This position is so radical that even most progressive politicians won't publicly endorse it. And there's good reason: it's incompatible with virtually every other policy goal on the left.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, put it succinctly: 'You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.' If the U.S. opened its borders while maintaining Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, SNAP, and housing assistance, the fiscal consequences would be catastrophic. The CBO and virtually every economic model shows that low-skilled immigration creates net fiscal costs. Scale that to potentially tens of millions of new arrivals and the math is impossible.

According to Gallup polling, approximately 900 million people worldwide would migrate to another country if they could. Of those, 160 million said the U.S. was their top choice. Even a fraction of that movement would overwhelm housing, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.

The European experience is instructive. After the 2015 migration crisis, when approximately 1.3 million asylum seekers arrived in Europe in a single year, the political and social consequences were severe. Sweden, one of the most welcoming countries, experienced housing shortages, school overcrowding, and rising crime in migrant-heavy areas, leading to a dramatic political shift. Denmark and even Germany have significantly tightened their immigration policies. In 2023, the EU agreed to stricter asylum rules.

Open borders would also be a gift to criminal organizations. Without controlled entry, there's no way to screen for trafficking, terrorism, drug smuggling, or public health threats. Border security isn't about keeping good people out — it's about maintaining the ability to keep dangerous people out.

A nation without borders isn't a nation. Every country in history that has survived has controlled who enters. This isn't controversial — it's foundational.