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

When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 203 posts

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#81

Post by pas »

tdkl wrote: post #66
icebraining wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problematic migrant situation in Europe is a good example of that. Is it? Are illegal immigrants more likely to cause problems that both natives and legal immigrants? From what I can tell, at least the attacks that make the news have all been perpetrated by people born and raised in Europe. EDIT: http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crim...

Cologne rape happened after this article, so did the massacres in France and Germany.

FYI, those are still just data points. If you extend the timeframe - which naturally we want to - we need to include all the data for the interval.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#82

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

pzh wrote: post #79
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #11

I'm appalled at how many self-described liberals I know who consider themselves to be guardians of civil liberties not bat an eye to these restrictions. The matter of fact is that all the restrictions we put in place with respect to the free movement of peoples -- and the accompanying restrictions around employment, leisure, etc. -- are single-handedly the single biggest breach of human rights in the world. It is abs…

This is a very idealistic goal, but we still have no solution to issues like how the state would balance the books if the population is in constant flux. If the number of contributors suddenly decreases or the number of consumers of social services shoots up, then the state will simply go bankrupt. If you allow total freedom of movement, you're basically creating a system similar to a business where you have zero pre…

In the US you are completely free to move and work in any state you want to (and a geography in the same order of magnitude of all of Europe), and it doesn't seem to cause the mayhem you suggest -- and mind you, most gov't spending takes place at the state and local level.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#83

Post by Symbiote »

mynameislegion wrote: post #43
anovikov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply a replacement of informal barriers with formal ones, plus compensation of the lowering of travel and communication costs due to technology: someone who traveled abroad in the XIXth century was either well-off so he would pass any currently existing barriers easily, or really really needed it so he would do it, too. With international air ticket worth less than a good meal, some other barrier had to be con…

Even in modern times, international air tickets are more expensive and worldwide wages lower than you imagine.

Perhaps, but there are other options -- international bus tickets are pretty cheap. So is the ferry between, for example, Morocco and Spain. Plenty of people could afford this, or have friends/relatives in wealthy countries who could pay for them.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#84

Post by chrischen »

frobozz wrote: post #80
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With international air ticket worth less than a good meal Jesus Christ, where are you getting your lunch from?

Ryanair, I guess. Verona to Brussels is 8 Euros. A "meal deal" on the plane is 10.

Why doesn't the US have such fares?

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#85

Post by zajd »

detritus wrote: post #77
zajd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words like "tone of their culture" are exactly the problem. Can you imagine if you weren't allowed to travel somewhere because of the tone of your culture? Do you enjoy being restricted from travelling to Saudi Arabia because you popped out of the wrong vagina? I'm not from the UK but I can tell you firmly that words like "black culture" are just racist dogwhistles here in the US

Travel, or permanently relocate? There's a distinction - quite massive one. No one gives a hoot about tourists. And I meant with the self-denigration in my post to imply that my own 'culture' has its own tone - as indeed does every culture. It's a question of whether they have the potential to be inter-compatible.

And my point is that compatibility should be measured on an individual basis, not based on where you happened to be born. Assuming that all people from one place share a culture is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#86

Post by lordnacho »

tarancato wrote: post #67
wreft wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People from other societies deserve all these good things too. Uncontrolled immigration may not be the best way to achieve this though.

No they do not deserve anything they and their ancestors haven't worked for. Nobody just "deserves" anything.

> Nobody just "deserves" anything.

A few comments up you're saying the French deserved their stuff because their ancestors worked for it.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#87

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sheepz wrote: post #44
J-dawg wrote: post #29

The UK has obviously seen a lot of debate about immigration recently, around the Brexit referendum. I've often felt like non-EU immigration was the elephant in the room during all this. 'Leave' voters have often been portrayed as racist bigots by liberal 'Remain' voters. (I'm one of the latter, and I've been guilty of this myself at times). But if we extend the same logic to the whole world, isn't the EU basically a…

Please stop using the word 'racist' where it does not apply. The freedom of movement within the EU is definitely not based on race, but on the citizenship of any of the Schengen Area countries. "Xenophobic" is a much better term here. Furthermore, where does it say that the freedom of movement is due to some ideology which considers all nationalities to be equal, rather than just being a policy to improve the welfare…

> "Xenophobic" is a much better term here.

That isn't really right either.

Suppose it was known that if you allowed it, millions of people with a different ideology than you would choose to become citizens of your country, and moreover that they would then enact policies you don't agree with. Typically this argument comes from the right because the currently-disallowed immigrants are low income and would favor leftist policies, but imagine the immigrants are from conservative countries and would vote to e.g. prohibit women from traveling without being accompanied by a male relative.

Is not wanting that really "xenophobic"? There is a difference between hating or fearing someone and just not wanting them to make your decisions for you.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#88

Post by abecedarius »

anovikov wrote: post #33
wtbob wrote: post #26

I'm reminded of this famous piece by A.J.P. Taylor: 'Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He c…

It's simply a replacement of informal barriers with formal ones, plus compensation of the lowering of travel and communication costs due to technology: someone who traveled abroad in the XIXth century was either well-off so he would pass any currently existing barriers easily, or really really needed it so he would do it, too. With international air ticket worth less than a good meal, some other barrier had to be con…

> or really really needed it so he would [pass barriers easily], too

A lot of European Jews in the 1930s were trying and failing to emigrate, in a system pretty much like today's (plus the unusual bonus that their home state wanted them to leave). https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007455

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#89

Post by sheepz »

J-dawg wrote: post #64
maccard wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if we extend the same logic to the whole world, isn't the EU basically a racist organisation? Why should a French, German or Romanian arbitrarily have special rights to enter my country, while an Indian, Mexican or Nigerian is subjected to ever harsher visa rules? Because that right is reciprocated to British people in those countries!

So you're saying the UK would agree to free movement of people from Nigeria, provided that it was reciprocal?

No, but it is not because the UK leaders or people think of Nigerians as somekind of subhumans like you seem to be making it out to be.

It's just that such deal would not be beneficial for Britain, whereas as in Schengen, there are clear benefits.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#90

Post by Symbiote »

frobozz wrote: post #80
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With international air ticket worth less than a good meal Jesus Christ, where are you getting your lunch from?

Ryanair, I guess. Verona to Brussels is 8 Euros. A "meal deal" on the plane is 10.

That's not even the cheapest.

I see Timisoara, Romania to London for £4.49, or US$5.80. That's a 2.5 hour flight!

(No baggage, no food, but that's the real price -- the airlines aren't allowed the "hidden fees" any more.)

See, for example, Ryanair's London Stansted to Anywhere -- and note that a train (£19) or bus (I'd guess about £8-9) from Stansted to London will cost more than some of these fares: https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/cheap-flights/?from=STN&out-fr...

Post reply on HN