
Ask HN: What would the world be without border control? - touchaddict
Longshot, but assuming there&#x27;s no terrorism and people blowing up stuff, how would the world get affected if movement of people across borders was completely unrestricted. You can just take a flight, and go anywhere you wish.<p>What would happen to economies, a state of life of a common citizen for example in India or the US. How would trade get affected? Would Americans have a better&#x2F;cheaper healthcare?<p>I understand that the geographical &#x27;walls&#x27; are built for a reason, but what would happen if they didn&#x27;t exist. Some will complain, and the others will be happy, what would the net effect?<p>Any books&#x2F;pointers to understand this would be helpful.
======
eesmith
Look at Europe pre-WWI. Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#History):

> A rapid expansion of railway infrastructure and wealth in Europe beginning
> in the mid-nineteenth century led to large increases in the volume of
> international travel and a consequent unique dilution of the passport system
> for approximately thirty years prior to World War I. The speed of trains, as
> well as the number of passengers that crossed multiple borders, made
> enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the
> relaxation of passport requirements.[10] In the later part of the nineteenth
> century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole,
> for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively
> straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held
> passports.

> During World War I, European governments introduced border passport
> requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of people
> with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming
> a standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s
> complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions,
> which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanization".

For what it's worth, "Uniquely, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard is an
entirely visa-free zone. Everybody may live and work in Svalbard indefinitely
regardless of country of citizenship. The Svalbard Treaty grants treaty
nationals equal right of abode as Norwegian nationals. Non-treaty nationals
may live and work indefinitely visa-free as well." ... ""In the past,
immigrants who have been refused a visa for mainland Norway have moved to
Longyearbyen, lived there for seven years and been awarded Norwegian
citizenship."" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard)

------
angersock
One of the oldest criteria of being a real state is the ability to control who
enters and leaves your territory.

Unrestricted border control is basically giving up nationhood, and that's not
done lightly.

Imagine if a regiment of armed Russians decided to "travel" into, say, Poland
for a "holiday jaunt". That's unacceptable. Similarly, having lots of
Americans deciding to move into Canada would be violating their sovereignty.

It's really weird that this is something a lot of folks these days have
trouble with.

