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

Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

thenation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 270 posts

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#71

Post by raphaelj »

DVassallo wrote: post #64
nostrademons wrote: post #15

Antarctica too: if you can get there, you can step onto the ice. There's a pattern here: the only places with open borders are places where you wouldn't really want to live anyway, while the places with the strictest border controls are often those that are quite desirable.

Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Netherlands are some of the most prosperous countries in the world, and they have an open border with 28 other countries — some of which can be easily classified as very poor and undesirable places.

None of the 28 EU countries can be classified as poor, let alone very poor ...

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#72

Post by univalent »

I took the ferry from Dublin to Wales while on vacation. We collected all our passports once the ferry docked and we went to our car preparing for the immigration officers, police etc. There was no one. Literally. We only saw sheep for the first 10 miles or so after driving off the boat.

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#73

Post by rayiner »

triceratops wrote: post #69
rayiner wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dramatically overestimate how much of an economic difference there is between MD and WV: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAI... . Adjusting for purchasing power, the difference in median income is just 10%. It’s like the difference between Belgium and Australia. On the flip side, there is actually quite a difference between states like New York (second poorest in the US) and Virginia. And…

> New York (second poorest in the US) On what basis? It ranks 15th for median household income.

Median income adjusted for cost of living (which is the usual way of comparing income between countries).

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#74

Post by diminoten »

mieseratte wrote: post #63
diminoten wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US. Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how w…

> That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. The articles you cite are specific to legal immigrants. > Finally, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? The nation-state exists in service of its citizens, not the wider world. > despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the…

...I don't think you understand what an open border means, and if you're getting hung up on the "legality" of it, an open border would literally make immigration legal. If you have no argument against legal immigration, then you have no argument against an open border, as it changes the policy, making immigration generally legal in its various forms.

Further, a nation-state's service to its people is a geographic and societal one. Once more people enter into the geographic area and participate in the society governed by the state, those people become its citizens, in every relevant sense. Additionally, you are admitting to agreeing with the idea that "Americans are more deserving humans to non-Americans" and that is xenophobic, literally the textbook definition.

It's funny to me that you think the Wikipedia article titled, "The Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration" is about legal immigrants.

Open borders is not a "free for all", and I hate to break this to you, but our lower rungs already do fend for themselves. Allowing more immigrants into this country would in no way further their dire straits, and in many ways it'd likely help them, as a larger poor population would increase votes for programs and infrastructure to support poor people.

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#75

Post by DVassallo »

raphaelj wrote: post #71
DVassallo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Netherlands are some of the most prosperous countries in the world, and they have an open border with 28 other countries — some of which can be easily classified as very poor and undesirable places.

None of the 28 EU countries can be classified as poor, let alone very poor ...

I should have added, "relative to those countries".

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

triceratops wrote: post #69
rayiner wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dramatically overestimate how much of an economic difference there is between MD and WV: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAI... . Adjusting for purchasing power, the difference in median income is just 10%. It’s like the difference between Belgium and Australia. On the flip side, there is actually quite a difference between states like New York (second poorest in the US) and Virginia. And…

> New York (second poorest in the US) On what basis? It ranks 15th for median household income.

> > New York (second poorest in the US)

> On what basis?

Probably the same basis by which California is the poorest: statewide cost-of-living adjusted poverty line.

There's a number of ways this measure is potebtially misleading; for instance, both New York and California are diverse states where the local cost of living varies considerably, and the numbers for any CoL adjusted measure would look very different if instead of a statewide CoL you used, say, county CoL based on residence and then aggregated the statewide numbers.

But using this or other statewide CoL-based metrics does get at something that mean or median income or measuring against the even less relevant national poverty line does not.

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#77

Post by bsaul »

"As climate change renders the rest of the planet as hostile to human life as the far north, we too must make the choice between throwing up walls and letting them down"

Is this really the general conclusion about the cause why people want to emigrate to "developped" countries (the "we" in the citation) ? climat change ?

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#78

Post by fwip »

cojxd wrote: post #4

>The Dream of Open Borders Is Real—in the High Arctic For whom is open borders a dream?

If you believe in America's founders, you should believe in open borders.

America's foundational documents are based on the the social contract theory of Hobbes & Locke - they differ on some aspects, but largely agree that governments are formed to elevate people from the State of Nature - we enter into a social contract to elevate ourselves.

But people nowadays don't form governments - and very few have much influence over the government in which they live. If you are born into a country, you are subject to the governance of that country.

By restricting the right of people to relocate to new governments, we deny them the ability to meaningfully assent to the social contract in which they live. If I'm born in a "shithole country" and I don't like it, tough luck. I gotta roll the dice to see if I get accepted for immigration in countries whose social contracts and mores I do agree with. I've never agreed to the social contract under which I am forced to live.

The conservative view on borders is based on fear - the desire to protect the in-group from the out-group. Despite their objections, it is in direct opposition to the foundational ideals of this country.

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#79

Post by luckylion »

gattilorenz wrote: post #56
luckylion wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to other European countries before Schengen? I keep hearing how much easier it is now that you don't need your passport for travelling in Europe. I've traveled quite a bit before Schengen and the Euro went into effect, and I've never spent more than five minutes at a European border, and rarely more than five minutes exchanging currency. Granted, it's easier to know that they are robbing you at some tou…

That's for traveling, and the same currency is quite nice, especially when visiting multiple places in one trip. But the possibility of moving permanently (or to study at the university) to another country without needing a visa, well, that 's a game changer. Not to mention the agreements between European countries (e.g. If you move, there's no need to change your driving license)

> But the possibility of moving permanently (or to study at the university) to another country without needing a visa, well, that's a game changer.

Is it though? I mean it's sure helpful if that's what you want to do, but it's not like that was impossible before. Given that relatively few people make use of it (relative to the population) it seems to be a small win, easing the bureaucratic process for a small number of citizens (that, I suppose, in Western Europe are generally wealthier than the average, and wouldn't exactly have to jump through hoops before).

Re: Svalbard is as close as you can get to a place with open borders

#80

Post by refurb »

cojxd wrote: post #33
finnjohnsen2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a dream. There is something about our luck of being born in a good and wealthy place; then close it off, hence punishing people because they happen to be born in shitty place.

The fact that our countries are good and wealthy is not a matter of luck though.

Not sure why this is downvoted.

A good example are the capitalist versus communist countries.

Two sets of countries making different choices and ending up with different results.

Post reply on HN