11 ms·

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

110 points by infodroid 10y ago

jstanley 10y ago
A large majority of people view me as a crackpot when I say passports should be abolished, and free men ought to be able to travel the planet freely. It never occurred to me that the world was like this as recently as 100 years ago!
- CalRobert 10y ago
  I suspect it has a lot to do with the rise of relatively cheap global travel and strong disparity in the median wealth of different nations. 100+ years ago could you travel from a poor country to a wealthy country with relative ease and expect to raise your own standard of living? Either the journey was expensive and arduous, or the situation in places you could travel to was not likely to be a massive improvement on your own. There are very strong exceptions of course; Irish people leaving the famine come to mind, but it pretty much came to people dying to push them to make the trip. Also, 100+ years ago an immigrant was less likely to be viewed as a burden, because there were fewer (if any) government supports for regular citizens. I'm pretty left politically, but I acknowledge that the more government spends on its people the less likely the government (and the voters) are to be inclined to let newcomers in who are not immediate contributors.
  - jrockway 10y ago
    States in the US have different laws (consider income tax rates), and travel inside the US is super cheap, but we don't see people migrating like crazy to avoid taxes or get free stuff from the government.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > we don't see people migrating like crazy Yes we do! How many people do you know who were born in the state you now live in? I don't think one person in my office was born in this state.
      - oconnor663 10y ago
        I think "to avoid taxes or get free stuff from the government" was an essential condition on what you just quoted. And for what it's worth I think I agree -- I don't think I know anyone who has moved to a state mainly for tax reasons. (Though I do know people who have avoided moving to California, allegedly because of taxes.) Though maybe the fact that people can move to take advantage of state giveaways, is a big constraint on the way they're currently designed? What conditions does Alaska put on its Permanent Fund payments?
      - NhanH 10y ago
        Actually we have stats on that! http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-fa... 50% of American live their life within 18 miles of their hometown. 80% live within 370miles (that's half the length of CA for comparison).
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      People change states all the time, and generally for reasons you might think. It's not so much "I want to lower my tax burden" but "my paycheck will be higher and my housing costs lower - and the schools are better!", which of course is often related to tax policy.
  - ed8 10y ago
    I beg to differ with your last argument, France and USA have really different approach in how they support citizens, yet both are currently really opposed to let newcomers enter their borders. I think one problem is like you said, the huge improvement in ones' situation when moving to a new country. Why is there such a big difference ? Why money is concentrated in so little space and groups of people?
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      France and the US, while different, both offer far better supports to their people than most of the world enjoys. Social security, free public schooling (admittedly of dubious quality), physical security, etc.
  - rjsw 10y ago
    There can be problems even if the newcomers can contribute immediately if they make it harder for existing citizens to contribute themselves.
  - jfoster 10y ago
    I would also guess that 100 years ago people in poorer countries were also a lot less aware of which places might be better, and how to get to them.
- kaybe 10y ago
  Free people please, the other 50% want to travel too..
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Another issue, I suppose, is that if you've built yourself a population-stable enclave where the prevailing values match those you think are best, you will be understandably hesitant at permitting large influxes of people with different value systems. For instance, say you've built a society that is ecologically sustainable and the birth rate is equal to the maintenance rate. Will you be pleased when the nation next door where people have far more children despite knowing the Earth is well over carrying capacity sends you its people during famine?
- visarga 10y ago
  Nowadays, travel is much more efficient. Therefore, we have to artificially make it difficult, otherwise large migrations will occur. Suppose you are on a ship carrying a thousand people. If all people want to go to the left side then there's a big chance the ship will sink. Passengers are free but there must be some limitations to what they can all decide on total.
- SilasX 10y ago
  A hundred years ago it was much more expensive to travel, and governments less forgiving about cultural differences when enforcing local laws against immigrants. That doesn't mean it would be a sane policy today. To put it another way, would you be okay with the entire Chinese army "immigrating" in preparation for an attack, as long as they all represented themselves as private citizens during the trip? If not, then you agree with immigration restrictions in principle, "and we're just haggling over the price".
Havoc 10y ago
I'm fine with the controls part, but can't we at least get rid of the paper documents? People just lose them anyway. Surely a combination of say retina + finger + voice etc would provide more security than could ever be needed...
- fijal 10y ago
  I think the whole point of the article is to showcase that maybe you don't NEED all this additional security. I purposefuly try to avoid going to the US because of the security and bureaucracy involved in crossing this border in the first place
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    In particular because the number one cause of illegal immigration in the US is visa overstaying. So how exactly are the passports or visas helping that case?
- open-source-ux 10y ago
  "Surely a combination of say retina + finger + voice etc would provide more security than could ever be needed..." How would this data be held and who would see it or have access to it? The privacy implications would be enormous. Ironically, many European countries already issue biometric passports that require you to provide your fingerprints before the passport is issued. But maybe it doesn't really matter - you already provide so much of your personal details when you travel to another country.
  - Havoc 10y ago
    >How would this data be held and who would see it or have access to it? Same way as its currently held - by the various governments with (limited) agreements in place to to check each other's databases. Its not that big a leap to have a unified system in place I think. Or at least starting with the 1st world countries. Not a fan of big government, but this is an area where I think streamlining things would help. >European countries already issue biometric passports that require you to provide your fingerprints Yeah got one of those. The fingerprints aren't actively used at borders though - just facial recognition.
the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
Passports and citizenship in many ways are the most unfair thing in the world as your place of birth influences what you can do in life. For many of us the idea of having a bad passport is only theoretical in nature but it decides many things in life for others and sets stupid arbitrary ceilings that should not exist.
