Open borders.

Depending on how one counts Taiwan, there are either 196 or 195 sovereign nations on Planet Earth. When one looks at a map one sees lines around various parcels of the planet. Those little lines are typically defended by armies and navies.

Do any of those 196 (or 195) nations have truly open borders. The answer is a RESOUNDING “NO!” Why is that, ask you? And why not, ask the liberals?

It is interesting that liberals (progressives) are typically also statists. Yet they ask why we shouldn’t have open borders. The answer is simple enough. With open borders there would be no “State” for them to support as “statists.”

[Source: Are there countries with open borders where citizens can come and go freely, and visitors doing the same including working and settling down? Answer by John Burgess, Former US diplomat with experience primarily in the Middle East]

Among the powers of any sovereign state – and certainly one of its most important – is to determine who is a citizen of that state. While it is true that nations vary in their methodology, there are no countries that have fully open and free borders. None! 

This constitutes one of the very few things upon which every nation on Earth agrees!

Progressive/statist/altruists espouse open borders. But such a policy is inimical even to their distorted notions of “state.” Let’s say anyone can move into the United States and have the rights of citizenship – including voting. Progressive/statist/altruists look at the current milieu of illegal immigration and like what they see. Why? Because they believe these “immigrants” will support their socialist, redistributive goals.

The most basic concern of any nation is that some large country, with politics inimical to its own, could simply shift a large number of its population to the target state and take over its political process. The states are particularly concerned about those who seek to permanently immigrate and have devised complicated control measures.
It doesn’t take much imagination to think what would happen if, for example, China decided to send tens of millions of their citizens to the United States. The electoral process, as we have known it, would collapse.

The closest thing to “open borders” is the European Union (EU). Most countries in the EU have signed the Schengen Agreement. This agreement allows people living in countries which have signed the agreement to travel freely (without visas) to other countries that have signed the agreement. Thus, the EU can be thought of as one “country.” However, the EU requires visas for travelers from outside that region.

The circumstance in the EU is similar to Americans traveling state to state without visas.

Arguments for controlled borders and against open borders are as follows:

  1. Controlled borders encourage responsible policies in relation to population and birth rates for countries by preventing high population and high birth rate countries from disgorging their people onto other low population and low birth rate countries.
  2. Open borders can be a threat to security and public safety. The threats to security and public safety can sometimes last many decades after the initial immigration. The Mariel boatlift was a mass emigration of Cubans in 1980. Nearly 3000 of the refugees were classified as serious or violent criminals.
  3. Open borders can lead to infrastructure deficit in a country. This occurs when large scale migration occurs but the infrastructure to support that migration does not get built.
  4. As these “immigrants” often are the poorest they require social services that then deny these needed services for nation’s poor citizens.

Roy Filly



About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Open borders.

  1. David L. Wood, M.D. says:

    It is a travesty when the belief of the ‘liberal’ value of vote-getting supersedes the integrity and safety of a nation.

  2. starchildsf says:

    Roy – I notice you continually want to brand open borders as a liberal position. That may be politically convenient, but it’s not very accurate. The reality is most modern liberals (i.e. progressives) *oppose* freedom of movement (as do most conservatives). Most of the people I see supporting your right to move about the earth freely as long as you are not initiating force or fraud against others are libertarians, including yours truly.

    Statism is the belief in using government to solve problems, or perceived problems. You want to use government to solve the perceived problem of what you regard as too many people coming to the United States from other countries, by having more border controls, restrictions, and enforcement, funded of course with money coercively taken from taxpayers. It is your position on this issue that is statist, not the open borders position.

  3. Starchild says:

    You make the point Roy that out of 195 or 196 countries, none have truly open borders. But in fact many of them have open borders in plenty of locations. For example, while the border between the U.S. state of Texas and the Mexican state of Chihuahua features lots of government controls, militarization, and rights violations, the same is not true of the borders between Texas and New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana, Chihuahua and Sonora, Chihuahua and Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango, and Chihuahua and Coahuila, which are all as far as I know relatively open and free of government rights-violations perpetrated against people seeking to cross from one jurisdiction to the other.

