right to it.

Justice is more important than liberty. Anyway, what about the liberty not to starve to death?

> What is true for the indivdiual is true for a group of individuals

Wrong. Groups of individuals have no rights. Nobody is harmed if white people stop existing.

Gr8 b8 leaf

>But if you lived in a mansion and everyone else was in poverty, it would be right to force you to let them in.

Well, i don't care what's "right". It's my house. If they are poor that's their parents fault. I shouldn't be obligated to let everyone into my house just because they suck at life.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

also, watch this presentation. Immigration does little to almost nothing to help countries and help people.

People need to go to their own fucked up countries and fix it

Borders are cultural, not just artificial.

But American states have open borders between them and still collect state taxes.

Nobody will be harmed when you stop existing that much is for certain.

One good reason?
Because every country took several hundreds of years to develop their own sets of values.
Shitskins move in and ruin everything. They don't behave, they don't follow the rules, they think it's OK to rape children.
You literally can't have a peaceful life with open borders.

Fucking leaf this is why you've reached meme status.
I hope you're trolling

All children should be forced to read the Little Red Hen growing up.

1.Mexico

because i am great and ur shit fuck off my land

> Well, i don't care what's "right".

In that hypothetical case, you're evil, and it would be justified to murder you.

Your stupid as fuck

What is should have said said is government enforced collectivism is theft because of the use of force.

Independent individuals making voluntary decisions is a moral good.

Confirmed meme.

everyone stop replying to this retarded thread

>Yes, there's an obvious ethical argument for open borders.

Not really. Every single person who believe in open borders still locks their doors at night and doesn't grasp the irony of doing so.

> Independent individuals making voluntary decisions is a moral good.

It is not good to force people into a market when there are other collective actions possible. Only governments are willing to take certain risks and make certain investments.

You're locking people into a box and forcing them to stop co-operating.

The basic concept of democracy and self determination shits on open borders as well. Look at Brexit for a classic example.

This. If America has 900m more people to equal up with India's population, we would have shit in all our major cities and would need to cut down more and more forests for land to farm and to build cities on.

>they will join western way of life
>ignores the several bombing instances by **refugees** in Europa and attempts in the US

Stop making us looked cucked you fucking retard. They will not integrate. They seperate themselves into their own communities. And they wish to convert us and spread their archiac culture. Stop shilling lies. You're probably not even white, right Mahmoud?

Name one good reason why borders should be open.

I always hear the argument that we are "lucky" to be born here, but the fact is we are all byproducts of where and how we are raised, and some people just turn out to be shit due to shit circumstances, so why should they be allowed to come shit up nice places?
>why can't I come into your nice, well maintained country club with my dirtbike and also I don't golf, STOP OPPRESSING ME

If they would be justified in murdering him then he would also be justified in defending himself and acting in retaliation to preserve his own life and well-being.

Because this way our countries do not get trashed by people who are unable to learn the fine art of building free modern society.

>your

There's no contradiction there. Countries are not the same as houses, but private property should be confiscated if it's excessive.

Countries have different cultures, are you so used to living in your own little utopia that you think the only difference between you and a Saudi is a flag?

no state = no sovereignty = no parliamentary systems = no jurisdiction = no laws

>SAGE

Evil people are not justified to defend themselves. They have no rights.

As an instrumentalist argument, there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, and the poor, historically, usually win the argument over wealth in the end.

Only people with over 100 IQ are allowed to post on here m8.

So, this guy is giving explicit permission for anyone and everyone to squat in his house/apartment if I'm understanding his message, right?

When did I say this?

>wants to forcibly steal from innocents and kill those who don't want their property stolen to feed a bunch of literal parasites
>calls others evil
You're the evil one and it would be just, right and fair to murder you. :)

Hey, Larry or should I say (((Pixy)))?

Why dont you go put that theory into practice and report back here with the results.

>Countries are not the same as houses

Countries are an extension of your home

The parasites are the rich, who live off their own privilege and rent-seeking.

>but private property should be confiscated if it's excessive
And who decides what's classified as excessive?

>and the poor, historically, usually win the argument over wealth in the end
which is the reason that we're governed by the poor and the rich have been completely subjugated under their control

oh wait


Typical leftist thinking, focusing on the short-term without looking at the bigger picture. Those "poor" that win become the new rich and continue acting like those they beat. Every single fucking time.

>It is not good to force people into a market

Where is this so called force coming from? If you choose not to participate in the market you are free to do so.

> Only governments are willing to take certain risks and make certain investments

Bullshit. In a voluntary society people would act in their self interests. If pooling your resources together with your neighbors to invest in something is in your best self interest long term you will do it.

The land is for everyone. That means you pretending to possess private property is discrimination against poor refugees who through no fault of their own, have inferior housing.

No. Nation states are an extension of the tribe. Originally it was one country, one human nation. They are a racist concept.

Why there are poor people?

>but private property should be confiscated if it's excessive.

Didn't even notice this first time around. Nice bait.

>private property should be confiscated if it's excessive
>Evil people are not justified to defend themselves

I hope you're trolling, bro.

everyone will behave just like I wanted in my nwo utopia , all humans are the same and dont have bad intentions , crime is just a lie and evil is just a social construct. You need to live in a fucking mansion cut out from the world to see the world as pink as this

The state thinks your wife and your cock are excessive, remove them from you and hand them over or we will take them.

a fucking leaf

Anglo Canadians are the worst holy fuck I want a new referendum so I can get my own Quebec flag on Sup Forums

The land is for those who do not trash it. Refugees trashed their lands and fleed from their problem being what they are.