- bisRepetita 10y ago
  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/25fps/a/00_36 http://www.cswap.com/2004/Chris_Rock:_Never_Scared/cap/en/25...
  - tarancato 10y ago
    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?
    - wreft 10y ago
      People from other societies deserve all these good things too. Uncontrolled immigration may not be the best way to achieve this though.
      - tarancato 10y ago
        No they do not deserve anything they and their ancestors haven't worked for. Nobody just "deserves" anything.
ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
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 absolutely inexcusable that any person should "defend" any policy short of complete and total freedom of movement. I think this is the one thing that I believe in most strongly in all of my life -- I am confident that in the future -- perhaps many, many centuries from now -- we will look at these things with the same eyes with which we look at slavery in the past.
- refriedbeans3 10y ago
  There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Humans are individuals, individuals form into groups, and those groups when large and cohesive enough form into societies, civilizations, and now nation states. If those groups are to exist as a "group" they require these shared norms, values, culture to remain a viable group. If part of that culture is to exclude outsiders on the area of land on this earth that they control, then who is one individual or many individuals to say that this is invalid? This presents a lot of opportunity for places like the United States where immigration and freedom of movement is more accepted - so you get more immigration and more growth. But that is something citizens of the US have decided, not external actors.
  - kristofferR 10y ago
    > There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies No human rights are innate though, they're all man made.
  - morgante 10y ago
    > There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.) Without governments, there is no impedance to freedom of movement. This isn't merely theoretical: as governments have become stronger and their reach extended across the globe, the ability to move freely has correspondingly decreased.
danidiaz 10y ago
In his book "Abroad: British Literary Traveling between the Wars" [1] historian Paul Fussell devotes a whole chapter to "The Passport Nuisance": > As a fixture of the european scene since 1915, the passport now seems so natural that one forgets the shock and scandal it once occasioned. Robert Byron is one who treated his with a due contempt. In the space asking about "Any special peculiarities," he entered "Of Melancholy appearance," and in the square reserved for a photograph of bearer's wife he drew a ludicrous cartoon, "resulting," Anthory Powell recalls, "in the document being withdrawn." [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154471.Abroad https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154471.Abroad
insickness 10y ago
This discussion is synonymous with whether countries should even have borders. If borders aren't policed, they may as well not even exist. It would be great if all people were kind and caring, if there were no corruption, war, terrorism, religious fanaticism, crime or discrepancies in standards of living. But we've seen over and over that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problematic migrant situation in Europe is a good example of that.
- icebraining 10y ago
  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-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890 http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crim...
  - zajd 10y ago
    Well you have to understand that when white Europeans complain about "immigrants" what they really mean is "brown people". It's 2016 baby, thinly veiled racism is the name of the game. edit. I'm sure with these downvotes someone will come answer your question... lol
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      I don't know if that's entirely fair, the pro-Brexit people had strong opinions about Poles and Italians too.
      - zajd 10y ago
        Eh the pro-brexit people probably feel they're brown anyways.
        10y ago
wtbob 10y ago
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 could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.' It's hard to believe how much we've given up.
- anovikov 10y ago
  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 constructed or all modern nations would be quickly razed by influx of billions destitute immigrants.
  - mynameislegion 10y ago
    Even in modern times, international air tickets are more expensive and worldwide wages lower than you imagine.
    - Symbiote 10y ago
      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.
      - goblin89 10y ago
J-dawg 10y ago
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 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? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's possible to make the liberal case for EU freedom of movement without being something of a hypocrite. And I say this as a (confused) Remain voter. EDIT: Before anyone says, I know there is more to the EU debate than just immigration, and that not all Remainers are liberal/lefty, just as Leavers are not all right wing. But there's no denying that immigration was the main issue on many (most?) voters minds.
- sheepz 10y ago
  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 and trade between EU members?
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    You're right, I don't think EU freedom of movement is based on ideology. But it was definitely used as an ideological argument by both sides during the Brexit debate.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > "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.
zajd 10y ago
Yeah I really wish we could go back to the time where children of aristocrats were the only ones who could afford to travel, influenza was murdering percentages of the human popluation and most black people were second class citizens. -a sensible, law abiding (white upper-middle class) Englishman Really a shame we've given it all up. edit. Wow I am loving this thread, these immigration threads bring out the best parts of HN community. Sorry I'm not holding a candlelight vigil for the loss of "White Europe"
- slovette 10y ago
  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 comes with that. As technological advancement makes access easier, the need to control that access becomes more important. An obvious recent tale of similarities is the internet.
  - zajd 10y ago
    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 out on it. I don't mind being downvoted, I honestly find it amusing that if you say something wrong, people will respond. Say something wrong they don't like, people attack you. Say something right that people don't like? They downvote silently. If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? TLDR I'll save my effort trying change hearts and minds for when it's worth it.
    - beowulf_cluster 10y ago
wodenokoto 10y ago
>But delegates ultimately decided that a return to a >passport-free world could only happen alongside a return to >the global conditions that prevailed before the start of >the first world war. I wish the article was more detailed about what was/is considered changed in the global condition.
zwieback 10y ago
When I read Dickens I'm always surprised how citizens could get locked out of their own city walls at night or would bribe the watchman to "forget" that they've seen the villain or hero pass the gate. I think in the past there were much more restrictive laws in place at times, other times maybe more lax.

