How are open borders a winning strategy for the left?

It is a complete mystery. Why are there votes in allowing anyone who wants to show up to enter your nation state and just stay there while claiming every welfare benefit available to the population that finances them? Explain this to me if you can: OFFICIAL: DEMS ‘REFUSED’ TO EVEN LISTEN TO BORDER SECURITY BRIEFING AT WHITE HOUSE.

Democratic lawmakers brought a border security briefing at the White House to a screeching halt Wednesday, refusing to even listen to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, a White House official tells The Daily Caller.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy echoed this version of events to reporters outside the White House immediately after the briefing, saying, “Once the secretary started, Schumer interrupted her and didn’t want to hear it.”

Republican and Democratic lawmakers after the meeting indicated little progress was made toward ending the partial government shutdown and that they agreed to reconvene Friday. The White House official says there was a consensus in the room that negotiations would be put on hold until Pelosi officially assumed her expected role of Speaker. (Related: Trump Refuses To Budge in Shutdown Demand: ‘As Long As It Takes’) 

The White House official told TheDC that both Pelosi and Schumer refused to hear out Nielsen’s briefing and instead advocated for two solutions to end the government shutdown. Neither of the Democratic options would provide the additional funding for border security requested by The White House.

Why is this not the winning hand?

The left truly are beyond reason (ie insane).

This entry was posted in American politics, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to How are open borders a winning strategy for the left?

  1. NuThink

    China even has a rather large wall.
    The UK had a water wall (stopped the Germans at least) and were hesitant to allow the chunnel.
    How about the walled compounds that many Lefties hide behind.
    Do they have an open door policy in their houses?

    Most houses have at least 4 walls to keep the deplorables out.
    Of course walls work – which is more than can be said for some border crossers.

  2. John Constantine

    Look at the personal wealth of australian prime ministers that went open borders versus the personal wealth of australian prime ministers that were quiet about them.

    Follow the money.

    Comrades.

  3. John Mauer

    In the US, representation in the House is based on people counted in the census, not the number of citizens. That is why the Democrats currently control the House. Extra votes are just the icing on the cake.

  4. Nob

    The welfare thing doesn’t bother them because money falls from heaven like celebrity compassion and The Rich Not Paying Fair Share.

  5. max

    Immigrants Aren’t the Only Ones Who Shouldn’t Be Voting

    The Net Taxpayers vs. the Net Tax Receivers

    In his short book Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises examined this problem in the context of government employees. In a section titled “The Bureaucrat as a Voter” Mises explains:

    The bureaucrat is not only a government employee. He is, under a democratic constitution, at the same time a voter and as such a part of the sovereign, his employer. He is in a peculiar position: he is both employer and employee. And his pecuniary interest as employee towers above his interest as employer, as he gets much more from the public funds than he contributes to them.
    This double relationship becomes more important as the people on the government’s pay roll increase. The bureaucrat as voter is more eager to get a raise than to keep the budget balanced. His main concern is to swell the pay roll.

    Mises went on to examine the rise of powerful interest groups in France and Germany in the years before “the fall of their democratic constitutions.” He explained:
    There were not only the hosts of public employees, and those employed in the nationalized branches of business (e.g., railroad, post, telegraph, and telephone), there were the receivers of the unemployment dole and of social security benefits, as well as the farmers and some other groups which the government directly or indirectly subsidized. Their main concern was to get more out of the public funds. They did not care for “ideal” issues like liberty, justice, the supremacy of the law, and good government. They asked for more money, that was all. No candidate for parliament, provincial diets, or town councils could risk opposing the appetite of the public employees for a raise. The various political parties were eager to outdo one another in munificence.

    Mises concluded:
    Representative democracy cannot subsist if a great part of the voters are on the government pay roll. If the members of parliament no longer consider themselves mandatories of the taxpayers but deputies of those receiving salaries, wages, subsidies, doles, and other benefits from the treasury, democracy is done for.

    The logic of this position is simple. If the voting taxpayers (specifically, the net tax contributors) are outnumbered or outcompeted by the net tax receivers, then, inevitably, the economic system will tend more and more toward economic profligacy, leading eventually to bankruptcy.

