5 ms·

If you're travelling through sensitive border regions, attracting unwanted attention is unfortunately an occupational hazard. https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/indy

If you're travelling through sensitive border regions, attracting unwanted attention is unfortunately an occupational hazard. https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/indy-nelson-man-who-visited-every-country-had-to-prove-hes-not-a-spy-4-times-6507497 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/indy-nelson-man-who-visited-eve... https://www.pap.pl/en/news/pole-wrongly-sentenced-life-congo-set-free https://www.pap.pl/en/news/pole-wrongly-sentenced-life-congo...

immibis 2y ago
[flagged]
- FredPret 2y ago
  It’s not racist and you know that. They also would not want a white person without authorization. Also, in your border-free dreamworld, how far does this go? Can anyone / everyone in the world come live in your country? How about your city? How about your backyard?
  - jstanley 2y ago
    Country yes, city yes, backyard no. People within a country can freely move between cities but can't freely use private backyards. We're just saying it should be the same between countries as it is between cities.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      I’m saying it should be the same between countries as between back yards. The same logic that justifies national government with tax-levying and rule-enforcing power also requires national borders. (ie, a group of people own this area together and will vote to determine what is done).
      - immibis 2y ago
        They do those things at a local level too but you're still allowed to move between cities.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      In a world without borders, what's to prevent some wealthy Europeans from pooling their resources to buy up huge swaths of the Congo and doing colonialism, libertarian open borders style? Governments and borders are necessary.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        Laws on land use that prevent “buying large swathes of land” from being equivalent to or enabling “doing colonialism”. Open borders does not imply absence of laws.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        That is naive. The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries. Once they own the land and the businesses, political power is theirs. Meanwhile the people from those poor countries might try to do the same in wealthy countries, but wouldn't have the resources for it. It would be katastroika on steroids.
        immibis 2y ago
        Then they can be removed in two steps. First, allow people to come and work to get wealthy so they can compete with other wealthy people. Second, allow wealthy people to spend money.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries. Free movement of people does not mean that you don’t have extreme taxes on high-wealth individuals that they become subject to when they move. > Once they own the land and the businesses You are assuming, again, in addition to free movement of people a basically capitalist economic system in every country. That you are free to move to a country and live and, if you can find a job, work there does not mean that you can simply buy land and/or control of the non-financial means of production. It may mean you are as free to do so as local residents, but it doesn’t mean anybody is free to do so. Note, that because even slightly capitalist countries – rich or poor – tend to provide relatively free movement of capital already, whether or not they allow free movement of people, this “buyout by remote elites” is already a problem for relatively poor capitalist (or even somewhat capitalist) countries, even with border controls – you don’t need to live in a country to buy up property and businesses there, and exercise control through such ownership.
    - Auracle 2y ago
      The end result of that is everyone moving to the rich countries with social safety nets, those countries then collapsing or removing those safety nets, and repeat until countries decide that was a terrible idea and we’re back to having borders except everything is a mess. Countries aren’t geographic regions. They’re collections of people. If you magically swapped the populations of South Korea and Germany, those geographic countries would change overnight to be their demographic countries. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting your country to stay at least somewhat stable in its ideals, crime levels, particular problems, etc.