110 points by infodroid 10y ago

A large majority of people view me as a crackpot when I say passports should be abolished, and free men ought to be able to travel the planet freely. It never occurred to me that the world was like this as recently as 100 years ago!

CalRobert 10y ago
I suspect it has a lot to do with the rise of relatively cheap global travel and strong disparity in the median wealth of different nations. 100+ years ago could you travel from a poor country to a wealthy country with relative ease and expect to raise your own standard of living? Either the journey was expensive and arduous, or the situation in places you could travel to was not likely to be a massive improvement on your own. There are very strong exceptions of course; Irish people leaving the famine come to mind, but it pretty much came to people dying to push them to make the trip. Also, 100+ years ago an immigrant was less likely to be viewed as a burden, because there were fewer (if any) government supports for regular citizens. I'm pretty left politically, but I acknowledge that the more government spends on its people the less likely the government (and the voters) are to be inclined to let newcomers in who are not immediate contributors.
- jrockway 10y ago
  States in the US have different laws (consider income tax rates), and travel inside the US is super cheap, but we don't see people migrating like crazy to avoid taxes or get free stuff from the government.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > we don't see people migrating like crazy Yes we do! How many people do you know who were born in the state you now live in? I don't think one person in my office was born in this state.
    - oconnor663 10y ago
      I think "to avoid taxes or get free stuff from the government" was an essential condition on what you just quoted. And for what it's worth I think I agree -- I don't think I know anyone who has moved to a state mainly for tax reasons. (Though I do know people who have avoided moving to California, allegedly because of taxes.) Though maybe the fact that people can move to take advantage of state giveaways, is a big constraint on the way they're currently designed? What conditions does Alaska put on its Permanent Fund payments?
    - NhanH 10y ago
      Actually we have stats on that! http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-fa... 50% of American live their life within 18 miles of their hometown. 80% live within 370miles (that's half the length of CA for comparison).
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    People change states all the time, and generally for reasons you might think. It's not so much "I want to lower my tax burden" but "my paycheck will be higher and my housing costs lower - and the schools are better!", which of course is often related to tax policy.
- ed8 10y ago
  I beg to differ with your last argument, France and USA have really different approach in how they support citizens, yet both are currently really opposed to let newcomers enter their borders. I think one problem is like you said, the huge improvement in ones' situation when moving to a new country. Why is there such a big difference ? Why money is concentrated in so little space and groups of people?
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    France and the US, while different, both offer far better supports to their people than most of the world enjoys. Social security, free public schooling (admittedly of dubious quality), physical security, etc.
- rjsw 10y ago
  There can be problems even if the newcomers can contribute immediately if they make it harder for existing citizens to contribute themselves.
- jfoster 10y ago
  I would also guess that 100 years ago people in poorer countries were also a lot less aware of which places might be better, and how to get to them.
kaybe 10y ago
Free people please, the other 50% want to travel too..
CalRobert 10y ago
Another issue, I suppose, is that if you've built yourself a population-stable enclave where the prevailing values match those you think are best, you will be understandably hesitant at permitting large influxes of people with different value systems. For instance, say you've built a society that is ecologically sustainable and the birth rate is equal to the maintenance rate. Will you be pleased when the nation next door where people have far more children despite knowing the Earth is well over carrying capacity sends you its people during famine?
visarga 10y ago
Nowadays, travel is much more efficient. Therefore, we have to artificially make it difficult, otherwise large migrations will occur. Suppose you are on a ship carrying a thousand people. If all people want to go to the left side then there's a big chance the ship will sink. Passengers are free but there must be some limitations to what they can all decide on total.
SilasX 10y ago
A hundred years ago it was much more expensive to travel, and governments less forgiving about cultural differences when enforcing local laws against immigrants. That doesn't mean it would be a sane policy today. To put it another way, would you be okay with the entire Chinese army "immigrating" in preparation for an attack, as long as they all represented themselves as private citizens during the trip? If not, then you agree with immigration restrictions in principle, "and we're just haggling over the price".

