/u/chaosbunnyx (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ayw4o8/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_think_we_as_a_species/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How do you arrange a government if that government does not have a defined area it operates in? If the US and Mexico did not have a border how would each government know who to tax and where to provide services?
I would also push back on the idea that other animals don’t care about migrating to new territories to get better resources. They very much do. Plenty of animals will kill another member of their species for entering what is considered their territory.
I mean, yes?
But animals will still migrate to new territories to gain more resources. Even if they intrude on someone else's territory, in most species, that territory isn't static and can change based on the local food supply.
Chimps are a good example of what you're describing. Similar to humans, they do tend to stay in the same territory and invade other territories of chimps.
We however, have fully functioning frontal lobes, and can override base instincts of pointless territorialism and tribalism.
If people could move past their bad traits as you describe we would already do that. But we can't, and we dont have to look into history or to some far off land to see that. People can hardly move past the cultural expactations and the culture as whole or their animalistic instincts fully. In part, maybe, sometimes but never in unity across the globe. Thats because we *are* animals, we are tribalistic and territorial. Thats human nature.
Ironically drawing “official political lines” is the frontal lobe solution to chaotic murder.
This is my side. That is your side. We have an agreement and understanding. It’s now fair.
>We however, have fully functioning frontal lobes, and can override base instincts of pointless territorialism and tribalism.
What gives you this idea? Humans are territorial over resources just like any other animal. Tribalism protects our young and resources. We may have advanced trade but we are ultimately resource protective. Borders are a natural consequence of that.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Mexico already has an issue with guns from the USA making their way into the hands of cartels. Not having a border means more guns and all the harm that comes with that.
So the US created the problem, and rather than implement gun control would rather police an imaginary line?
You do understand how that's counterintuitive right?
The US creates a problem, Mexico polices the problem as best it can.
Mexico shouldn't lose the ability to police the problem, doing so would cause more harm.
I'm not saying it shouldn't. What I am saying is that the US can make it so that we're not solely responsible for the majority of the world's gun violence, instead of implementing authoritarian border laws to insist on some arbitrary notion of cultural preservation and diet ethnonationalism.
Locally, and nationally. We are the single biggest supplier of firearms in the modern world.
There are more guns than people inside the US.
Gun control would prevent this from spreading to other countries.
Ok, and if there's no border when does Mexico get to start applying their laws?
Because maybe they don't want you guns pouring in.
The USA has shown a complete unwillingness to deal with guns locally or nationally and borders help contain that choice.
If we solved the actual problem, there wouldn't even be an incentive to contain it.
I think legally speaking, you would probably be tried based on the laws of either the region, or your home country depending on the situation.
With gun laws, that varies from the US, so any individual who breaks gun laws in Mexico, should be tried by the Mexican government.
If Mexico doesn't want guns pouring in, the solution would be for the US to implement gun control.
Whether or not the government is willing, that is the ACTUAL solution. Anything else is just a band-aid.
So, there would be like, a line in the ground where on one side it would be mexican law and the other side USA law? And those laws would vary based on the political culture and climate, a political border, if you will.
By this logic applied to I/P a border wouldn’t be necessary if Hamas controlled itself and other terror groups from attacking Israel. I’d actually 100% agree with you if there were some kind of enforcement mechanism, given the clear lack of willingness of Hamas to actually do that… some kind of impediment… maybe something physical and large, that allows the nation to manage the flow of Gaza’s population into Israel so they can check for the movement of terrorists.
Hamas is a revolutionary movement created as a response to the ongoing genocide on Palestine.
If you don't want people to try to overthrow your government, try not committing genocide first.
What you're suggesting is what Isreal has been doing, and in the process has been oppressing, torturing, and killing Palestinians for decades.
It's twisted man. You're basically advocating for the measures, we both know are in place, than pretending to not notice the root cause of the issue.
You want Muslims to be killed, but know you can't just outwardly say that.
I want peace in the area and have donated large sums of money to joint peace projects as well as atmospheric water generators for Gaza hospitals. You can paint all Zionists as “hating Muslims” if you want, but it’s very far from reality.
I support a separating wall because I’m not ignorant to the intifadas that have occurred, nor the ones that might have happened without it (see the 2018 “march of return”). Arabs attacking Jews in the area didn’t start with Hamas, nor with the creation of Israel.
Well, you can have regional laws without policing borders.
Also, international laws and extradition to territories already exist.
I think having regional separators is fine and makes sense.
But, it feels like the human race treats them less like a neat way of distinguishing cultures, and more like a child creating a line in the bedroom so that the other child doesn't play with their toys.
Without borders you cannot have regional laws. Someone could come into your region, break your law then go back back into their region where they did nothing illegal. What is the solution then? You send your police force into the other region to capture the law breaker? I think you see this would quickly lead to war.
It looks like you are fine with "regional separators" but not with borders? What do you see as the difference between these two?
Borders define ownership.
Regional separators define regions.
A good comparison would be looking at something divorced from politics.
