October 5, 2007
New Book Release: Opening the Floodgates Why America Needs to Rethink its Borders and Immigration Laws (NYU Press 2007)
"Finally, an unflinching response to immigration alarmists! This brilliant, challenging book outlines an immigration proposal based on the reality that migration flows are not regulated by border enforcement but by social, economic, and political pressures." —Mary Romero, author of Maid in the USA View
Seeking to re-imagine the meaning and significance of the international border, Opening the Floodgates makes a case for eliminating the border as a legal construct that impedes the movement of people into this country. Open migration policies deserve fuller analysis, particularly on the eve of a presidential election. Kevin R. Johnson offers an alternative vision of how U.S. borders might be reconfigured, grounded in moral, economic, and policy arguments for open borders. Importantly, liberalizing migration through an open borders policy would recognize that the enforcement of closed borders cannot stifle the strong, perhaps irresistible, economic, social, and political pressures that fuel international migration. Controversially, Johnson suggests that open borders are entirely consistent with efforts to prevent terrorism that have dominated immigration enforcement since the events of September 11, 2001. More liberal migration, he suggests, would allow for full attention to be paid to the true dangers to public safety and national security.
October 5, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Book Release: Opening the Floodgates Why America Needs to Rethink its Borders and Immigration Laws (NYU Press 2007):
Maybe you could have it tranlated because you've got a long way to go in convincing the world. The rest of the world prefers immigration limits. Have you ever looked in the mirror and actually seen an image?
Global Opinion Favors Immigration Limits
By ALAN FRAM – 23 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Strong majorities in the U.S. and many Western and developing nations favor tightened restrictions on immigration, a poll of countries around the globe showed Thursday.
At the same time, most people in every country surveyed said they think increased trade is good for their nation. Majorities in most countries also expressed favor for free market economies and for the impact that foreign companies are having at home.
The findings came from a poll conducted this spring in 46 countries, plus the Palestinian territories, that was overseen by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, a Washington-based research organization. It included countries from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia.
Only in South Korea and the Palestinian territories did most people express opposition to tighter immigration policies, while in Japan they were evenly split. Support for stronger restrictions was dominant everywhere else. It generally was greatest in Africa and South Asia, including about nine in 10 in Indonesia, Malaysia, Ivory Coast and South Africa.
"In many parts of the world, people see immigration as destabilizing" and a threat to their cultures, said Andrew Kohut, Pew president and director of the study. "And they worry about jobs."
The survey, which sought global opinion on a range of issues and lifestyle questions, also found:
_More than a two-to-one preference in Russia for a strong leader over a democracy. That was the weakest support for democracy in the survey;
_Wide agreement that military force is sometimes needed to maintain order in the world, with majorities disagreeing only in Germany, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Jordan and South Korea;
_Strong majorities everywhere, though to a lesser extent in the Muslim world, for educating boys and girls equally;
_Broad acceptance for homosexuality in the Americas and Western Europe, and strong disapproval virtually everywhere else.
In the U.S., 75 percent favored tougher immigration restrictions, though this was 6 percentage points fewer than in 2002.
While majorities in every country looked positively on trade, the 59 percent in the U.S. who agreed was the lowest figure in the survey. That was down from 78 percent five years ago, reflecting concerns about slow wage growth and the quality of jobs, Kohut said, and pointing toward possible campaign-season debates on trade policy.
Widespread acceptance of global trade and free markets was coupled with cautions about the impact of worldwide competition. Majorities everywhere said governments should take care of the poorest people, and most in every nation but Indonesia said they favored protecting the environment even if that slowed economic growth and cost jobs.
The poll involved telephone and face-to-face interviews with 45,239 people in 46 countries plus the Palestinian territories, conducted in April and May. All samples were national except for Bolivia, Brazil, China, India, Ivory Coast, Pakistan, South Africa, and Venezuela, where they were mostly or completely conducted in cities.
The numbers of people interviewed in each country varied from 500 each in Spain, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Kuwait to 3,142 in China. The margin of sampling error in each country ranged from plus or minus 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points.
Posted by: Horace | Oct 5, 2007 1:10:48 PM
Broad acceptance for homosexuality in the Americas and Western Europe, and strong disapproval virtually everywhere else.
By your reasoning, Horace, gay rights activists in the U.S. should put a lid on it, since the people of the world have spoken on the matter.
Have you ever looked in the mirror and actually seen an image?
Posted by: yave begnet | Oct 6, 2007 6:55:55 AM
The issue is immigration yave, immigration. The majority of nations like what they see in their mirrors, particularly their cultures, and it apparently applies to Mexico and the Latin Americas. You like to single out this country for xenophobia, but apparently xenophobia is the norm that won't die. My point with the professor is that writing a book that will likely wind up in Dollar Store for a buck won't change human nature. Professor Johnson is the Don Quixote of open borders advocacy. He's written a book that is merely an excercise in academic postulating that will only be read by like-minded intellectuals who spend their time thinking wishfully.
Posted by: Horace | Oct 6, 2007 12:38:02 PM
...and obviously not by you because you are a jack-assed blowhard who didn't even read the thing before criticising it. That xenophobic reactions to immigration exist throughout the world is not a defence of your racism. When I went to Holland I met many liberal-minded xenophobes who were just ranting about the Muslims. Then again their forefathers chose imperialism and built the riches of their nation by exploiting other lands and now they reap the whirlwind. It might even be human nature to revert to such ignorance, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't combat that ridiculous thinking.
Posted by: jms | Oct 11, 2007 11:44:45 AM