Havoc 10y ago

I'm fine with the controls part, but can't we at least get rid of the paper documents? People just lose them anyway. Surely a combination of say retina + finger + voice etc would provide more security than could ever be needed...

fijal 10y ago
I think the whole point of the article is to showcase that maybe you don't NEED all this additional security. I purposefuly try to avoid going to the US because of the security and bureaucracy involved in crossing this border in the first place
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  In particular because the number one cause of illegal immigration in the US is visa overstaying. So how exactly are the passports or visas helping that case?
open-source-ux 10y ago
"Surely a combination of say retina + finger + voice etc would provide more security than could ever be needed..." How would this data be held and who would see it or have access to it? The privacy implications would be enormous. Ironically, many European countries already issue biometric passports that require you to provide your fingerprints before the passport is issued. But maybe it doesn't really matter - you already provide so much of your personal details when you travel to another country.
- Havoc 10y ago
  >How would this data be held and who would see it or have access to it? Same way as its currently held - by the various governments with (limited) agreements in place to to check each other's databases. Its not that big a leap to have a unified system in place I think. Or at least starting with the 1st world countries. Not a fan of big government, but this is an area where I think streamlining things would help. >European countries already issue biometric passports that require you to provide your fingerprints Yeah got one of those. The fingerprints aren't actively used at borders though - just facial recognition.

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

Passports and citizenship in many ways are the most unfair thing in the world as your place of birth influences what you can do in life. For many of us the idea of having a bad passport is only theoretical in nature but it decides many things in life for others and sets stupid arbitrary ceilings that should not exist.

bisRepetita 10y ago
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/25fps/a/00_36 http://www.cswap.com/2004/Chris_Rock:_Never_Scared/cap/en/25...
- tarancato 10y ago
  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?
  - wreft 10y ago
    People from other societies deserve all these good things too. Uncontrolled immigration may not be the best way to achieve this though.
    - tarancato 10y ago
      No they do not deserve anything they and their ancestors haven't worked for. Nobody just "deserves" anything.

