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

91–100 of 203 posts

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

#91

Post by Houshalter »

jfoster wrote: post #52
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…

That said, I think it's worth pointing out that in 1914, the means to travel didn't exist as it does today. We've given up some freedom but made gains on capability.

But the artificial barriers we've put up are much more restrictive than the old barriers. Perhaps we should make an immigration tax, and anyone can enter if they are willing to pay $10,000. Or some arbitrarily high, but feasible, amount.

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

#92

Post by pzh »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #82
pzh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you always pay taxes at the federal level, which distributes some of that income to states. Also the individual states have the mechanism to recover taxes you owe them from previous years and to pursue you for whatever violations you have committed. Additionally, state residence does exist as a concept and it is tracked in the form of state ids. It's true there are no borders but you are required to register where you live, you pay more tuition to state unis if you're not a resident of the state, etc. Just because there are no borders doesn't mean there's no control.

You can't really compare the US state system to different countries that are openly hostile or may not even talk to each other (e.g. US and Russia, or US and North Korea) and expect to have the legal cooperation that could enable freedom of movement.

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

#93

Post by grecy »

tarancato wrote: post #59
bisRepetita wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that Chris Rock has the best summary of it with his "I'm American" routine: "What, you think you’re better than somebody from France ’cause you came out of a pussy in Detroit?" Nothing specifically American about it though. Many people in France think they're better than Syrian refugees because they're born from a pussy in Paris. Full transcript: http://www.cswap.com/2004/Chris_Rock:_Never_Scared/cap/en/25...

The ancestors of that pussy in Paris built an advanced society with equal rights, education, respect, etc. That's why people born from a French pussy deserve that, while people from other societies do not. Is it our fault that other people that have had the same hundreds of years to build advanced societies haven't done it? Do we have to literally live worse because of it?

> Is it our fault that other people that have had the same hundreds of years to build advanced societies haven't done it?

For tens of millions of people that were conquered by, or had democratically elected leaders overthrown by, or had their economies crippled by (US, UK, Russia)

Yes. It is our fault.

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

#94

Post by detritus »

zajd wrote: post #85
detritus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't already? And if it's not by individual reckoning, what construct from upon ahigh would you suggest be instituted to make these decisions en-masse, outwith local consensus?

All people from one place do generally share a culture, generally speaking - sure, any atomisation of said generalisation will throw up exceptions, but that doesn't make the generality any less valid in its local context.

We're monkeys - somewhat illogical meatsacks bound to our nature and emotions - not robots able to rewrite our own truths to fit some other's sense of hyper-morality.

Sorry, that's not reality.

- ed

Cripes that was a garbled response. Sorry - long weekend..

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

#95

Post by icebraining »

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.

Which of the massacres were perpetrated by refugees or illegal immigrants?

The Nice attack was made by a legal immigrant, living in France for more than a decade. The Brussels ISIL cell members were almost all born in Belgium, France or Sweden. The Charlie Hebdo shooters were born in France, as was the guy who took those hostages in the supermarket. The Munich shooter was born in Germany.

Which ones am I missing?

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

#96

Post by beowulf_cluster »

zajd wrote: post #73
slovette wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being downvoted for your point. You're being downvoted for not contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way and being sarcastic (the poor man's whit). Say something more like: Today the aggregate amount of people that can travel massive distances is much greater than it was before. No longer are a few thousand migrants traveling through a country every year, today it's literally millions. Control c…

It's the internet. I'm not writing to change minds, I'm writing pretty much to the audience that already agrees with me. Nobody thinks we're going to have a productive discussion about race in the HN comments, way better to just point out the hypocrisy and move on. Truth of the matter is the comments that are most relevant get floated to the top and if someone's gonna say some ignorant shit they ought to be called ou…

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable?

Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain from posting in the first place?

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

#97

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

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…

Add "Belorussian" or "Ukrainian" to the list and your "racism" argument goes out of the window.

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

#98

Post by zajd »

beowulf_cluster wrote: post #96
zajd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the internet. I'm not writing to change minds, I'm writing pretty much to the audience that already agrees with me. Nobody thinks we're going to have a productive discussion about race in the HN comments, way better to just point out the hypocrisy and move on. Truth of the matter is the comments that are most relevant get floated to the top and if someone's gonna say some ignorant shit they ought to be called ou…

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain fr…

Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community"

Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.

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

#99

Post by Symbiote »

chrischen wrote: post #84
frobozz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

These fares do require decent flexibility -- for tourist destinations, you won't be leaving on a Friday and returning on Sunday. The £4.49 flight between London and Romania is on a Wednesday, on a Friday it's £60-70.

Ryanair use the low fares for marketing, pretty successfully. They probably expect many people to add luggage (£10-40, depending on route), or buy food on the plane (£10+) or be disorganized and end up paying more.

In Western/Northern Europe they use out-of-the-way airports -- London Stansted is 47 minutes by the fastest train from London, or over an hour by car. They have a reputation for reducing the fees they pay the airport by threatening to move to alternative airports, unless they're given a very good deal. People walk to the plane, they don't use jet bridges. The whole plane is economy class, and the seats plasticy-fake-leather, which must speed up cleaning. At airports, they'll usually use the worst (farthest) gates. All the planes are the same, so maintenance is simplified and pilots easily moved around.

As to why the US doesn't have them -- I don't know. Norwegian is a budget airline, and has fares like New York to Paris for $175 one way (Tuesday, no luggage, no food!).

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

#100

Post by zajd »

detritus wrote: post #94
zajd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't already? And if it's not by individual reckoning, what construct from upon ahigh would you suggest be instituted to make these decisions en-masse, outwith local consensus? All people from one place do generally share a culture, generally speaking - sure, any atomisation of said generalisation will throw up exceptions, but that doesn't make the generality any less valid in its local context. We're monkeys - s…

>All people from one place do generally share a culture, generally speaking - sure, any atomisation of said generalisation will throw up exceptions, but that doesn't make the generality any less valid in its local context.

How is this any different from

>All people from one race do generally share a culture, generally speaking - sure, any atomisation of said generalisation will throw up exceptions, but that doesn't make the generality any less valid in its local context.

Acting based on stereotypes of what someone who's born in a country may more or may not be is not only unethical, but stupid.

Look, I'm not saying citizenship or where you live shouldn't be a factor at all, I'm saying they should be near the bottom. In essence, the questions should be more "what have you done, what do you want to do, how will immigrating here help advance society?" and less "which country were you born in? how much money can you contribute?" which seems to be the way things work now.

Post reply on HN