The Left Case Against Open Borders

[Stevicus]

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/


An interesting article which discusses how the Left has morphed over the years and points up some of the problems facing the Left at present.

Before “Build the wall!” there was “Tear down this wall!” In his famous 1987 speech, Ronald Reagan demanded that the “scar” of the Berlin Wall be removed and insisted that the offending restriction of movement it represented amounted to nothing less than a “question of freedom for all mankind.” He went on to say that those who “refuse to join the community of freedom” would “become obsolete” as a result of the irresistible force of the global market. And so they did. In celebration, Leonard Bernstein directed a performance of “Ode to Joy” and Roger Waters performed “The Wall.” Barriers to labor and capital came down all over the world; the end of history was declared; and decades of U.S.-dominated globalization followed.


In its twenty-nine-year existence, around 140 people died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall. In the promised world of global economic freedom and prosperity, 412 people died crossing the U.S.-Mexican border last year alone, and more than three thousand died the previous year in the Mediterranean. The pop songs and Hollywood movies about freedom are nowhere to be found. What went wrong?


Of course, the Reaganite project did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan—and his successors from both parties—used the same triumphalist rhetoric to sell the hollowing out of trade unions, the deregulation of banks, the expansion of outsourcing, and the globalization of markets away from the deadweight of national economic interests. Central to this project was a neoliberal attack on national barriers to the flow of labor and capital. At home, Reagan also oversaw one of the most significant pro-migration reforms in American history, the 1986 “Reagan Amnesty” that expanded the labor market by allowing millions of illegal migrants to gain legal status.


Popular movements against different elements of this post–Cold War vision came initially from the Left in the form of the anti-globalization movements and later Occupy Wall Street. But, lacking the bargaining power to challenge international capital, protest movements went nowhere. The globalized and financialized economic system held firm despite all the devastation it wreaked, even through the 2008 financial crisis.


Today, by far the most visible anti-globalization movement takes the form of the anti-migrant backlash led by Donald Trump and other “populists.” The Left, meanwhile, seems to have no option but to recoil in horror at Trump’s “Muslim ban” and news stories about ICE hunting down migrant families; it can only react against whatever Trump is doing. If Trump is for immigration controls, then the Left will demand the opposite. And so today talk of “open borders” has entered mainstream liberal discourse, where once it was confined to radical free market think tanks and libertarian anarchist circles.

As I've mentioned before, the Left has gone more into identity politics and culture wars, all but abandoning its traditional economic positions, as outlined in this article:

During the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, when Vox editor Ezra Klein suggested open borders policies to Bernie Sanders, the senator famously showed his vintage when he replied, “Open borders? No. That’s a Koch brothers proposal.”1 This momentarily confused the official narrative, and Sanders was quickly accused of “sounding like Donald Trump.” Beneath the generational differences revealed in this exchange, however, is a larger issue. The destruction and abandonment of labor politics means that, at present, immigration issues can only play out within the framework of a culture war, fought entirely on moral grounds. In the heightened emotions of America’s public debate on migration, a simple moral and political dichotomy prevails. It is “right-wing” to be “against immigration” and “left-wing” to be “for immigration.” But the economics of migration tell a different story.

Following Reagan and figures like Milton Friedman, George W. Bush championed liberalizing migration before, during, and after his presidency. Grover Norquist, a zealous advocate of Trump’s (and Bush’s and Reagan’s) tax cuts, has for years railed against the illiberalism of the trade unions, reminding us, “Hostility to immigration has traditionally been a union cause.”4


He’s not wrong. From the first law restricting immigration in 1882 to Cesar Chavez and the famously multiethnic United Farm Workers protesting against employers’ use and encouragement of illegal migration in 1969, trade unions have often opposed mass migration. They saw the deliberate importation of illegal, low-wage workers as weakening labor’s bargaining power and as a form of exploitation. There is no getting around the fact that the power of unions relies by definition on their ability to restrict and withdraw the supply of labor, which becomes impossible if an entire workforce can be easily and cheaply replaced. Open borders and mass immigration are a victory for the bosses.

Moreover, the article describes many on the Left as useful idiots for the bosses, while weakening the bargaining power of organized labor:

Admittedly, union opposition to mass migration was sometimes intermingled with racism (which was present across American society) in previous eras. What is omitted in libertarian attempts to smear trade unions as “the real racists,” however, is that in the days of strong trade unions, they were also able to use their power to mount campaigns of international solidarity with workers’ movements around the world. Unions raised the wages of millions of nonwhite members, while deunionization today is estimated to cost black American men $50 a week.5


During the Reagan neoliberal revolution, union power was dealt a blow from which it has never recovered, and wages have stagnated for decades. Under this pressure, the Left itself has undergone a transformation. In the absence of a powerful workers’ movement, it has remained radical in the sphere of culture and individual freedom, but can offer little more than toothless protests and appeals to noblesse oblige in the sphere of economics.

