You are here

Bernie Sanders speaks against open borders - ' A Koch brothers proposal'

"[Raising immigration and open borders] would make everybody in America poorer. You're doing away with the concept of a nation state and I don't think there's any country in the world which believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right wing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for 2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create the millions of jobs." (Bernie Sanders)

Ezra Klein: Something that’s in what you said being a democratic socialist, is a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein: Really?

Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right wing proposal which says essentially there is no United States ...

Ezra Klein: But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders: Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer, you're doing away with the concept of a nation state and I don't think there's any country in the world which believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right wing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for 2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create the millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment in the United States of America today? If you're white high school graduate, it’s 33%, Hispanic 36%, African American 51%. Do you think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

Ezra Klein: Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by say, Malaysian standards, so of the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility? I guess I'm asking for – I agree. You have a nation-state structure. You always are going to, the politics don’t allow anything else.

But I guess philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

Bernie Sanders: I do weigh it. Well first of all, again, as a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities. I believe we should create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. I believe we should raise the minimum wage to at least 15 bucks an hour so people in this county are not living in poverty. I think we end the disgrace of some % of our kids living in poverty in America. Now how do you do that? What you do is understand there's been a huge redistribution of wealth in the last 30 years from the middle class to the top 1/10 to 1%. The other thing that you understand globally is a horrendous imbalance in terms of wealth in the world. As I mentioned earlier, the top 1% will own more than the bottom 99% in a year or so. That's absurd. That takes you to programs like the IMF and so forth and so on. I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility, but you don't do that as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers which has already gone down very significantly.


Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia. Real Clear Politics, October 12, 2016.

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein: Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with Russia.

JILL STEIN: It's important to look at where we are going. It's not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser evil you will taken us? All these times you have been told to but for the lesser evil because you didn't want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of our jobs, or the attack on immigrants or the massive bailout for Wall Street, that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves. Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn't solve the problem. The Obama administration, even with both houses of Congress, actually did all of these fossil fuel emissions. "All of the above" gave us some renewable energy but it completely amplified and intensified our film production, which has been incredibly destructive to the climate. The wars have gotten bigger, we are not bombing seven countries. It is important to not just look at the rhetoric but also look at the track record and the reality is the lesser people and greater people is a race to the bottom, and even Donald Trump in the right wing extremism grows out of the policies of the Clintons, in particular Nafta, which sent our jobs overseas and Wall Street deregulation, which blew 9 million jobs up into smoke. That is what is creating this right wing extremism. A vote for Hillary Clinton isn't going to fix it… It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone. We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been. Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria. I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies. On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.

As much as Hillary probably represents a bigger threat in terms of maintaining the decrepit and corrupt establishment, The Donald will likely take no action to mitigate the problems of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and may set back any attempts to do so.

Of course, none of these major risks, environmental degradation, potential war between major powers really gets discussed, but instead we are treated to a constant stream of unnewsworthy pap about Donald Trump acting like a chauvinistic man, something not exactly uncharacteristic of those in his position. I do recall a certain 'cigar Bill" which Hillary may have some familiarity with acting inappropriately.

It's this which makes me wonder whether modern civilisation has a future. Human beings are by and large, on the whole absolutely useless at assessing and responding to risk. We can respond to immediate 'risk', whether its the son of a Muslim doctor reading material on-line which might 'radicalise' him, or people driving 100kph on a freeway, but more abstract, longer term risks just drop off. There is no market for a solution, no audience for a discussion and no interest in something not immediate.

Our leaders are supposed to be the ones spearheading this, taking into account what most people don't, but they would prefer to leave to to markets and so-called popular opinion, and this is what demands the sexual-scandal side of the election over the real issues.

One would not expect a Republican to spruik on mitigating global warming. Trump has said that he wants a mix of fossil fuels and alternatives, but he takes the business-line. In some ways Trump is the anti-Soros: on borders, on political correctness and on climate. Soros really pushes top down management of global warming and he financed Al-Gore, who subsequently led a complicated top-down campaign which seems still captive to global deliberations and only accessible to acts of faith by its followers. Soros's methods seem to be designed to get local activists to turn away from their local environments and follow a distant leader, whilst attacking anyone who does anything on a national or local level. Hillary is also Soros-financed and driven. Hillary pretends to plan to be effective on human induced climate change, but also intends to lead us into ever more climate-toxic wars. Under Trump, it looks like there would be less war and less population movement, therefore less generation of demand for materials.

Regardless of some of Trumps rather idiotic policies, this US election really comes down to one thing.

The "elite" establishment seeking to maintain the status-quo at the expense of the rest of us vs a populist rebellion headed by someone who perhaps isn't up to the job.

At this point, my dislike for the establishment is so great, I'd rather see Trump, or hell, ANYONE, just to stick it to them.

Clinton display some sociopathic behaviours, and John Podesta, the chairman of her presidential campaign has noted that Hillary is beginning to hate mainstream America.

Really, Bernie Sanders was the best candidate, hands down but he didn't stand a chance in a rigged system. However, if he has a brain, which is he does, he would note that he actually commands quite a bit of power. The democrats can no longer win an election without his supporter base, and they are not going anywhere. All Bernie has to do is threaten to run as an independent in the 2020 election, and he has the Democratic party in a vice. It will split the vote denying them a possibility for that election, and perhaps any election after that as well.

Hopefully we'll see a fracturing of the major parties and a general breakdown in the misplaced confidence in the political system, a confidence which shouldn't be there.

Good to have back Dennis. I agree with your sentiments preferring Donald to Hilary and that Bernie was far and away the best candidate for the job. And if I may digress, Bernie's demise is a telling feature of how corrupt the American election campaign really is.

My greatest fear is, what will be left for Bernie by 2020? Even if we are to negotiate our way around/out of WW3 which is a very real possiblity with Clinton, we have a runaway steamtrain bearing down upon us called global warming. With most western countries doing too little too late to prevent global warming (Australia has jumped back onto Ole King Coal) we will reach 2 degrees of warming by 2020. We're already at 1.5 degrees without any positive fedback loops, yet!!


Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of wars that Hillary Clinton helped to start? In Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., What do you think the carbon footprint will be if Hillary Clinton carries out her plans to invade Syria, Iran, Yemen and possibly Russia? What do you think the carbon footprint would be should her election lead to an all-out thermonuclear war? Whilst Donald Trump's expressed views on global warming may be somewhat flawed, the triumph of democracy that his victory will be would give United States citizens a better chance to be effective and therefore more chance than they have now to influence policies for the better. Vested interests have done so much to corrupt the US electoral process in order to put their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, in office. If she wins it will become far more difficult for people to influence policies for the better, whether on climate change or on a host of other environmental and geopolitical issues.