    Not surprisingly, many commentators who rightly point out the problem of government largesse and voting rights for immigrants also fail to mention all those more politically powerful and popular groups (i.e., builders of roads and weapons, and pensioners) whose incomes also depend on government spending. And of course, the “official” government employees all depend directly on a government check for their incomes, and in much larger numbers than any group of immigrants.

    https://mises.org/library/immigrants-aren%E2%80%99t-only-ones-who-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-voting

  6. mareeS

    We own our home with five bedrooms, our daughter is moving back with her four cats. That is the extent of our charity.

  7. Herodotus

    It’s also something of a mystery how the US ended up with the Reps the way it is. But wow, the meeja just lurvs that diversity.
    While on the topic of open borders, having the view that they are ok provided you have no welfare system is fanciful to say the least.

  8. A wall provides not purely a physical barrier, but a mental one as well. Why do you think fences work, even low ones, surrounding a house? It’s not that they are impenetrable, but they provide a mental warning that crossing that barrier may have consequences. It’s just like having locks to deter ‘honest’ thieves.

  9. md

    It is a complete mystery. Why are there votes in allowing anyone who wants to show up to enter your nation state and just stay there while claiming every welfare benefit available to the population that finances them?

    Why? Because most people vote against something rather than for something. Essentially, it is grievance politics, which the Left are practiced at exploiting. Many of the people who vote for the Left believe, or have been told, that ‘society’ is responsible for their woes (just look at how many fit the low-self-worth stereotypes), so they will support everything that seems to harm society at large. Their psychology is no different to that of the common vandal, whose self-anxiety is alleviated when they destroy something of value to those whom they envy or, more often, resent. Such individuals don’t give a damn about the minorities they claim to care for. They see them only as something they can use against society. And what does that say about their opinion of those they claim to care for!

  10. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Shakespeare’s poem ‘This England’ is a paean to an island identity. This concept of a specifically island identity, a defensive and defendable land mass, was drawn upon by Churchill during Britain’s time of trial in 1940 vs Germany. However, in the second half of this poem, not often read, Shakespeare saw the new King as a destroyer from within. Internal danger was then, and still is, ever present, even when you have an island nation protected by its sea. Just as we have here on our own island continent. If we don’t guard from within, the advantages of our sea wall become useless, as it is breached by deliberate policies of encouragement to migrate here, although it still forms some sort of disincentive. A walk-in land border as in the USA is even worse; so easy to breach with help from within, and impossible to protect without an enforced barrier wall.

    The first part of Shakespeare’s poem expressed the geographic protective element well, in ‘fortress’ and ‘moat’ as a ‘wall’:

    This fortress built by Nature for herself
    Against infection and the hand of war,
    This happy breed of men, this little world,
    This precious stone set in the silver sea,
    Which serves it in the office of a wall,
    Or as a moat defensive to a house,
    Against the envy of less happier lands,

    Shakespeare knew that what you have built for yourself deserves protection.

  11. Iampeter

    It is a complete mystery.

    LOL. Why do you even bother blogging about politics?
    “The left” does not support open borders, they want immigration regulations, which is always a left wing position.
    Since today’s ideologically bankrupt conservatives are going to give the left outcomes they could never have achieved themselves, like the wall, democrats are taking the opportunity to play politics.
    The left is getting everything they want from a Trump administration but get to pretend they oppose it and look like they are standing up for the little guy.

  12. Gerry O'Connor

    Apparently, according to philosopher John Lennon, “imagine there’s no countries” means there’ll be no wars – the logic is juvenile

  13. Mother Lode

    “The left” does not support open borders, they want immigration regulations, which is always a left wing position.

    The Greens, Labor, Democrats, Labour, EU notwithstanding.

    It would also explain why all opposition to open borders is called right wing nationalism and a common ploy of the right to promote themselves is to present themselves as a threat and a boogeyman.

    Hey, you convinced me!

  14. manalive

    The left is getting everything they want from a Trump administration but get to pretend they oppose it and look like they are standing up for the little guy …

    Blimey that’s a Machiavellian interpretation, what can possibly go wrong?
    As with the two and half million entering UK during the Blair Government against the interests of its core constituency simply to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

  15. Iampeter

    The Greens, Labor, Democrats, Labour, EU notwithstanding.

