Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#21

Post by vetinari »

joeclark77 wrote: post #15

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 di…

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

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #20
mc32 wrote: post #7

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 i…

>> "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 peopl…

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

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#25

Post by pgeorgi »

vetinari wrote: post #18
aianus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> 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.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#26

Post by 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. )

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#28

Post by 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.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#29

Post by Asbostos »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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 peopl…

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

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.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#30

Post by charlesism »

mahyarm wrote: post #11

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 para…

"Strong borders came with the welfare state"

I don't know what what you mean by "strong borders" but I can't think of any likely interpretation where I could agree with your statement. I'd say centralization of power, and the advancement of technology, have more relevance.

Post reply on HN