Even solidly leftist politicians, like Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, are accused of “nativism” by critics if they recognize the legitimacy of borders or migration restriction at any point. This open borders radicalism ultimately benefits the elites within the most powerful countries in the world, further disempowers organized labor, robs the developing world of desperately needed professionals, and turns workers against workers.

The article also pointed out how it's leading to a brain drain in the developing world, as it mentions how there are more Ethiopian doctors practicing in Chicago than in all of Ethiopia, a country of 80 million people:

Today, Mexico also ranks as one of the world’s biggest exporters of educated professionals, and its economy consequently suffers from a persistent “qualified employment deficit.” This developmental injustice is certainly not limited to Mexico. According to Foreign Policy magazine, “There are more Ethiopian physicians practicing in Chicago today than in all of Ethiopia, a country of 80 million.”9 It is not difficult to see why the political and economic elites of the world’s richest countries would want the world to “send their best,” regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. But why is the moralizing, pro–open borders Left providing a humanitarian face for this naked self-interest?

The writer of the article also makes suggestions as to what positions the Left could take in regards to immigration, such as focusing on and attacking the true cause of human migration and exploitation:

If open borders is “a Koch brothers proposal,” then what would an authentic Left position on immigration look like? In this case, instead of channeling Milton Friedman, the Left should take its bearings from its own long traditions. Progressives should focus on addressing the systemic exploitation at the root of mass migration rather than retreating to a shallow moralism that legitimates these exploitative forces. This does not mean that leftists should ignore injustices against immigrants. They should vigorously defend migrants against inhumane treatment. At the same time, any sincere Left must take a hard line against the corporate, financial, and other actors who create the desperate circumstances underlying mass migration (which, in turn, produces the populist reaction against it). Only a strong national Left in the small and developing nations—actingin concert with a Left committed to ending financialization and global labor exploitation in the larger economies—could have any hope of addressing these problems.

Meanwhile, members of the open-borders Left may try to convince themselves that they are adopting a radical position. But in practice they are just replacing the pursuit of economic equality with the politics of big business, masquerading as a virtuous identitarianism. America, still one of the richest countries in the world, should be able to provide not just full employment but a living wage for all of its people, including in jobs which open borders advocates claim “Americans won’t do.” Employers who exploit migrants for cheap labor illegally—at great risk to the migrants themselves—should be blamed, not the migrants who are simply doing what people have always done when facing economic adversity. By providing inadvertent cover for the ruling elite’s business interests, the Left risks a significant existential crisis, as more and more ordinary people defect to far-right parties. At this moment of crisis, the stakes are too high to keep getting it wrong.

The article echoes a lot of what I've noticed over the years, especially how the progressive and liberal left have been providing a self-righteous, moralistic cover for the exploiters in big business and the international corporate world, but the focus should be on the employers and the exploiters. I'm not really against the idea of open borders or a unified world, though. The workers of the world can still unite under a single banner and promote the idea of a universal living wage for all. There's more than enough to go around for everyone. Even the globalist ruling class realizes this, or else they wouldn't have been promoting these ideals since WW2.

 

[metis]

The vast majority of Democratic politicians, including in Congress in D.C., are simply not for "open borders" going by their repeated statements.

 

[Sunstone]

...how the progressive and liberal left...

What difference, if any, do you see between the progressive and liberal left? For instance, between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There's so many bad faith arguments that it's hard to imagine wanting to bother with this article. He's not describing 'the left' so much as the populist right's strawmen.

 

[fantome profane]

As I've mentioned before, the Left has gone more into identity politics and culture wars, all but abandoning its traditional economic positions, as outlined in this article:

And what I find interesting is that it is the ones that are labeled “far left radicals” that have economic and policy ideas and are willing to fight for them. You might not agree with their policy positions, but they definitely have clear policy positions. The identity politics is really more of a fall back position of the so called “moderates” who have run out of ideas.

 

[columbus]

What difference, if any, do you see between the progressive and liberal left? For instance, between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

Here's the problem I have with this question. I don't see Clinton as particularly liberal, and certainly no progressive.
Of the top five contenders in 2016, I saw Clinton and Kasich as the conservatives. Sanders and Trump were the progressives. Cruz was the theocratic.