    Well, Labor and Democrats certainly oppose open borders as the whole issue of “illegal immigration” first originated among the unionized faction of these movements.
    There’s no such thing as “right wing nationalism” since nationalism is collectivist and therefore leftist.
    To be right wing is to stand for individual rights, rights protecting government and capitalism. Immigration is not an issue to right wingers.
    The whole issue is that there is no real right wing in mainstream politics and total political illiteracy from those discussing politics.
    Just progressive leftists who know what they are doing vs the clueless leftists of the conservative movement, who have no idea what’s going on, in a race to the bottom to control all our lives and destroy our civilization.

  16. struth

    How are open borders a winning strategy for the left?

    By teaching the last few generations the west is evil , stole it’s wealth, and all other cultures are superior in every respect.
    It’s why young white boys are committing suicide at an alarming rate.
    We also have knobs like Iampeter with no regard to a culture or civilisation as regards to security and wealth creation who read a book once…..called Libertarians who are more like anarchists.

    It all starts in our schools.

  17. Iampeter

    Just to add, one of the big reasons Trump won so decisively is because he ran on an even more left wing platform than Hillary, with all his anti-immigrant rhetoric, snapping up a lot of traditional democrat voters.
    Conservatives deciding that the hill on which to make their last stand is the leftist, anti-immigrant nonsense, is symptomatic of how completely confused conservatives are about everything.

  18. struth

    You’re a fuckwit enjoying living in the west, without the will to defending it against Islamic takeover and Global socialist central government takeover by the UN.
    You are a hypocritical anarchist with no concept of civilizational structures allowing freedom in the first place.
    You enable warlords and totalitarians with your (at best ) confused naivety, and then claim some higher existence.
    You are at best a fool, Iampeter.
    An immature, insulated fuckwit, with arrogance and ignorance mixed in with high measure.
    Leave the grown ups alone.

  19. md

    And here’s another reason leftist parties will adopt ridiculous policies: so many of their core constituency are stupid enough to believe certain things that the party necessarily has to adopt them as policy, regardless of how absurd they are.
    Pollak: New Democrat Majority to Repeal Laws of Thermodynamics

  20. Iampeter

    Ummmm Struth, no one has done more to enable Islamic takeover and foreign aggressors, than the cowardly appeasers and outright traitors, of the religious conservative movement, throughout the West. These scumbags actually hold Saudi Arabia as an ALLY in the War on Military Tactic.
    Being tough on immigrants is not being tough on terrorists, you politically illiterate, triggered leftist snowflake.

  21. Bela Bartok

    There’s the cynicism of allowing roving voteherds into a country who will vote for the Left parties. That’s the political angle.
    But the ‘message’ to the indoctrinated kiddies and kidults is that the Wall is to stop poor, starving refugees from violence (just like Jesus /sarc) and any attempt to prevent these refugees from seeking safety is mean, cruel and heartless.

  22. Rustyof Qld

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/fbi-record-number-of-illegal-immigrants-tried-to-buy-guns
    8 million illegal immigrants refused approval to buy guns. Then what part of the total number of illegal immigrants is 8 million?
    First post must have had something offensive in it, didn’t get up.

  23. Rusty of Qld

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/fbi-record-number-of-illegal-immigrants-tried-to-buy-guns
    8 million illegal immigrants refused approval to buy guns. Then what part of the total number of illegal immigrants is 8 million?
    First post must have had something offensive in it, didn’t get up.

  24. H B Bear

    There’s no such thing as “right wing nationalism” since nationalism is collectivist and therefore leftist.

    Wow that is some industrial strength fruit loopery from our resident open borders loon.

  25. EvilElvis

    Why is it a winning strategy? Mix Max’s great comment above with blanket propaganda and virtue signalling of our elites and media with the fact that we are the dumbest fucking white people on earth and you have the reason why. We’re thick.

  26. Mother Lode

    Well, Labor and Democrats certainly oppose open borders as the whole issue of “illegal immigration” first originated among the unionized faction of these movements.