      - jstanley 2y ago
        Just because a country has a social safety net for its citizens doesn't mean it has to provide one to any random person who comes to live there.
        em-bee 2y ago
        the point of a social safety net is to make sure people can afford a home and healthcare. excluding non-citizens from that, yet allowing them to stay here creates exactly the kind of situations that we do not want. and as soon as people get a job they also pay taxes, healthcare and social security, at which point it seems unfair to exclude them from those benefits. so i don't see a a way how this would even work. people living here either get a job, run a business or collect benefits. if they do neither, then how would they live? only independently wealthy people could do that without having some illegal income somewhere. i am for the elimination of borders and free movement of everyone across the world, but that requires that we help raise the standard of living everywhere to remove the incentive for people to move just for economic reasons.
      - immibis 2y ago
        > these countries then collapsing or removing those safety nets How's that different from what's already happening with the borders in place?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > People within a country can freely move between cities This is far from universally true, both because of legal direct constraints on internal migration and because of implicit controls which are the result of economic constraints (which are themselves part of the means by which societies are governed, whether or not they are overtly intended products of state policy.)
  - immibis 2y ago
    They do, in fact, allow people from majority-white countries to come without authorization.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      The cause-and-effect here is “is your home country first-world / on a similar standard of living as us, and also not an enemy”. So Japanese and South Koreans are probably more welcome than Russians, say.
    - mantas 2y ago
      Some majority-white. As well as some non-white-majority.
- dahart 2y ago
  > Saying that you can’t come into Europe because you’re African is still racism. Are you suggesting no countries in the world should have any border control? You weren’t born here and don’t pay taxes here is pretty different from you’re African, right? So why do you say racism and not discrimination? Why do you say African and not non-European? Phrasing Europe’s border policy as racism against Africans is misleading and escalating, rather than edifying. Let’s fix that: Saying that you can’t come into Europe because you’re not a European resident is discrimination based on country of residency that could look like racial discrimination if you’re not careful. In as much as, ahem, some government policies actually are racist, it’s true that border policy does discriminate based on country of residence, but this is not necessarily racist. Europe is not necessarily discriminating against Africans, it’s discriminating all non-Europeans, including China, Russia, America, the Middle East, etc., right? When people say racism it is often (usually?) referring to beliefs about other races being inferior in some way, or hate for other races. Racism typically means prejudice and antagonism combined with discrimination. Discrimination on its own without judgement may be necessary, and doesn’t mean there is any animosity or value judgements being made based on someone’s race.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    To summarize / strawman, "Europe isn't racist, it's xenophobic, get it right!" And to be clear, that's not wrong, but it's also a distinction without a difference. People will still feel discriminated against even if the source of that discrimination is different from what they named.
    - dahart 2y ago
      All countries have border policy including yours, this isn’t about Europe, or about Africa. Why do you assume border policy is xenophobia, and not, say, logistics and resource and tax management? Why would you jump to a conclusion this has more to do with race than with money or stopping crime?
      - immibis 2y ago
        If it's logistics and resources and tax management, why doesn't it apply between cities?