The reason I supported Clinton is because I saw her as a competent conservative administrator, more likely to accomplish some of Sanders' goals than Sanders was. Had the choices been Sanders and Kasich, I would have voted for Kasich. Because I didn't think Sanders was sufficiently competent to either accomplish his goals or prevent the 1% from accomplishing theirs.
I didn't even think he could get elected, against Trump, because it was the right that was howling for sweeping progressive change. And the fact is that people on the right vote in much larger proportions than people on the left.

I don't see "progressive" and "left" particularly connected, in modern USA. Nor do I see Democrats as particularly liberal or leftist.

I saw Trump as the superprogressive, and I wasn't at all interested in the sweeping changes he proposed.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

The vast majority of Democratic politicians, including in Congress in D.C., are simply not for "open borders" going by their repeated statements.

I think it would depend on how one defines "open borders." A "closed border" would imply not allowing any traffic at all, such as the border between North and South Korea or something of that nature. "Open" doesn't necessarily mean unregulated or uncontrolled.

 

[Stevicus]

What difference, if any, do you see between the progressive and liberal left? For instance, between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

I think Sanders was more for the working class than Clinton was. But I think the article was correct in that, without a powerful labor movement, both the progressive and liberal left have been relegated to the spheres of culture and individual freedom "but can offer little more than toothless protests and appeals to noblesse oblige in the sphere of economics."

What's needed is an infusion of political capital to rebuild the shattered labor movement in this country, which can give more bargaining power to the working classes - even if it means national strikes, work stoppages, boycotts, or whatever else it might take to get the ruling class to listen to the people's concerns. I could never see Hillary supporting such a thing, and even Sanders could probably only go through the motions (even if it heart seemed in the right place). I don't really see the celebrity left or the limousine liberals much in the workers' corner either.

 

[Stevicus]

There's so many bad faith arguments that it's hard to imagine wanting to bother with this article. He's not describing 'the left' so much as the populist right's strawmen.

How would you know without bothering to read it? By the way, the writer of the article is Angela Nagle, so it wouldn't be a "he."

 

[Stevicus]

And what I find interesting is that it is the ones that are labeled “far left radicals” that have economic and policy ideas and are willing to fight for them. You might not agree with their policy positions, but they definitely have clear policy positions. The identity politics is really more of a fall back position of the so called “moderates” who have run out of ideas.

I'm not quite sure who you're referring to as those willing to fight for these economic and policy ideas. I agree that many of those currently in the spotlight (whether "moderates" or otherwise) have run out of ideas, but who on the left is willing to fight for anything meaningful these days?

For example, if they want to help immigrants, they could probably work wonders if they helped in organizing and financing labor unions. A resurgence in organized labor with real bargaining power would be a tremendous step in the right direction. A lot of immigrants working on farms or in service industries or right-to-work states (which are mostly red) would be enormously grateful and loyal for that kind of help. And they'd be more than willing to fight. But when they've got kids to feed and living from paycheck to paycheck working two or more jobs, it's a little difficult to do, even more so for those who are scared of losing their jobs or worse.

If all these wealthy liberals put their money where their mouth is and funneled capital in the right direction, it could lead to a fundamental power shift within this country.

 

[Sunstone]

Sanders and Trump were the progressives.

I saw Trump as the superprogressive...

What is a "progressive" to you?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How would you know without bothering to read it? By the way, the writer of the article is Angela Nagle, so it wouldn't be a "he."

I did read it, but not the writer name. Apologize to Angela for that. Rest still stands though.

 

[columbus]

What is a "progressive" to you?

Someone who promises big, sweeping changes to make progress.

As opposed to stability and incremental improvement, which is conservative.
Like Clinton.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

I did read it, but not the writer name. Apologize to Angela for that. Rest still stands though.

Very well, although I didn't see anything that remotely resembled the "populist right's strawmen." The populist right views the left as destroyers of America, whereas this article suggests that they're the dupes of the right, supporting the very things that the right has wanted all along.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Very well, although I didn't see anything that remotely resembled the "populist right's strawmen." The populist right views the left as destroyers of America, whereas this article suggests that they're the dupes of the right, supporting the very things that the right has wanted all along.

The 'left as destroyers of america' isn't the populist view anymore. It's the fringe fundamentalist which have been pushed to the edges of their own party. The populist view is that Democrats are do nothing weak fools who should just roll over and accept the right's 'tough love' 'for the greater good.' Dems are just in the way.