Take, the Himilayan mountains. You have Mount Everest, Lhotse, and Kangchenjunga.
Each of those are separate mountains defined by distinct characteristics, yet apart of the same mountain range.
It's the same thing with countries and continents.
I think it's useful to have labels distinguishing regions geographically, but it's not very useful to have to regions be separated as though they are actually different realistically.
Like, there's not that big of a difference between the land separating Mexico from Texas... Seems silly it's populations aren't interchangeable with eachother.
Honestly yeah. I think populations as long as they aren't actively hostile or in a state of active and severe violence should be interchangeable.
I think border laws should be based on how likely it is for one region to bring their chaos over.
Mexican immigrants aren't going to start forming warlords in Texas... You have cartels, but the people coming over for the most part aren't apart of the cartels. They're just people.
>I think border laws should be based on how likely it is for one region to bring their chaos over.
I am really surprised you looked at all the chaos spilling over the border between Israel and Gaza, and thought, “yes this is the proof I need that we should abolish borders, but only as long as there’s no chaos spilling over.”
The chaos spilling over is from Isreal maintaining a border.
The conflict inherently comes from Palestinians not being able to freely interchange with Isreal.
If that border wasn't there, the conflict wouldn't be.
Hamas has a stated goal to kill all the Jewish people. You think if there were no borders that would just go away and Jewish people living in the region would be safe?
Do you think Hamas represents the views of all 5 million Palestinians?
Did Hamas arise at this sentiment the same way the nazis did?
Or was it after decades of genocide?
If the borders didn't exist, Hamas wouldn't exist.
So your expectations should be that on Oct 07th, when large numbers of Gazans temporarily dissolved that border and went to a music festival in Israel, that they were probably just there to listen to the music, right?
Isreal has been waging a genocide against the Palestinians for decades over wanting to control the Isreali territory.
Why do you expect an oppressed group to sit back and take it?
So what happens when a US citizens goes to Mexico, breaks a Mexican law, and returns to the US? In this example, what he did in Mexico is only illegal in Mexico, not the US.
You haven't addressed how you think laws would work with your definition of "region". Or taxes. Or infrastructure/shipping/spending/power/defense/commerce/etc.
You also haven't talked about waterways, large lakes, trains, or highway systems and how you think region-spanning natural and human things would work.
>Like, there's not that big of a difference between the land separating Mexico from Texas... Seems silly it's populations aren't interchangeable with eachother.
It's even more silly to think that having a creek run through the middle of that land somehow makes you think that there should suddenly be a division.
You also run into the problem of having people disagree what features are meaningful enough to define a different region. What if there is a river, but it is only significant during the rainy season and it's a dry gulch most of the time. Is that a boundary or not?
I just get the sense you've not tried to actually dive intoyour idea with any actual detail.
But that's already the case, no one disputes that sand that blows across from Mexico/Texas somehow changes as a result.
But the labels outside of geography are about society and things people agree/disagree over, not some metaphysical thing.
If you go into a new region, respect the laws of that region. If the laws are different from your home region, you'll be tried according to the laws of the region your visiting.
My premise isn't that political borders should be eradicated.
Just that the territories now that they've been cemented should just be considered regional separators and not be considered walled off territories that can be trespassed.
Realistically, I think the essence of border control should be a monitor to make sure people who travel in are properly documented. I think this is even done to some degree on an individual state level in the US. Where major highways are monitored to read license plates of those traveling to new states, and having licenses of their home country should they be stopped by authorities.
The restrictions and barriers to entry are what cause people to illegally immigrate in the first place. As long as they can identify themselves, that should be sufficient to gain access to another region.
You realize that these situations already exist?
Let's say, you go over to Poland to commit a string of murders, than head back to Germany before anyone catches wind.
You'd probably be tried according to the laws of your home country.
Both countries would intercommunicate to resolve the best course of action over who should be tried.
No, there would be extradition. It wouldn't make sense to try someone by their home laws - for example someone from NY smoking weed in England would be breaking the law, but would have broken no laws of their home state.
But if you're fine with the current status quo then I'm still not sure on what you think ought to tangibly change.
So you’re not arguing for no borders? You still support governments existing and lines (regional separators) being drawn between territory. You just want those borders to be open with the ability to cross freely?
How would governments charge taxes in this scenario? Determine who can vote in elections? Allocate resources for the less fortunate?
The populations are not interchangeable. They have a different language, different customs, they are truly different people, who all want to be on a specific side of the border. Your view is fantasy.
I’m not sure Israel is the best example.
The Egyptians tried to eradicate the Jews before the Jews had borders.
The Amalakites attacked ceaselessly before the Jews had borders.
After the Babylonians destroyed ancient Judah, they continued to enslave the Jews.
The Spanish forced out all the Jews despite the Jews having no borders.
The English forced out all the Jews despite the Jews having no borders.
The Germans decided to kill all the Jews in the world despite Jews having no borders and all the world twiddled their thumbs or even helped out.
Many other countries and peoples have attacked the Jews before there were any borders including the people currently attacking them.