    The Democrats want the borders open. They have been very vociferous on this very point. Labor dismantled the border protection established under Howard, and when the people smuggling trade resumed they very ostentatiously did everything that could be done short of stemming the tide. They brought controls back in when they were staring at electoral defeat. And now they are wringing their hands again at the injustice of asking boaties who they are before handing over the keys of the legal and welfare systems.

    There’s no such thing as “right wing nationalism” since nationalism is collectivist and therefore leftist.

    Recognising people with whom you share culture and customs, with whom you are able to cooperate for mutual benefit, whether it be your local community, your church, or your country, is not the same as believing the collective is the higher entity entitled to control the people and to whom the people must subordinate themselves.

    Nationalists are not dedicated to their government, but their fellows, families, communities etc.

    I really could not be bothered with rest of your post, 1amp. I usually ignore your posts but accidentally read one and was taken aback briefly by the brazen dishonesty.

    You are here to disrupt and waste time. I think I shall not indulge you.

  27. Entropy

    Nationalists can be right or left wing I would have thought.
    A right wing nationalist would be against collectivism but leery of those people from other there and their own collectivist or other religious ideologies.
    Left wing, national socialists of course are disliked by international socialists because they are a competitive threat to international socialism. And of course, “Splitters!” Regardless, all socialists are left wing. Even the agrarian socialists like Pauline.

  28. Tel

    Nationalists are not dedicated to their government, but their fellows, families, communities etc.

    Does the government exist to serve the people? Or do the people exist to serve government? That’s the only question you need to ask, in order to understand the “collectivist” question. It is sometimes a hard question to answer, but easy to ask.

    The Randians believe that people simply never cooperate for any reason (well the simple-minded Randians do, I’m probably being unfair to the smart ones).

  29. Ubique

    Speaking of walls that aren’t spoken of here is the wall built by Turkey to keep Syrians out. Note Wikipedia quaintly labels the wall as a “barrier”. The EU, vastly contemptuous of President Trump’s wall, have helped fund Turkey’s wall.

  30. Iampeter

    Recognising people with whom you share culture and customs, with whom you are able to cooperate for mutual benefit, whether it be your local community, your church, or your country, is not the same as believing the collective is the higher entity entitled to control the people and to whom the people must subordinate themselves.

    That SHOULD be the case, but then nationalists obviously see it exactly as “entitled to control the people to whom people must subordinate themselves”.
    You wouldn’t be calling for regulating immigration if you supported individual rights.

    You are here to disrupt and waste time. I think I shall not indulge you.

    No, I’m here to explain entry-level, political concepts, from an actual right wing point of view.
    This triggers the politically illiterate, leftists like you, who enjoy a circle jerk.

  31. Iampeter

    Does the government exist to serve the people? Or do the people exist to serve government? That’s the only question you need to ask, in order to understand the “collectivist” question. It is sometimes a hard question to answer, but easy to ask.

    The Randians believe that people simply never cooperate for any reason (well the simple-minded Randians do, I’m probably being unfair to the smart ones).

    “Randians” believe the function of government is to protect rights. It’s an actual alternative to leftism, which you reject, because it requires more thinking about the subject than you can be bothered doing and because you support your own flavor of leftism instead.

  32. mh

    SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The compromise is [to] give the president the $5 billion we need for walls [and] border security as a down payment to securing the border. The DACA population is about 700,000. Give them work permits, three-year work permits, so they don’t have to worry about getting deported anytime soon. The TPS people who came here years ago from war-torn areas, hurricanes, and floods, and renew their legal status — no pathway to citizenship — and call it a day. It’s called a compromise. The president said, “let’s make a deal.” The Democrat’s response is, basically, “got to hell.” They’re going to send a bill from the House to the Senate that has no money for the wall. It’s not going to see the light of day. Mitch McConnell is never going to bring a bill on to the floor of the Senate that doesn’t have money for the wall. We need the wall. They’ve all voted for the wall. And the only way we’re going to get the wall is to fight for it.

  33. Eyrie

    “The Randians believe that people simply never cooperate for any reason (well the simple-minded Randians do, I’m probably being unfair to the smart ones).”
    Who wrote that stupidity? They will co-operate when there is no force involved and both parties see advantage in it.

  34. bespoke

    It’s amusing that Imp’s hear and not trolling some left open borders blog with his other idears.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.