    The question to ask is which model of border is more compatible with freedom and respect for individual rights – the model found between Texas and Chihuahua, or the model found between all the other states mentioned above? I think the answer is obvious.

    • Roy Filly says:

      The answer to your question is remarkably simple, Crossing state lines is not remotely like crossing national borders. Check these two phrases and tell me which is accurate. 1.) United States of America 2.) United Countries of Mexico and America. If you can choose correctly you will know why your notions above are completely and totally wrong.

      • Starchild says:

        This facile response seems beneath you, Roy. I might just as easily respond,

        “Check these two phrases and tell me which is accurate:
        1.) Mexicans are human beings with inherent, inalienable rights just like people in the United States
        2.) Mexicans are evil aliens bent on the destruction of freedom in America who have nothing in common with people in the United States
        If you can choose correctly, you will know why nationalist border controls and the rights violations they engender are completely and totally wrong.”

      • Roy Filly says:

        The correct response is Mexicans are Mexicans, not US citizens. When they legally visit the United States they share in the rights of our Constitution. When they illegally enter our country they are criminals. Criminals are also human beings and have some rights. They do not, however, have the right to live in this country.

      • Starchild says:

        Roy, if by Mexicans you mean people from Mexico, many Mexicans *are* U.S. citizens. A piece of paper issued by government does not change the fact of someone being born and raised in Mexico to Mexican parents; it does not take away your individual right to claim your own chosen identity. Whether you’re Mexican, Peurto Rican, Cherokee, Polish, or whatever, you have the right to identify with that heritage.

        The Constitution you reference contains no legal authority to exclude such individuals from living in one of the American states. It authorizes Congress only to decide whether or not to allow them to be citizens (disallowing citizenship to anyone taxed by government in the U.S. was of course a violation of these people’s rights to representation under the secessionists’ own principle of “no taxation without representation”, just as exclusion from such representation was a rights violation against the many others who were subject to it at the time, including women and African-Americans.).

        According to the Scalia judicial philosophy of originalism shared by many legal thinkers, conservatives as well as libertarians, the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of the framers when the text itself is not explicit, and new rights or powers should not be claimed unless the evidence is there to support their existence.

        The absence of any immigration laws for the first century or so following the colonies’ successful war of secession against the British monarchy, until the era when the federal government began to seriously exceed its authority in all sorts of other areas in the latter half of the 19th century following the second American war of secession, and the fact that the Constitution says nothing about regulating peaceful freedom of movement to and from the American states, are prima facie evidence that the constitutional framers did *not* intend to give Congress any such authority.

        I do appreciate your belief that “criminals are also human beings and have some rights.” That shows a core decency that some of the more rabid right-wingers seem to lack. Yet you say criminals do not have the right to live in this country. If criminals have no right to live in this country, and can be forcibly removed by government edict, then any other government can claim the same. If all of them did so, the effectual result would be that criminals would not have a right to live anywhere, meaning they would have no right to life and could be killed with impunity.

  4. Roy Filly says:

    You misrepresent my statement: “When they illegally enter our country they are criminals. Criminals are also human beings and have some rights. They do not, however, have the right to live in this country.” In this instance the “criminal act” is illegal entry into the USA. The correct penalty for premeditated murder is life in prison without parole. The correct punishment for entering the USA illegally is deportation.

  5. Starchild: I grew up with a libertarian dad who always talked about the benefits of open borders. However, as the welfare state grew larger, he admitted that open borders would be impossible to maintain when immigrants have access to taxpayer dollars. How can you support open borders in the real world when so much taxpayer money is given to the border crossers? How many of the world’s population that wants to come here can we support?

  6. Stacey says:

    Answer: you can’t have both open borders and a welfare state. Another question – How could we have government by self rule if we had open borders? We could not. Every country in the world, every people in the world has a strong self interest in what happens in this country and already want to affect our elections, laws and policies. If we had open borders it would have to be entirely legal for them to do so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s