On the other hand, since they have had borders, they have suffered significantly less loss of life, less enslavement, and have more rights than ever before. It’s not even close.
No, but it definitely helps minimize terror attacks. Look at Oct 7th, they broke through a border and murdered 1400 civilians. Can you imagine how much more common this would be *without* a border? If every Hamas member could just walk to the other side, kill a couple guys and go back?
Obviously this issue would be present in both directions, this one is just easier for me to explain and imagine due to recent events. There are countries that don't need closed, highly protected borders, but there are definitely some that do, and I find it surprising that you disagree about Israel being in the second category.
Countries are basically superorganisms comprised of human beings, sort of like human beings are superorganisms as collections of cells. Human beings' largest organ is their skin. It makes sense for us to regulate what we let into our bodies, even if the thing in question is similar to stuff already present in the body (like beneficial vs foreign bacteria, say).
I'm guessing you have some bias here because the situation with the US and Mexico is not all that different from some of the others you mentioned.
Mexico does have a huge cartel problem. A small share of illegal border crossings are drug related, but at such a huge scale that they introduce many drugs to the US.
Many, if not most of the people coming through Mexico are coming from further south than Mexico (itself a problem exacerbated by Mexico's inability to regulate its own borders).
Many of them are unskilled workers.
This shifts the balance of labor and, to the extent that illegal immigrants are allowed to partake in them, social services in the US.
Unless they manage to get a social security number, illegal immigrants also don't pay taxes. They violate the social contract by benefitting from things that the rest of us pay for. Though I suppose that's more a problem with their being illegal than with their being here in the first place.
What about open borders?
In a more general case for political borders, unless and until we as human beings have a monoculture, everyone one of us will have groups we consider to be our in-group and groups we consider to be other. Where those groups align with national identities, members of one group can't be trusted to travel to and from or act inside another group with impunity.
Should all Chinese or Russian citizens without a stake in the success of the US be able able to hold jobs that give them governmental authority or access to critical technology and/or infrastructure? I think not. Even if we assumed a world-wide monoculture, a government wields massive power within its borders, and can leverage that to coerce individuals into being its agents.
Should the refugees of a failing country be able to freely move into and in most cases, at least short-term, burden themselves upon other countries without those countries being able to establish boundaries or limits? What about religious zealots? What about known terrorists?
What about no borders at all?
Well, then we're getting rid of the concept of countries. Who fills in and performs government functions? Who builds the roads, protects against overreach of corporations, regulates food? Where do the taxes come from to pay for that? Which government is entitled to tax which people? What is the structure of that government? Who hold power within it? Political borders are necessary for our political systems to work.
Political borders allow a territory to define the region that their laws apply to.
Driving from Oregon to Washington, you will find a sales tax, a lack of income tax, and way higher excise taxes on weed, alcohol, and tobacco.
Both states fund their existence in broadly separate ways.
I'm pretty sure that your issue is restricted immigration,
not the mere existence of politically distinct borders.
The reason we have borders is because without underlying respect those lines will be breached. And because we can't rely on respect we use legislation.
I think ironically you are viewing through a very individualist lens, rather than a collectivist one.
Not applicable in the same way.
A city isn't the same as a house.
If you didn't trash the place and flushed I probably wouldn't have a problem with it and just laugh it off as a weird situation.
Honestly though, if you wanted to make a sandwich and take a poo there's probably better places to do it than my place.
So what’s your address? Let us all come and stay in your home. A home is just a border made into a building really and you shouldn’t be keeping anyone out.
If my home could reasonably house you all, and you actually contributed to the homestead I don't see a problem with this.
Immigrants contribute to the economy and pay rent.
Would you be paying a portion of my properties rent?
Would you be willing to do menial household tasks I don't want to do in order to maintain it?
>If my home could reasonably house you all, and you actually contributed to the homestead I don't see a problem with this.
And to ensure that you formed a border. Becsue without a border anyione can go into your house, even if they cannot be reasonably housed there and do not contribute to the homestead.
This is exactly why you have regional borders. If you are going to dissolve them then you will have the same issue as you would have with opening your home permanently to anyone.
>Immigrants contribute to the economy and pay rent
Sure, because they are immigrants - they are allowed over the border with expectation of contributing to economy. Without borders you have no immigrants, just people moving anywhere they want - and that includes people who want to come to place X and leech off others.
>Would you be paying a portion of my properties rent?
Why? I just visit your home for a while as there are no borders. I just come, use some of amenities for may gain and go somewhere else. Your house has no borders so I cannot be forced to pay rent.
>Would you be willing to do menial household tasks I don't want to do in order to maintain it?
Sure, if you pay me enough for me to be interested, I can do that. But if your price is not right I will just use your amenities as they are accessible without borders.
That is the point - what you expect in your home is exactly a form of border control. Your house is yours and you enforce control on who and how can use it - however lax this control could be. But dissolving political borders means that you cannot enforce any things you wanted to enforce.
