
The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely - bpolania
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/get-rid-borders-completely/409501/?single_page=true
======
mc32
There is a case for open borders, in a perfect world. On the other hand, the
destination country does not get any equity in the source country, as
deferment. Immigrants take up resources (housing, educational, etc.) and send
money out (remittances).

Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And,
suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million
people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a
destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure,
culture, economy etc? Do they get dividends on the source country which
squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).

And what's the incentive for the people/gov't in the other countries to shape
up? Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were
on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were
backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the
US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.

I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-
concept, imperialism.

Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of
success, government and eradicate corruption gov't malfeasance and bring
prosperity to Indonesia, for example?

I mean, what's the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become
like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having
dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success,
economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?

[1][http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-
pr...](http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-
prosperity/gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries/)

graphs show disparity in the 2 - 3x in the early 20th cent.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
>> "Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore.
And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5
million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a
destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure,
culture, economy etc?"

Well some of the concerns you are raising here are offset by simple economics.
As more people arrive, due to fixed supply of land and limited ability to
import resources, prices of everything will gradually increase, up to a point
where the next potential immigrant would no longer be interested in
immigrating.

~~~
TeMPOraL
But at this point hasn't the previously great economy been destroyed?

~~~
Asbostos
No. The people already there can afford it because they have a job and get
paid in the local currency. It's just like what's happened in New York or San
Francisco. Don't go there if you're unemployed or it'll be very difficult to
survive. Those places allow free immigration from the rest of the US but
they've reached capacity and stopped growing much.

Of course this assumes immigrants aren't given social welfare.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Of course this assumes immigrants aren 't given social welfare._

Yeah, that is the key point I was implicitly _not_ assuming. Thanks.

------
bmh_ca
Most folks do not know the history of the sovereign state, but the version
that we have today is a descendent of the Westphalian State
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty)).
Even fewer people know why it came about in this form, yet the reason it came
about may be quite important in this discussion.

After the Thirty Years and Eighty Years Wars came the Westphalian Peace of
1648
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia)).
A primary objective of the Peace was to recognize sovereignty because during
the war and in the time leading up to it integrated economies were wracked by
shocks and corruption.

Some argue, and I am mindful that, the only proven bulwark against such shocks
and corruption may be sovereignty of the sort that the Westphalian Peace
created.

The notion of sovereignty has stood the test of time – it seems reasonably
compatible with how collectives of humans perceive and react with their world
– but through the modern globalization of capital we may be re-learning a 360
year old lesson.

So while the globalization of human labour has yet to catch up to freedom of
international capital flows – a failure that creates tremendous unfairness,
and this analysis is admittedly brief and glossy, it is worth keeping in mind
that we may be unlocking the same doors that created unfathomable multi-
generational wars now long forgotten.

------
mahyarm
Strong borders came with the welfare state to avoid a tragedy of the commons.

Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care,
welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in
the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just
need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many
americans today.

There are also parallels with city zoning laws. Go buy a house and find out
how many restrictions and regulations there are on the parcel of land that you
have purchased. And also see how much resistance you will get from the local
politically active populace if you dare try to change things. Such as creating
density. NIMBYism almost seems like a instinctual human reflex.

In other places where there isn't a welfare state and so on, it's usually
straight up racism and ethnic nationalism.

~~~
calibraxis
Where do I find evidence for this? I just checked, and the welfare state
started in the 1880's by German conservatives, to fight bottom-up democracy
and socialism.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfare_states))

Far before then, rulers and nation states restricted human movement.
([http://newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/](http://newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/))

Anyway, the welfare state (which includes government investment in fundamental
tech which led to advances like computing, internet, etc) is a major driver of
innovation and growth. More humans coming in, treated well, can obviously
contribute. (As they already do, exploited for the most miserable societal
tasks.)

~~~
notahacker
It's historically inaccurate, but in practice true that without _slowing down_
immigration it's pretty much impossible to sustain a system in which people
"looking for work" are entitled to higher PPP incomes and better services than
labourers in virtually all the rest of the world. (But there are obvious
drawbacks to taking things to the opposite extreme and banning all
immigration: it might be a lot more difficult and expensive to run the NHS
without immigrant healthcare professionals, for example)

But of course you're right that borders have been closed by leaders believing
they help enforce cultural and political stability for eons before that.