Anyway, my response to the article is that it's exaggerating the position of a minority on the left to push what I see as a simplistic. There is a lot more and greater problems than lack of unionization for immigrants. Honestly I think the drug war and the military industrial complex has done more to hurt immigrants than anything. It destabilized trades, propped up dummy governments which became unstable and violent, and made it unsafe for people to live. And I do want Democrats now and in the future to push hard against these kinds of policies. But for now I'm content fighting against the product of those who want to keep those policies. Who benefit from tribalism, xenophobia, and the abuse that stems from those things.

 

[Stevicus]

The 'left as destroyers of america' isn't the populist view anymore. It's the fringe fundamentalist which have been pushed to the edges of their own party. The populist view is that Democrats are do nothing weak fools who should just roll over and accept the right's 'tough love' 'for the greater good.' Dems are just in the way.

Anyway, my response to the article is that it's exaggerating the position of a minority on the left to push what I see as a simplistic. There is a lot more and greater problems than lack of unionization for immigrants. Honestly I think the drug war and the military industrial complex has done more to hurt immigrants than anything. It destabilized trades, propped up dummy governments which became unstable and violent, and made it unsafe for people to live. And I do want Democrats now and in the future to push hard against these kinds of policies. But for now I'm content fighting against the product of those who want to keep those policies. Who benefit from tribalism, xenophobia, and the abuse that stems from those things.

Apart from the far-left (which is viewed just as fringe as the far-right), I don't see that the progressive/liberal left is doing much against the drug war or the MIC.

And the point about unionization is that it's the only thing that can give teeth to the left's position. Without that, the only thing the left can do now is offer shame from ivory towers and safe spaces, which may have been effective 20-30 years ago, but it's reached the point where it's gotten stale and has no real effect anymore. Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark has been met with scorn and ridicule, and that's pretty much the only weapon the left has had. They need muscle. They need rage. They need to get hungry again, similar to what characterized the labor movement from yesteryear. That's the infusion of strength they need.

And the right-wing narrative against the left has escalated quite a degree in recent years, not just from the fringe. We have a president that calls them "enemies of the people." The right-wing radio jocks are painting them as the anti-Christ; they've escalated the rhetoric, too. That goes far beyond simple "tough love." People are getting killed out there. This isn't funny anymore, and it's not something that can be easily explained away with academic witticisms.

Among the working and lower classes, there can be no more divisions by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The left needs to throw all that rhetoric out the window and focus solely on the one thing that unites all workers.

 

[metis]

I think it would depend on how one defines "open borders." A "closed border" would imply not allowing any traffic at all, such as the border between North and South Korea or something of that nature. "Open" doesn't necessarily mean unregulated or uncontrolled.

But how so many in current usage are using "open borders" implies non-regulation, thus anyone can come in. The vast majority of Dems that I have heard don't believe we should do that, nor do I.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Apart from the far-left

We don't have a far left of any note here. Even Bernie is center left by global standards. Frankly we need a lot more far left representation.

I don't see that the progressive/liberal left is doing much against the drug war or the MIC.

Legalization of marijuana is a big part of ending the drug war, which has been gaining momentum nationally. Incidentally was originally banned in part due to anti Mexican racism, and to cut off their industry upper hand in textile manufacture.

Stopping pretending that pro capitalists invested in the military trade that are center right represent 'the left' will do a lot for the latter. The left needs to go more left.

And the point about unionization is that it's the only thing that can give teeth to the left's position.

I disagree. I think it's an anemic gesture in the immigration discussion that neither remedies the source of the problem nor considers why immigrants are taking the jobs where they're getting abuse.
Best thing we can do for immigrants right now is get Trump the **** out of there to break the cycle of instilling xenophobia in his base, cutting the drug trade, and retooling our immigration system so that it doesn't take so many years and so much money to become naturalized, and allow more international work Visa programs so that workers which come here aren't forced into abusive labor situations.

Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark has been met with scorn and ridicule, and that's pretty much the only weapon the left has had. They need muscle. They need rage. They need to get hungry again, similar to what characterized the labor movement from yesteryear. That's the infusion of strength they need.

We seem to stop looking at the past with rose colored glasses.

Among the working and lower classes, there can be no more divisions by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The left needs to throw all that rhetoric out the window and focus solely on the one thing that unites all workers.

How about the right throw out their racism, religious persecution of minorities, homophobia, transphobia and sexism instead, eh? Because we're not done protecting workers from discrimination based on those traits just because someone thinks it's not 'the important thing.'

 

[Stevicus]

But how so many in current usage are using "open borders" implies non-regulation, thus anyone can come in. The vast majority of Dems that I have heard don't believe we should do that, nor do I.