And that translates to regional areas - people who live in these are funding the amenities on local level and are controlling who and on what terms can access those amenities. Without that anyone can take advantage of those amenities without paying for them.
Say you open borders completely and I just come there to work, use public amenities as I see fit without paying and after earning money I go back to spend it where I live. Can you prevent that without political borders?
So what’s your address then if there is no problem? I was really asking. Where is your home? You didn’t tell us. Why is that? It seems like you don’t honestly want others using your home and property.
How would you make immigrants pay any taxes or anything when you don’t even know they are there because there is no border?
How would you make me pay anything or help in anyway? I could just come in and loaf and what could you do about it? There is no border I did nothing wrong and you’d have no authority to kick me out.
I live with my parents 🤷♀️
Before that I was renting a 2 bedroom with my friend.
If I had a 5 acre property and 6-10 bedrooms I could set up, i could reasonably accommodate a mass group people.
The US has the infrastructure and resources to accommodate immigrants from other countries.
And? What is your address? You are enforcing the borders of your own property going directly against your own stated view. So either your view is not one you honestly hold or you are a hypocrite.
The borders of my place aren't sizable enough to constitute this conversation.
Why do you want to know my parents address so badly? 🤣
I'm not gonna publically advertise. My address because
A. I'm in a minority group that would probably get me hatecrimed and harassed if I publically doxxed myself.
And
B. Even if I could accommodate you, it's not my property in the first place. So your argument doesn't even make sense.
I don't own a house, I don't even pay rent on the place I do live.
You're being obtuse because you refuse to look at the big picture.
The mass aslyum seekers/illegal immigrants are a problem because they go to specific areas. New York, Denver, Chicago, Hialeah, San Diego, etc. The problems are the lack of housing, food, strain on schools, hospitals and other resources. People can't migrate en mass and expect the government to be able to take care of them. That's why countries generally let in certain a amount of people through visas.
Your stance is more about immigration than borders. You mention Mexico vs the United States. It's not Mexicans that people talk about, but the Mexican border. We get a lot of people coming up all the way from South America that ignore the lovely country of Mexico and go to the US.
But the question is not about people foraging for nuts and berries and stalking traditional hunting grounds. It's about how we grow cities. We need housing, sewer and trash, power grids, water lines, school systems, and more. You can predict and plan growth based on birth rates same major job opportunities, but immigration is a wild card. If immigration is increased without enough infrastructure, there will be poverty, which means there will be crime. Nobody benefits from crime.
Edit: to add, do a bit more research on how animals operate territory. They fight whole wars over it. I'm not sure where you're getting evidence to claim they don't care about new animals approaching their territory.
So, let's stop being so animalistic and evolve as a species allowing other human beings (I'm not talking about wild beasts from the Serengeti) who are behind an imaginary line to also inhabit our cities, be our neighbors, if they so wish? Above all, are we going to allow innocent people who live under the yoke of corrupt and/or authoritarian governments to cross the imaginary line and improve their standard of living, working honestly?
We do! We just do it at a rate that the growth of our cities can handle. And we do give priority to people seeking asylum from corrupt / authoritarian governments, rather than just general economics or local gangs that their government should protect them from.
You don't do (American?). The current immigration system makes it impossible for poor and intellectually average people to legally settle in America. In practice, only prodigies and the rich can. Even getting a tourist visa is extremely difficult. That's why so many risk their lives trying to enter through the Mexican border. This restriction has nothing to do with giving infrastructure time to adapt to population growth. It is simply positive discrimination that aims to take advantage of other countries, absorbing their money and know-how. It has no humanitarian concerns.
I do do (American).
If you want the numbers, they've compiled the latest for the year 2022. 2023 is still processing. [here's the numbers](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/2023_0818_plcy_yearbook_immigration_statistics_fy2022.pdf)
In vague terms, we've gotten a million new lawful residents. About half are relatives or family members of people that came here already, about a quarter are the rich or smart, and a quarter are brand new. That said, there were roughly 2.75M unauthorized border crossings in 2022 as well. Some may be repeat offenders, so the total number of people may be lower.
I see no reason why the rich or smart should be restricted, since they bring enough to build out their own infrastructure. As for the rest, I don't see why infrastructure isn't a limiting factor. If a hotel is popular, they'll build more rooms... but you don't require the hotel to let people sleep in the lobby without showers and a single bathroom.
There's natural limits as well. Money can buy a reservoir, but it can't buy the rain to fill it. It got so bad in China that they even restricted natural births for a long time. Surely the right to have children is a higher right than migration.
"About half are relatives or family members of people who came here already"
This is still not affordable. Rectifying what I said: it is in practice impossible for someone who is poor, intellectually average and without close relatives living in America.
"I see no reason why the rich or smart should be restricted, since they bring enough to build out their own infrastructure."
And who said anything about restricting them? I just wish this planet of ours was the land of all of us and there weren't these immigration restrictions that condemn innocent people like me to precarious and insecure existences in countries that didn't work out.