------
addicted44
Even if you don't get open borders, the fact that we have all these treaties
which force free flow of capital across but do nothing to allow easier flow of
labor across borders is a huge problem. It allows nations with crappy social
and political systems to undermine labor welfare and protection policies in
better political systems without facing repercussions for it. Unsurprisingly,
the asymmetric flows of capital and labor forced by trade agreements play
right into the hands of benefitting capital owners across the world at the
expense of ordinary workers.

I don't believe completely open borders are necessary or even possible, but
every trade agreement that forces free flow of capital (and prevents duties on
imports, etc) needs to come with equivalent labor protections as well
(massively increased flow of people across borders, and not in a "you're a
second class resident who can be deported at your employer's whim" way, or
alternatively, removing import duties only as long as laborer a on both sides
of the border receive equal labor protections of the law. So if country A
offers a minimum wage, it is allowed to impose duties as long as the wages
being offered to the workers in country B is less than the cost of living
adjusted equivalent salary in that country. )

~~~
myguidingstar
> It allows nations with crappy social and political systems to undermine
> labor welfare and protection policies in better political systems without
> facing repercussions for it. what about the education and raising cost the
> country of arrival doesn't have to pay because the country of origin did?
> what about the laymen who undermine social security b/c they don't have
> competition from immigrants? (I'm just trying to use the same logic to show
> your argument is incomplete. Researches on free money experiments are
> showing otherwise)

------
rob-anderson
I have been arguing this for years - in a 10% tongue-in-cheek kind of way -
and it's strange to see it written down in an article.

The stock response tends to be that in an ideal world it would be great, but
it's not practical. Of course, perfectly decent, well-meaning and good-hearted
white people sat around dinner tables during apartheid and slavery and said
exactly the same thing. History has proven them wrong, and in fact if we
imagine popular support for uncontrolled global immigration, it's rather easy
to conceive a practical implementation - quotas gradually increased, borders
lowered - it could be achieved in a controlled way.

I also hear the 'why should we?' response. Indonesia has squandered its
natural resources - aka it's their own fault they're poor. But none of us
would stand in front of a classful of Indonesian schoolchildren and say this.
Being born in a rich western country is a colossal slice of luck, not a
personal achievement. The fact is that thinking of people in terms of nations
tends to dehumanise them, and that's one of the reasons why greater migration
and a blurring of borders would be a good thing.

The economic arguments around immigration have raged in the press here in the
UK for the last few years. Here at least the general academic consensus has
been that it's a net plus, and that the additional burden on state benefits is
outweighed by the economic benefits of a well-motivated and grateful migrant
workforce. The risk to any benefits system is not more people per se, but that
it will be abused - ie the development of a benefits culture, where people
choose not to work because the safety net will support them. It's up to us to
decide whether this attitude is more likely in the indigenous population or
with recent economic migrants.

The real barrier to adoption is lack of popular support, and I accept that few
people are going to agree with me on this issue. But then again, there's this:
[http://goo.gl/95g5kQ](http://goo.gl/95g5kQ)

~~~
s73v3r
Slavery and open borders are completely different things, so your jab at
"well-meaning and good-hearted white people" is invalid.

------
javajosh
Interesting. I don't know enough about the economics to comment, but I will
say that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there is a path to a
borderless world, which involves something like introducing a process whereby
another nation can apply to become another state of the USA. Call it state-
level immigration.

So, the USA has serious issues, but it still does the really important things
well which is a fair vote, and the total freedom of speech and religion. With
these two tools in tact, all the other tools can be recreated as needed,
according to the times. A member state would get a probation period and then
two senate members, some house reps, and a full vote in federal elections.
Meanwhile, they'd have to adopt state-level law consistent with US federal
law.

The devil is in the details, of course. But maybe if and when software eats
the legal system, such a process might be more likely.

(Of course, I have to wonder what is up with Puerto Rico and so many other odd
American territories in legal limbo).

~~~
ionised
> but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote.

I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form
of lobbying fair. It overshadows and taints the entire electoral and
representative processes.

~~~
ddingus
That is unfair. However, we can still remedy that through the vote.

Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is
just in this way.

Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably
just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies.

It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it
gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now,
social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the
status quo.

Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and
what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they
value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly.

Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched
oligarchy? Who knows?

My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that
question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded
with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to
talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too.

I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV
offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do
remedies when people do organize and act.

They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is
needed.

~~~
hga
" _However, we can still remedy that through the vote_ "

Only indirectly, you're talking about striking " _to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances._ " from the end of the First Amendment, and for
_Citizens United_ , heavily abridging the freedom of speech and the press.

To do that, you've got to go thorough the amendment process, or a
constitutional convention, both of which require buy in from 3/4ths of the
governments of the states. To which we elect representatives and governors,
but....