Well, yes, you're right that the phrase is often misused, mischaracterized, and misunderstood. That's another major problem in politics in general and how rhetoric is used. A lot of bunkum for the masses gets tossed back and forth, and both sides are guilty of it to some extent. That's a large part of the reason I tend to reject both sides.

I wouldn't advocate open borders either - at least not at this time. Perhaps as a long-term goal, such a thing might be possible under the right circumstances. But right now, the endless talk of wanting to build walls and having armed troops at the border would imply that there are hordes of barbarians at the gates poised to crash through if we don't take extreme measures to keep them out. And yet, so many among the privileged wealthy classes in America have made their bread and butter on the backs of these very "barbarians" and still pushing for free trade (which itself implies "open borders").

As a result, our policies regarding the border have been schizophrenic and contradictory. On the one hand, we see them as an asset, a friend and ally, a major trading partner and indispensable to our economic well-being. Yet on the other hand, we see them as dangerous invaders, criminal drug lords, aiders and abetters of terrorism, and so on. We need to make up our minds, and that goes for both parties.

 

[Stevicus]

We don't have a far left of any note here. Even Bernie is center left by global standards. Frankly we need a lot more far left representation.

Agreed.

Legalization of marijuana is a big part of ending the drug war, which has been gaining momentum nationally. Incidentally was originally banned in part due to anti Mexican racism, and to cut off their industry upper hand in textile manufacture.

Yes, I knew that already. But many in the Democratic Party have also been against legalization, including both the Clinton and Obama Administrations. Until the Democrats are fully solidified on this and many other issues, they will always been seen as conflicted, confused, and without any real backbone.

Stopping pretending that pro capitalists invested in the military trade that are center right represent 'the left' will do a lot for the latter. The left needs to go more left.

I really wish they would. But another idea would be for the bourgeois latte-sippers and other privileged coastals stop pretending that they represent "the left" as well. They need to stop pretending that mobilizing their political capital on some great crusade over wedding cakes and Confederate memorials (which few people ever cared about to begin with) is some great meaningful cause for leftist politics. They need to stop pretending that giving a blank check to big insurance companies and big pharma is some great "victory" for universal healthcare for the people, when it's nothing more than a crock of BS.

I disagree. I think it's an anemic gesture in the immigration discussion that neither remedies the source of the problem nor considers why immigrants are taking the jobs where they're getting abuse.

It's worked in the past. The only way to fight such abuses is to fight the abusers. Unionization and building solidarity among the laboring classes is a way to hit them where it hurts the most - in the pocketbook. Going after meaningless symbolic targets and people who have very little money already doesn't really make a dent in the wealth of the ruling class.

Best thing we can do for immigrants right now is get Trump the **** out of there to break the cycle of instilling xenophobia in his base, cutting the drug trade, and retooling our immigration system so that it doesn't take so many years and so much money to become naturalized, and allow more international work Visa programs so that workers which come here aren't forced into abusive labor situations.

Well, sure, get Trump out of there, but it doesn't really matter who is in the White House. The effect is going to be the same, just as it's been with all the previous Administrations. Both political parties have been talking about immigration reform for decades, but it's turned out to be nothing but a lot of talk and nothing ever really changes. This is the reality we face, Trump or no Trump.

The other side of the issue is to examine more closely exactly why so many people are immigrating here to begin with and the conditions of the countries from which they're coming. Keep in mind that when we say "give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses," it also carries the implication of Lady Liberty thumbing her nose at the rest of the world and saying "You all suck!"

There's also the aspect of the brain drain it causes on other countries. Did you read the part in the article about how there are more Ethiopian doctors in Chicago than there are in all of Ethiopia? This isn't simply a matter of helping the plight of individual immigrants and saving them from misery and exploitation. There are larger, more global concerns to look at.

We seem to stop looking at the past with rose colored glasses.

Rose colored glasses are a malady which affects many of us.

How about the right throw out their racism, religious persecution of minorities, homophobia, transphobia and sexism instead, eh? Because we're not done protecting workers from discrimination based on those traits just because someone thinks it's not 'the important thing.'

That's putting the cart before the horse. You and I both know the right isn't going to throw any of those things out, since that's what's selling right now. Historically, this has always been the case, especially in times of economic turmoil when so many are in despair.

The left can't keep reacting and playing the same games as the right has been doing. The left needs to take the initiative and gain hearts and minds by telling the masses what they have to gain, not what they have to lose (because a lot of them have little to nothing to lose at this point).