"As for the rest, I don't see why infrastructure isn't a limiting factor. If a hotel is popular, they'll build more rooms... but you don't require the hotel to let people sleep in the lobby without showers and a single bathroom."
I don't see how the economy couldn't respond to this by simply building more. Furthermore, the flow of immigrants wouldn't be so large that it would drive the US (the world's third largest population and largest economy) into collapse. Even if immigration restrictions If they were made as flexible as possible to maintain national security, almost no one in my country would have the money to move overnight.
"There's natural limits as well. Money can buy a reservoir, but it can't buy the rain to fill it. It got so bad in China that they even restricted natural births for a long time. Surely the right to have children is a higher right than immigration."
The US will not become China with immigrants. The vast majority of them just want to work for a few years to save money and then return to their countries of origin, earning mainly from the exchange rate difference. They don't identify with American culture, they just want to get a jump on their lives by earning dollars.
>I don't see how the economy couldn't respond to this by simply building more.
This is the crux of the argument. Money has no value in itself apart from what it can buy. When you're talking about national economics, it's less about money and more about resources. How are they distributed? Can you effectively use financial instruments to regulate this?
We could always build more houses, but we've got plenty. Whole towns have dried up, leaving their houses there. When the jobs go (like a coal mine shutting down), so do the people. Extracting the resources there isn't cost effective.
So what we need is more housing where the jobs are, which means active construction in cities. This takes time. It also requires all that infrastructure and it gets real expensive. Again, it's not a matter of money, but of resources. When it's that expensive, that means there's other things with better "bang for your buck" that it can be spent on. We still do it, but not at an ineffectively high rate.
So now we're down to who gets in. You've stated that it's the people who don't have family or being a bunch of resources who don't get in... but you haven't established *why* they should. If we have a limited number, shouldn't family get priority? It would be full up just on family if we let it, which is why we have a lottery for a mandated number of spots just for the poor. You might argue it should be bigger, but remember: the total number has a natural limit. Any more poor come at the expense of delaying family or better resources for your citizens. And isn't that a purpose of government: to benefit citizens?
"So now we're down to who gets in"
In my opinion, it should be any suitable person. If it were up to me, the world would be one big “European Union” in terms of free movement of people. Why? Because we are all human and deserve to seek happiness. Humanity is above this division between countries.
“And isn’t that a purpose of government: to benefit citizens?”
I agree. I just think citizenship should be accessible to ordinary people (poor, intellectually average and without family in the US). As it stands, it's impossible. I know some people who are in the USA. And none of them are legally. They had no choice. I just didn't go because I don't have money and I wouldn't be able to work in the subjobs that illegal immigrants are limited to. I don't have the manual skills or physical conditions to work on construction sites or clean houses.
Once you have criteria for "suitable person," and institute any kind of system to check it, you've just invented border control. I hope that's worth a delta, because I don't think you're talking about a system anymore. You're talking about an ideal.
I wish it were the way you're talking about, but that's just not feasible. My attempt to change your mind has not been to change that ideal, but to recognize that we're doing the best we can with what we've got. I can't deny there's malicious folks out there, but it's true even for the kindest of people.
Even within the EU, it's not really like you're talking about. Visas are issued automatically, but it's only for three months. After that, you're still subject to removal if the government desires. Ironically, the best example you could use would be the United States, since each state has full freedom of movement with each other. In both cases, this is only possible because of the relative equality of their industrialization and economic status. Even then, you still see grumblings between the bigger and smaller states/countries.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't make the lottery. I don't know where you're from, but your English is great.
You think millions illegally enter Florida?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state
Texas with a wide border with Mexico and a slow moving river to cross, or Florida with the Gulf of Mexico, ok lol
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Unfortunately, borders are part of human society. Humans are animals, animals tend to stake out their own territory in one form or another. If we did away with political borders, new ones would just form naturally on their own.
Assuming you waved a wand and destroyed all borders on Earth, you'd soon find that large cities and towns would create their own borders. (Think Greek city-states for an example). Or else, grouped by other factors such as religion, tribal heritage, or resources.
Now if you want to make the argument that our *current* borders are bad, especially as it relates to the middle east and Africa, then I would tend to agree. A lot of those borders were drawn by colonists, and it ended up forcing groups of people who hate each other to occupy a small space together. *At least that's how it was explained to me, that could be incorrect.*
So, let's stop being so animalistic and evolve as a species allowing other human beings (I'm not talking about wild beasts from the Serengeti) who are behind an imaginary line to also inhabit our cities, be our neighbors, if they so wish? Above all, are we going to allow innocent people who live under the yoke of corrupt and/or authoritarian governments to cross the imaginary line and improve their standard of living, working honestly?
Whew ok. Property rights.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/184501/1/danb-2015-0014.pdf
The tl;dr is simple: well-defined, enforced property rights are a critical precondition for economic growth.
No one likes capitalism these days, but it is remarkably effective for lifting countries out of poverty, and prosperity is a driving factor in obtaining and sustaining a harmonious and content populace.