immibis 2y ago

[flagged]

FredPret 2y ago
It’s not racist and you know that. They also would not want a white person without authorization. Also, in your border-free dreamworld, how far does this go? Can anyone / everyone in the world come live in your country? How about your city? How about your backyard?
- jstanley 2y ago
  Country yes, city yes, backyard no. People within a country can freely move between cities but can't freely use private backyards. We're just saying it should be the same between countries as it is between cities.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    I’m saying it should be the same between countries as between back yards. The same logic that justifies national government with tax-levying and rule-enforcing power also requires national borders. (ie, a group of people own this area together and will vote to determine what is done).
    - immibis 2y ago
      They do those things at a local level too but you're still allowed to move between cities.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    In a world without borders, what's to prevent some wealthy Europeans from pooling their resources to buy up huge swaths of the Congo and doing colonialism, libertarian open borders style? Governments and borders are necessary.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      Laws on land use that prevent “buying large swathes of land” from being equivalent to or enabling “doing colonialism”. Open borders does not imply absence of laws.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        That is naive. The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries. Once they own the land and the businesses, political power is theirs. Meanwhile the people from those poor countries might try to do the same in wealthy countries, but wouldn't have the resources for it. It would be katastroika on steroids.
        immibis 2y ago
        Then they can be removed in two steps. First, allow people to come and work to get wealthy so they can compete with other wealthy people. Second, allow wealthy people to spend money.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries. Free movement of people does not mean that you don’t have extreme taxes on high-wealth individuals that they become subject to when they move. > Once they own the land and the businesses You are assuming, again, in addition to free movement of people a basically capitalist economic system in every country. That you are free to move to a country and live and, if you can find a job, work there does not mean that you can simply buy land and/or control of the non-financial means of production. It may mean you are as free to do so as local residents, but it doesn’t mean anybody is free to do so. Note, that because even slightly capitalist countries – rich or poor – tend to provide relatively free movement of capital already, whether or not they allow free movement of people, this “buyout by remote elites” is already a problem for relatively poor capitalist (or even somewhat capitalist) countries, even with border controls – you don’t need to live in a country to buy up property and businesses there, and exercise control through such ownership.
  - Auracle 2y ago
    The end result of that is everyone moving to the rich countries with social safety nets, those countries then collapsing or removing those safety nets, and repeat until countries decide that was a terrible idea and we’re back to having borders except everything is a mess. Countries aren’t geographic regions. They’re collections of people. If you magically swapped the populations of South Korea and Germany, those geographic countries would change overnight to be their demographic countries. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting your country to stay at least somewhat stable in its ideals, crime levels, particular problems, etc.
    - jstanley 2y ago
      Just because a country has a social safety net for its citizens doesn't mean it has to provide one to any random person who comes to live there.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        the point of a social safety net is to make sure people can afford a home and healthcare. excluding non-citizens from that, yet allowing them to stay here creates exactly the kind of situations that we do not want. and as soon as people get a job they also pay taxes, healthcare and social security, at which point it seems unfair to exclude them from those benefits. so i don't see a a way how this would even work. people living here either get a job, run a business or collect benefits. if they do neither, then how would they live? only independently wealthy people could do that without having some illegal income somewhere. i am for the elimination of borders and free movement of everyone across the world, but that requires that we help raise the standard of living everywhere to remove the incentive for people to move just for economic reasons.
    - immibis 2y ago
      > these countries then collapsing or removing those safety nets How's that different from what's already happening with the borders in place?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > People within a country can freely move between cities This is far from universally true, both because of legal direct constraints on internal migration and because of implicit controls which are the result of economic constraints (which are themselves part of the means by which societies are governed, whether or not they are overtly intended products of state policy.)
- immibis 2y ago
  They do, in fact, allow people from majority-white countries to come without authorization.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The cause-and-effect here is “is your home country first-world / on a similar standard of living as us, and also not an enemy”. So Japanese and South Koreans are probably more welcome than Russians, say.
  - mantas 2y ago
    Some majority-white. As well as some non-white-majority.
dahart 2y ago
> Saying that you can’t come into Europe because you’re African is still racism. Are you suggesting no countries in the world should have any border control? You weren’t born here and don’t pay taxes here is pretty different from you’re African, right? So why do you say racism and not discrimination? Why do you say African and not non-European? Phrasing Europe’s border policy as racism against Africans is misleading and escalating, rather than edifying. Let’s fix that: Saying that you can’t come into Europe because you’re not a European resident is discrimination based on country of residency that could look like racial discrimination if you’re not careful. In as much as, ahem, some government policies actually are racist, it’s true that border policy does discriminate based on country of residence, but this is not necessarily racist. Europe is not necessarily discriminating against Africans, it’s discriminating all non-Europeans, including China, Russia, America, the Middle East, etc., right? When people say racism it is often (usually?) referring to beliefs about other races being inferior in some way, or hate for other races. Racism typically means prejudice and antagonism combined with discrimination. Discrimination on its own without judgement may be necessary, and doesn’t mean there is any animosity or value judgements being made based on someone’s race.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  To summarize / strawman, "Europe isn't racist, it's xenophobic, get it right!" And to be clear, that's not wrong, but it's also a distinction without a difference. People will still feel discriminated against even if the source of that discrimination is different from what they named.
  - dahart 2y ago
    All countries have border policy including yours, this isn’t about Europe, or about Africa. Why do you assume border policy is xenophobia, and not, say, logistics and resource and tax management? Why would you jump to a conclusion this has more to do with race than with money or stopping crime?
    - immibis 2y ago
      If it's logistics and resources and tax management, why doesn't it apply between cities?