~~~
ddingus
Indeed we do.

What is worth what?

That's the question put before us. That we have it, and a meaningful,
plausible, non violent answer is just. Not easy, mind you. And the ones who
benefit are powerful and seek to advance that power too.

We let them get there. We are going to have to value a remedy enough to check
that, or we get what we get.

Edit: And to put a bit sharper point on that, look at how people regard
politics. Most of us, and this is my anecdotal experience talking, just don't
have time for it.

Why not?

Scenarios like this are direct artifact of a disinterested populace.

If more of us put just a few percent of our free time into basic political
action, we could very quickly remedy many things.

What is worth what? Seems that entertainment, play, hobbies, etc... are worth
more than a better state of governance is. Even more intriguing is the impact
people under 30 can actually have! Not only do they have the time, but they
stand to benefit in their lives the most! They quite simply will be living in
improved times.

The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they
are not likely to see.

How fucked up is that?

~~~
hga
_The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they
are not likely to see.

How fucked up is that?_

Well, seeing as how I turn 55 in less than 2 months, I'm inclined to say
"probably less fucked up that _you_ think" ^_^.

Wisdom is often comes with age, and I think I've seen enough and learned
enough that I can make _much_ better decisions than I could when I was under
30.

(I grant that I'm not the normal case, was politically aware by Nixon's 2nd
election in 1972 (knew it was important he win in 1968, but not really why).
And I study history, _a lot_ , this comment is being made as a break from
reading yet another book about the Manhattan Project.)

As for the disinterested populace, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The
American "leave me alone" and "live and let live" attitudes have a lot to say
for them. Especially since they rapidly adjust when things get really bad....

~~~
ddingus
I didn't really respond as I would have liked to this comment.

It's not anything about older people among us lacking in some way. What I
meant with, "how fucked up is that?" has more to do with our crappy political
dialog.

Truth is, younger people should be engaged more than they are and they should
be hearing what older people have seen and learned too. That experience is a
net benefit to everyone when it's shared and there is a dialog about it all.

I've lived my life doing this, nearly always having mentors and trusted others
older than me to consult with. It's a huge benefit. All started with
literally, "the old farmer up the road" when I was a kid. That guy would just
tell me real stuff that really mattered. Got more out of helping him out for
the day than I probably even know.

And I would just show up too. "Need some help?" and off we would go. Doing
whatever, and once we got comfortable, task at hand moving along nicely, I
could just ask stuff. Truth is, I know he loved that, and would tell me all
kinds of things, sometimes challenging me in various ways too. Always wanted
to know outcomes as well. When I saw some success or other, I would share it
back and see that grin...

The political process itself is solid. I've no real complaints, other than
some abuses we can and should be more concerned about.

But the dialog is horrible.

That's what I was getting at, and I just didn't put the effort into it that I
should have.

------
ddingus
I'm opposed to this on very basic grounds: freedom of expression, and the
derived artifact of that, freedom of and from religion.

The economic case is somewhat compelling, but I'll set it aside for now, as
that is an open and running political dialog playing out with trade
agreements, treaties, etc...

Religion, in the US, is entirely optional. We don't have the concept of a
"higher authority" codified in the law. We also permit nearly all expression,
and in particular, that expression hostile to powerful interests and the
government itself.

I often see and hear about things I find completely unacceptable in nations
that have not gone there. Religious law, of various kinds, can justify nearly
anything. Secular law is similar, but the debate can be meaningful and at
least composed of things we can put into a courtroom and reason about.

"God says..." is irrational. We have absolutely nothing on record at all.
Thomas Paine details this, and derives the basis for natural rights for us as
peer beings in the world, as well as the concept of self-governance in "Rights
of Man", and "Age of Reason" \--The latter, saw him jailed for a number of
years due to how angry Catholics got over that work.

On a basic level, we are all just beings here. If one takes that concept of
fundamental equality, and mutual ignorance (no higher authority, no real
definitive record or understanding of our origins), a lot of the social
progress we've seen are obvious conclusions.

These things are very important to me. I want that basic realization and
consideration just as much as I understand my peers here want it, and arguably
we all need it too.

Borders do actually compartmentalize the world in ways that compare and
contrast these ideas with other, older ideas, and it's very important that the
increasingly connected people of the world see all of that play out, so that
we may continue to see the social and human benefits expand.