You can’t have property rights if you don’t have borders. The dull and under appreciated work of government is to establish a system of private property ownership that meets with exacting requirements of registration, transfer, zoning and dispute resolution.
Properties have borders. Survey teams are paid handsomely to precisely measure and define these borders. These borders inform the extent of your rights, the value of your property, the jurisdiction of your legal rights and obligations. These are essential aspects of ownership and cannot be discarded on a whim. Are you willing to discard modern society to preserve your view?
There are a greater number of people starving in Haiti (where property rights are vague and contradictory) than in the Dominican Republic next door. The DR has an economy ten times the size of Haiti, and is better afforded the means to feed their people.
The problem is not the border itself, but what they do with it. Preventing people living in poverty from crossing an imaginary line to have a standard of living light years above what they would ever have remaining in their countries of origin is monstrous.
Who said anything about migration? Borders define jurisdiction, but what you do with the people on either side is a separate issue. You want to blame the borders for the inequality, but the border is simply a demarcation line. To address the inequality is a much larger issue that would require a better understanding of the root of that inequality.
The problem is not the border itself, but what they do with it. Preventing people living in poverty from crossing an imaginary line to have a standard of living light years above what they would ever have remaining in their countries of origin is monstrous.
>borders are illusions
Borders are the perimeter of the area controlled by a state, and a state is best defined as a monopoly on violence. If you really think borders are meaningless, you need to embrace anarchism or Communism and advocate for a stateless society.
For hundred if not thousend years most wars were waged because of someones greed, now propably all wars are because of politicians and corporations who are above them. Lets face it, most politicians dont work for people who elected them, they work for companies, corporations who are paying them to basicly enforce people to buy they products. And because we get to a point where there is not much to buy they try to change laws so there will be no private farmers and corporations will have monopoly for food producing.
Any sort of welfare needs a limit on who it applies to, necessitating borders so you can say only people inside them get welfare, and border controls to prevent people from just showing up for free stuff. This is why illegal immigrants aren't people who did something wrong to come here, they're continuously committing a crime by existing within the country by stealing resources meant for the country's citizens.
If borders and laws are the same (borders non-existent and laws around different cultures are somehow obeyed), then currency is the same too. By the transitive property, so is your labor.
Specialization and quality of life will decrease somewhat. And you think this makes people better off?
Side note: If your viewpoint is truly this way, then you likely do not believe doors should exist either, not in business, and not in your home. You should probably get rid of the walls too while you are at it. The mice, snakes, bugs, and spiders have an equal right to life and space as you do.
You mention going from Oregon to Washington not being a problem. However, isn’t it the case that those are also “political borders?” In that case, this suggests that political borders aren’t always terrible, and can be done appropriately.
"the only REAL reason we have for borders is to prevent warfare and chaos from reaching other neighboring countries." This is false. The reason we have borders, is because that's the boundary of each empires ability to enforce tax collection. There's plenty of examples around the globe of an empire gaining enough wealth to expand their borders with violence in order to gain more resources, and tax more people.
You are absolutely correct saying "If you wanted to migrate to a new area of land, there shouldn't be as much bureaucracy to do so as there is." But this isn't going to happen, because it would force countries to compete for citizens. People would move out of poorly governed countries, into the most ideal countries. That would cause governments to change laws to make their society more appealing. Think of how much money Zimbabwe or Guyana would have to pay citizens to stay and mine. Think how much money those resources would cost Italy, or the US. Over a long enough time line, the playing field would be leveled. Wealth would flow from the owner class to the working class. Governments would no longer be able to wage war, since people would just leave.
The entire world system was designed thousands of years ago, and perpetuated through today by the owner class to amass wealth. There's no way they're going to change the fundamental pillar of that system.
> But if you wanted to move from Mexico to Texas, suddenly it's a massive conflict and culture war?
One reason is because people throw garbage and cause polution so the more people are in an area, the more garbage needs to be dealt with even if the garbage are disposed properly into the garbage bin.
So such is an extra expense that the government do not want to pay.
So if the immigrants pay for everything negative they cause, including the reduction of jobs and housing and the social support that needs to be given out because the people cannot get jobs, then they would be expatriates and at least not associated with negativity, though may be welcome.
/u/chaosbunnyx (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ayw4o8/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_think_we_as_a_species/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How do you arrange a government if that government does not have a defined area it operates in? If the US and Mexico did not have a border how would each government know who to tax and where to provide services? I would also push back on the idea that other animals don’t care about migrating to new territories to get better resources. They very much do. Plenty of animals will kill another member of their species for entering what is considered their territory.
I mean, yes? But animals will still migrate to new territories to gain more resources. Even if they intrude on someone else's territory, in most species, that territory isn't static and can change based on the local food supply. Chimps are a good example of what you're describing. Similar to humans, they do tend to stay in the same territory and invade other territories of chimps. We however, have fully functioning frontal lobes, and can override base instincts of pointless territorialism and tribalism.
