6 ms·

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

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.
      - detritus 10y ago
        Based on what - your own prejudice? I think people in Britain, and indeed many 'white' countries, are less bothered by the colour of one's skin than the tone of their culture and intent behind their immigrating. If you're not coming here to integrate, but just coming for money and with no thought of being part of my culture, why on Earth would I joyously welcome you? What would be said if I were to move to somewhere like the middle east and insist upon being a cider-swilling yob? . Disclaimer: My partner is Italian and I'm a cider-swilling British yob. Well, a bit of a boor at least.
        zajd 10y ago
        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
        detritus 10y ago
        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.
        zajd 10y ago
        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.
        detritus 10y ago
        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..
- tdkl 10y ago
  Cologne rape happened after this article, so did the massacres in France and Germany.
  - pas 10y ago
    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.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    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?
    - pzh 10y ago
      Born in France doesn't mean socially and culturally integrated. Many of these attackers were children of immigrants who either didn't integrate because of their own cultural beliefs or because the host society didn't provide the necessary conditions. Whatever the reason, these people didn't feel like they belong to the host societies and radicalized. If anything, these attacks are examples of unsuccessful integration and of the failures of free movement and immigration of people of radically different cultural beliefs, and not the other way around.
someguydave 10y ago
Indeed. I would be fine with "open borders" as long as every subsidy and welfare program is eliminated. It is unfair for people to have free stuff from the local government just because they happen to have been born there.
- zajd 10y ago
  Would you be ok if every local government was required to provide welfare programs and subsidies to their population? Seems "fair".
  - someguydave 10y ago
    Sure zajd, sounds great. The US should make a welfare /subsidy rule for the entire world. Since lots of backwards reactionaries will resist it will likely take force and war to annex unruly lands and enforce this law. Let's call the program COMINTERN for old time's sake.
    - zajd 10y ago
      It's almost as if "fairness" isn't something we should be concerned about when it comes to immigration. Almost as if... people don't have that much control over their government and should probably be treated as individuals as opposed to a "immigrant from X"
sheepz 10y ago
One of the few sane posts here that is considering the realities of "the borderless world". There are reasons why countries all over the world have immigration policies. Each country is interested in immigration that serves its interests, and the leaders are well aware of the negative consequences of unrestricted immigration. The experiments with this like the Schengen Area might not survive the consequences in the coming future. Most people here seem to blinded by some liberal pipe-dream.
- oconnor663 10y ago
  > Each country is interested in immigration that serves its interests A lot of immigration policies only serve the interest of a particular group or a particular industry. I don't know how to make an objective count on either side though.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
JadeNB 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. Is this an argument against the discussion? That (whether countries should even have borders) seems like a reasonable question to ask. Nonetheless, borders seem to have existed effectively for a long time without the aid of passports. From the article: > Indeed, for much of the 19th century, as an International Labour Organisation report stated in 1922: > > Migration was generally speaking, unhindered and each emigrant could decide on the time of his departure, his arrival or his return, to suit his own convenience. (Also, I'm not sure it's so obviously true that not requiring passports is the same as not policing borders.)
mikeash 10y ago
I don't think it's at all synonymous. Borders mean a lot more than just who is allowed to cross them. Case in point, there are no border controls between US states, but states clearly have borders and maintain meaningful differences between each other.

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.
    - detritus 10y ago
      Based on what - your own prejudice? I think people in Britain, and indeed many 'white' countries, are less bothered by the colour of one's skin than the tone of their culture and intent behind their immigrating. If you're not coming here to integrate, but just coming for money and with no thought of being part of my culture, why on Earth would I joyously welcome you? What would be said if I were to move to somewhere like the middle east and insist upon being a cider-swilling yob? . Disclaimer: My partner is Italian and I'm a cider-swilling British yob. Well, a bit of a boor at least.
      - zajd 10y ago
        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
        detritus 10y ago
        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.
        zajd 10y ago
        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.
        detritus 10y ago
        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..
tdkl 10y ago
Cologne rape happened after this article, so did the massacres in France and Germany.
- pas 10y ago
  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.
- icebraining 10y ago
  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?
  - pzh 10y ago
    Born in France doesn't mean socially and culturally integrated. Many of these attackers were children of immigrants who either didn't integrate because of their own cultural beliefs or because the host society didn't provide the necessary conditions. Whatever the reason, these people didn't feel like they belong to the host societies and radicalized. If anything, these attacks are examples of unsuccessful integration and of the failures of free movement and immigration of people of radically different cultural beliefs, and not the other way around.

someguydave 10y ago

Indeed. I would be fine with "open borders" as long as every subsidy and welfare program is eliminated. It is unfair for people to have free stuff from the local government just because they happen to have been born there.

zajd 10y ago
Would you be ok if every local government was required to provide welfare programs and subsidies to their population? Seems "fair".
- someguydave 10y ago
  Sure zajd, sounds great. The US should make a welfare /subsidy rule for the entire world. Since lots of backwards reactionaries will resist it will likely take force and war to annex unruly lands and enforce this law. Let's call the program COMINTERN for old time's sake.
  - zajd 10y ago
    It's almost as if "fairness" isn't something we should be concerned about when it comes to immigration. Almost as if... people don't have that much control over their government and should probably be treated as individuals as opposed to a "immigrant from X"

sheepz 10y ago

One of the few sane posts here that is considering the realities of "the borderless world". There are reasons why countries all over the world have immigration policies. Each country is interested in immigration that serves its interests, and the leaders are well aware of the negative consequences of unrestricted immigration. The experiments with this like the Schengen Area might not survive the consequences in the coming future. Most people here seem to blinded by some liberal pipe-dream.

oconnor663 10y ago
> Each country is interested in immigration that serves its interests A lot of immigration policies only serve the interest of a particular group or a particular industry. I don't know how to make an objective count on either side though.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

JadeNB 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. Is this an argument against the discussion? That (whether countries should even have borders) seems like a reasonable question to ask. Nonetheless, borders seem to have existed effectively for a long time without the aid of passports. From the article: > Indeed, for much of the 19th century, as an International Labour Organisation report stated in 1922: > > Migration was generally speaking, unhindered and each emigrant could decide on the time of his departure, his arrival or his return, to suit his own convenience. (Also, I'm not sure it's so obviously true that not requiring passports is the same as not policing borders.)

mikeash 10y ago

I don't think it's at all synonymous. Borders mean a lot more than just who is allowed to cross them. Case in point, there are no border controls between US states, but states clearly have borders and maintain meaningful differences between each other.