Economics is another discussion, and it has just as much potential to do harm,
oppress, etc... as the social issues do, but we are on the upside of social
issues, and trading that for improved economics isn't something I feel good
about.

------
tamebadger
I would say a lot of the discussion should rather be around the current
structures and ideas we have formed, and which of them should be challenged.
The idea of "countries", "states", "borders", "presidents", are all worth
challenging, because not only do borders restrain our "freedom of movement",
all of the above mentioned do that in some degree or another. That being said,
I don't propose anarchism, just alternatives, something like Seasteading might
just have some of the answers. Re-integrating successful seasteading ventures
back onto landmass would be great, but certainly a more long term procedure.
Change is difficult though, seasteading should not even be necessary for us to
consider a different world, but leading by example will probably be what the
world needs.

------
venomsnake
No thank you. I prefer strong borders. I like the secular culture of Europe as
is. Anything that even potentially threatens it is direct attack on me.

~~~
pluma
Secular? Angela Merkel fairly recently (in the context of whether to expand
the EU to Turkey) made a statement about European values being Christian
values.

Not that I agree with her (the "Christian" values of modern Europe are secular
values that have replaced the original Christian values because we spent
centuries figuring out that they're wrong so calling our modern values
Christian is incredibly misleading) but I wouldn't agree with a blanket
statement like "Europe's culture is a secular culture" either.

If anything, Europe's culture is incredibly diverse. Saying
immigration/refugees threaten our secular culture is just a nice way of saying
you're afraid of the possibility of Islam affecting our liberties -- which is
fine by me, as long as you're honest about it.

~~~
venomsnake
It is not about Islam. It is about taking religion too seriously. The guys
that read Torah all days (or the bible) are worrying too. It is about the
strain of Islam that uneducated young arab males bring. Secular Muslims in
Istanbul are generally fine people, as are the secular elites while the middle
east was ruled by stable governments - and welcome in europe. The hijab is
not.

------
sparkzilla
>Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at
someone else's property.

~~~
javajosh
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political
borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into
the US, not into your home.

~~~
sparkzilla
But why stop there? Let's have no property rights and let the Mexicans stay in
your bedroom.

~~~
Dylan16807
Because that's a completely unrelated concept.

~~~
vetinari
How's that?

It's related, just different in scope.

~~~
aianus
Because the Mexicans would be working and paying rent or buying your property
from you, not squatting in your bedroom for free.

~~~
vetinari
They would be living in my country, demand voting rights, then demand things
that the original residents would never vote for, but will have to pay for
anyway.

Why should I agree to change (from my POV: destroy) the society where I live?

Btw: I'm not US citizen. I'm European. You'll be hard pressed to find many
people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the
borders.

~~~
pgeorgi
> You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation,
> who would agree with disbanding the borders.

A significant part of the political arm (ie. those who aren't just helping
because there are humans in need but have an agenda that transcends any
concrete situation) of the "refugees welcome" movement start out from the
"human right on free movement" that was mentioned here, and effectively want
borders not to exist.

~~~
vetinari
Yes, I realize that. However, it is either political arm, as you wrote, or
NGOs financed from abroad. Both are doing it for personal gain. But they are
still minority, just very loud one and quite powerful one (not in the
democratic sense, though).

However, what they are doing is showing great example to the undecided, who
are waking up.

------
korisnik
What do you do when a person refuses to identify themselves?

Do they still have this universal right of freedom to move?

------
joeclark77
Democracy is when the people can replace the government if they don't like the
way it governs. _What we 're seeing in Europe and the US these days is that
government is trying to replace the people because it doesn't like the way
they vote._ The unfettered-immigration and amnesty-for-illegals movements on
both continents are direct attacks on democracy by governments that think they
can get more money or power with a different set of voters. I don't know if
anything quite like this has happened before... did the Greeks even have a
word for it?

~~~
vetinari
Looks like we have partisans here, downmodding the "incorrect dissent". Not
only this parent, but all dissenting comments.

~~~
pluma
Looks like we have a low tolerance for populist nationalist rhetoric.

Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've
already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let
the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.

~~~
vetinari
That famous German collective guilt kicking in, plus that nice tactics, when
any dissent is being labeled by extreme labels.

You are on the best way to destroy Europe again, do you realize that? The rest
of Europe is not repeating your mistakes, they are not looking for more
Lebensraum and killing Untermenschen, they want to preserve what's theirs. And
you have no right to dictate them what to do.

~~~
ionised
Neither do you.