ChicagoBoy11 10y ago

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 absolutely inexcusable that any person should "defend" any policy short of complete and total freedom of movement. I think this is the one thing that I believe in most strongly in all of my life -- I am confident that in the future -- perhaps many, many centuries from now -- we will look at these things with the same eyes with which we look at slavery in the past.

refriedbeans3 10y ago
There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Humans are individuals, individuals form into groups, and those groups when large and cohesive enough form into societies, civilizations, and now nation states. If those groups are to exist as a "group" they require these shared norms, values, culture to remain a viable group. If part of that culture is to exclude outsiders on the area of land on this earth that they control, then who is one individual or many individuals to say that this is invalid? This presents a lot of opportunity for places like the United States where immigration and freedom of movement is more accepted - so you get more immigration and more growth. But that is something citizens of the US have decided, not external actors.
- kristofferR 10y ago
  > There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies No human rights are innate though, they're all man made.
- morgante 10y ago
  > There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.) Without governments, there is no impedance to freedom of movement. This isn't merely theoretical: as governments have become stronger and their reach extended across the globe, the ability to move freely has correspondingly decreased.

danidiaz 10y ago

In his book "Abroad: British Literary Traveling between the Wars" [1] historian Paul Fussell devotes a whole chapter to "The Passport Nuisance": > As a fixture of the european scene since 1915, the passport now seems so natural that one forgets the shock and scandal it once occasioned. Robert Byron is one who treated his with a due contempt. In the space asking about "Any special peculiarities," he entered "Of Melancholy appearance," and in the square reserved for a photograph of bearer's wife he drew a ludicrous cartoon, "resulting," Anthory Powell recalls, "in the document being withdrawn." [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154471.Abroad https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154471.Abroad

insickness 10y ago

This discussion is synonymous with whether countries should even have borders. If borders aren't policed, they may as well not even exist. It would be great if all people were kind and caring, if there were no corruption, war, terrorism, religious fanaticism, crime or discrepancies in standards of living. But we've seen over and over that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problematic migrant situation in Europe is a good example of that.

icebraining 10y ago
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-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890 http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crim...
- zajd 10y ago
  Well you have to understand that when white Europeans complain about "immigrants" what they really mean is "brown people". It's 2016 baby, thinly veiled racism is the name of the game. edit. I'm sure with these downvotes someone will come answer your question... lol
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    I don't know if that's entirely fair, the pro-Brexit people had strong opinions about Poles and Italians too.
    - zajd 10y ago
      Eh the pro-brexit people probably feel they're brown anyways.
      - 10y ago

wtbob 10y ago

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 could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.' It's hard to believe how much we've given up.

anovikov 10y ago
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 constructed or all modern nations would be quickly razed by influx of billions destitute immigrants.
- mynameislegion 10y ago
  Even in modern times, international air tickets are more expensive and worldwide wages lower than you imagine.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    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.
    - goblin89 10y ago

J-dawg 10y ago

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 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? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's possible to make the liberal case for EU freedom of movement without being something of a hypocrite. And I say this as a (confused) Remain voter. EDIT: Before anyone says, I know there is more to the EU debate than just immigration, and that not all Remainers are liberal/lefty, just as Leavers are not all right wing. But there's no denying that immigration was the main issue on many (most?) voters minds.

sheepz 10y ago
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 and trade between EU members?
- J-dawg 10y ago
  You're right, I don't think EU freedom of movement is based on ideology. But it was definitely used as an ideological argument by both sides during the Brexit debate.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > "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.

zajd 10y ago

Yeah I really wish we could go back to the time where children of aristocrats were the only ones who could afford to travel, influenza was murdering percentages of the human popluation and most black people were second class citizens. -a sensible, law abiding (white upper-middle class) Englishman Really a shame we've given it all up. edit. Wow I am loving this thread, these immigration threads bring out the best parts of HN community. Sorry I'm not holding a candlelight vigil for the loss of "White Europe"

slovette 10y ago
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 comes with that. As technological advancement makes access easier, the need to control that access becomes more important. An obvious recent tale of similarities is the internet.
- zajd 10y ago
  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 out on it. I don't mind being downvoted, I honestly find it amusing that if you say something wrong, people will respond. Say something wrong they don't like, people attack you. Say something right that people don't like? They downvote silently. If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? TLDR I'll save my effort trying change hearts and minds for when it's worth it.
  - beowulf_cluster 10y ago

wodenokoto 10y ago

>But delegates ultimately decided that a return to a >passport-free world could only happen alongside a return to >the global conditions that prevailed before the start of >the first world war. I wish the article was more detailed about what was/is considered changed in the global condition.

zwieback 10y ago

When I read Dickens I'm always surprised how citizens could get locked out of their own city walls at night or would bribe the watchman to "forget" that they've seen the villain or hero pass the gate. I think in the past there were much more restrictive laws in place at times, other times maybe more lax.