4 ms·

I agree that no borders at all is a desirable state. However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be a

I agree that no borders at all is a desirable state. However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be accompanied and indeed preceded by economic development. The Schengen agreement for example only works because of the relatively similar economic situations of the member countries and even then it unfortunately has been a considerable cause for discord in recent years.

jstanley 8y ago
What bad things do you think would happen if opening borders were not accompanied or preceded by economic development? Or, to put it another way: what gives you the right to exist in a public place in the country you live in, but not a poorer person?
- BjoernKW 8y ago
  I'm well aware of the fact that this is an ethical dilemma and that simply by winning the birth lottery one isn't morally entitled to living at a certain place any more than everybody else is. However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof). Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible. Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
- hueving 8y ago
  It depends on if you think the immigrants deserve the social safety net the rest of the citizens have. The social safety nets of rich countries are completely unsustainable if they allow anyone to come in and receive them. There is a reason that there isn't a single country with any kind of strong social safety net that has open borders. The math isn't even close to working. If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.
lucideer 8y ago
Your prerequisite doesn't follow through to your (apparent?) conclusion; there's no logical connection I can see. Let's say opening borders does have to to be accompanied by economic development: fine. How does that then not work when migration occurs from areas with different economic situations? You seem to be proposing that migrants from economically areas necessarily depress a developed economy?
- BjoernKW 8y ago
  No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Migration can be economically beneficial. It's a matter of how many in what time frame.

jstanley 8y ago

What bad things do you think would happen if opening borders were not accompanied or preceded by economic development? Or, to put it another way: what gives you the right to exist in a public place in the country you live in, but not a poorer person?

BjoernKW 8y ago
I'm well aware of the fact that this is an ethical dilemma and that simply by winning the birth lottery one isn't morally entitled to living at a certain place any more than everybody else is. However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof). Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible. Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
hueving 8y ago
It depends on if you think the immigrants deserve the social safety net the rest of the citizens have. The social safety nets of rich countries are completely unsustainable if they allow anyone to come in and receive them. There is a reason that there isn't a single country with any kind of strong social safety net that has open borders. The math isn't even close to working. If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.

lucideer 8y ago

Your prerequisite doesn't follow through to your (apparent?) conclusion; there's no logical connection I can see. Let's say opening borders does have to to be accompanied by economic development: fine. How does that then not work when migration occurs from areas with different economic situations? You seem to be proposing that migrants from economically areas necessarily depress a developed economy?

BjoernKW 8y ago
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Migration can be economically beneficial. It's a matter of how many in what time frame.