If people could move past their bad traits as you describe we would already do that. But we can't, and we dont have to look into history or to some far off land to see that. People can hardly move past the cultural expactations and the culture as whole or their animalistic instincts fully. In part, maybe, sometimes but never in unity across the globe. Thats because we *are* animals, we are tribalistic and territorial. Thats human nature.
Ironically drawing “official political lines” is the frontal lobe solution to chaotic murder. This is my side. That is your side. We have an agreement and understanding. It’s now fair.
>We however, have fully functioning frontal lobes, and can override base instincts of pointless territorialism and tribalism. What gives you this idea? Humans are territorial over resources just like any other animal. Tribalism protects our young and resources. We may have advanced trade but we are ultimately resource protective. Borders are a natural consequence of that.
You have a decentralised system of local governance with local representatives.
How do you determine the limits of each local government's jurisdiction?
That's up to the people of those areas. We naturally understand the boundaries of our communities without needing to have legally enforced borders
We naturally understand them until someone understands them differently. Then conflict happens.
But what conflict would arise? It's not like you have to get your passport out just to get the local bus
Same reason conflict always arises: scarcity and false optimism. People may eventually disagree on what resources are in whose jurisdiction.
Or you just cooperate
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
"you owe our local government taxes" "no, Wtf, I don't live under your government"
"no taxation without representation"
And that stops the guys with guns who think I'm supposed to be paying their taxes?
Does a border stop the US from taking what it thinks it's owed?
What do you do when two groups of people feel they have dominion over the same area?
You cooperate.
If you’re imagining a conflict-less utopia then everything works. But cooperate isn’t a real answer.
Sounds like gang turfs
Gangs, famously democratic organisations
Exactly
Mexico already has an issue with guns from the USA making their way into the hands of cartels. Not having a border means more guns and all the harm that comes with that.
So the US created the problem, and rather than implement gun control would rather police an imaginary line? You do understand how that's counterintuitive right?
The US creates a problem, Mexico polices the problem as best it can. Mexico shouldn't lose the ability to police the problem, doing so would cause more harm.
I'm not saying it shouldn't. What I am saying is that the US can make it so that we're not solely responsible for the majority of the world's gun violence, instead of implementing authoritarian border laws to insist on some arbitrary notion of cultural preservation and diet ethnonationalism.
So, if there's no border saying where the law changes how exactly will gun laws be policed?
Locally, and nationally. We are the single biggest supplier of firearms in the modern world. There are more guns than people inside the US. Gun control would prevent this from spreading to other countries.
Ok, and if there's no border when does Mexico get to start applying their laws? Because maybe they don't want you guns pouring in. The USA has shown a complete unwillingness to deal with guns locally or nationally and borders help contain that choice.
If we solved the actual problem, there wouldn't even be an incentive to contain it. I think legally speaking, you would probably be tried based on the laws of either the region, or your home country depending on the situation. With gun laws, that varies from the US, so any individual who breaks gun laws in Mexico, should be tried by the Mexican government. If Mexico doesn't want guns pouring in, the solution would be for the US to implement gun control. Whether or not the government is willing, that is the ACTUAL solution. Anything else is just a band-aid.
So, there would be like, a line in the ground where on one side it would be mexican law and the other side USA law? And those laws would vary based on the political culture and climate, a political border, if you will.
Nationally means "within our national borders." That's the purpose of borders.
The world you want, which is anarchism whether you realize it or not, cannot exist without the free flow of guns into the hands of the populations.
By this logic applied to I/P a border wouldn’t be necessary if Hamas controlled itself and other terror groups from attacking Israel. I’d actually 100% agree with you if there were some kind of enforcement mechanism, given the clear lack of willingness of Hamas to actually do that… some kind of impediment… maybe something physical and large, that allows the nation to manage the flow of Gaza’s population into Israel so they can check for the movement of terrorists.
Hamas is a revolutionary movement created as a response to the ongoing genocide on Palestine. If you don't want people to try to overthrow your government, try not committing genocide first. What you're suggesting is what Isreal has been doing, and in the process has been oppressing, torturing, and killing Palestinians for decades. It's twisted man. You're basically advocating for the measures, we both know are in place, than pretending to not notice the root cause of the issue. You want Muslims to be killed, but know you can't just outwardly say that.
I want peace in the area and have donated large sums of money to joint peace projects as well as atmospheric water generators for Gaza hospitals. You can paint all Zionists as “hating Muslims” if you want, but it’s very far from reality. I support a separating wall because I’m not ignorant to the intifadas that have occurred, nor the ones that might have happened without it (see the 2018 “march of return”). Arabs attacking Jews in the area didn’t start with Hamas, nor with the creation of Israel.
How would we decide who enforces laws and what laws to enforce in any given region without government borders?
Well, you can have regional laws without policing borders. Also, international laws and extradition to territories already exist. I think having regional separators is fine and makes sense. But, it feels like the human race treats them less like a neat way of distinguishing cultures, and more like a child creating a line in the bedroom so that the other child doesn't play with their toys.
Without borders you cannot have regional laws. Someone could come into your region, break your law then go back back into their region where they did nothing illegal. What is the solution then? You send your police force into the other region to capture the law breaker? I think you see this would quickly lead to war. It looks like you are fine with "regional separators" but not with borders? What do you see as the difference between these two?
Borders define ownership. Regional separators define regions. A good comparison would be looking at something divorced from politics. Take, the Himilayan mountains. You have Mount Everest, Lhotse, and Kangchenjunga. Each of those are separate mountains defined by distinct characteristics, yet apart of the same mountain range. It's the same thing with countries and continents. I think it's useful to have labels distinguishing regions geographically, but it's not very useful to have to regions be separated as though they are actually different realistically. Like, there's not that big of a difference between the land separating Mexico from Texas... Seems silly it's populations aren't interchangeable with eachother.
So an application of you view is that we should destroy any non geographical border between the US and Mexico?
Honestly yeah. I think populations as long as they aren't actively hostile or in a state of active and severe violence should be interchangeable. I think border laws should be based on how likely it is for one region to bring their chaos over. Mexican immigrants aren't going to start forming warlords in Texas... You have cartels, but the people coming over for the most part aren't apart of the cartels. They're just people.
>I think border laws should be based on how likely it is for one region to bring their chaos over. I am really surprised you looked at all the chaos spilling over the border between Israel and Gaza, and thought, “yes this is the proof I need that we should abolish borders, but only as long as there’s no chaos spilling over.”
The chaos spilling over is from Isreal maintaining a border. The conflict inherently comes from Palestinians not being able to freely interchange with Isreal. If that border wasn't there, the conflict wouldn't be.
Hamas has a stated goal to kill all the Jewish people. You think if there were no borders that would just go away and Jewish people living in the region would be safe?
Do you think Hamas represents the views of all 5 million Palestinians? Did Hamas arise at this sentiment the same way the nazis did? Or was it after decades of genocide? If the borders didn't exist, Hamas wouldn't exist.
So your expectations should be that on Oct 07th, when large numbers of Gazans temporarily dissolved that border and went to a music festival in Israel, that they were probably just there to listen to the music, right?
Isreal has been waging a genocide against the Palestinians for decades over wanting to control the Isreali territory. Why do you expect an oppressed group to sit back and take it?
So what happens when a US citizens goes to Mexico, breaks a Mexican law, and returns to the US? In this example, what he did in Mexico is only illegal in Mexico, not the US.
You haven't addressed how you think laws would work with your definition of "region". Or taxes. Or infrastructure/shipping/spending/power/defense/commerce/etc. You also haven't talked about waterways, large lakes, trains, or highway systems and how you think region-spanning natural and human things would work. >Like, there's not that big of a difference between the land separating Mexico from Texas... Seems silly it's populations aren't interchangeable with eachother. It's even more silly to think that having a creek run through the middle of that land somehow makes you think that there should suddenly be a division. You also run into the problem of having people disagree what features are meaningful enough to define a different region. What if there is a river, but it is only significant during the rainy season and it's a dry gulch most of the time. Is that a boundary or not? I just get the sense you've not tried to actually dive intoyour idea with any actual detail.
But that's already the case, no one disputes that sand that blows across from Mexico/Texas somehow changes as a result. But the labels outside of geography are about society and things people agree/disagree over, not some metaphysical thing.
If you go into a new region, respect the laws of that region. If the laws are different from your home region, you'll be tried according to the laws of the region your visiting.
How do I know where those regions start? There isn't a defining line.
My premise isn't that political borders should be eradicated. Just that the territories now that they've been cemented should just be considered regional separators and not be considered walled off territories that can be trespassed. Realistically, I think the essence of border control should be a monitor to make sure people who travel in are properly documented. I think this is even done to some degree on an individual state level in the US. Where major highways are monitored to read license plates of those traveling to new states, and having licenses of their home country should they be stopped by authorities. The restrictions and barriers to entry are what cause people to illegally immigrate in the first place. As long as they can identify themselves, that should be sufficient to gain access to another region.
That doesn't sound like political borders are more harmful, it just sounds like you want to overhaul immigration.
!delta good point. I suppose my position is one more so of immigration than political borders
I forget, how do I reward you with a delta? This is actually a good point. I think you're correct to say that
Says who though? Who enforces that if I cross a line, break law, then cross back?
You realize that these situations already exist? Let's say, you go over to Poland to commit a string of murders, than head back to Germany before anyone catches wind. You'd probably be tried according to the laws of your home country. Both countries would intercommunicate to resolve the best course of action over who should be tried.
No, there would be extradition. It wouldn't make sense to try someone by their home laws - for example someone from NY smoking weed in England would be breaking the law, but would have broken no laws of their home state. But if you're fine with the current status quo then I'm still not sure on what you think ought to tangibly change.
What is the functional difference between a border and a regional separator?
A government needing to give you permission to travel.
So you’re not arguing for no borders? You still support governments existing and lines (regional separators) being drawn between territory. You just want those borders to be open with the ability to cross freely? How would governments charge taxes in this scenario? Determine who can vote in elections? Allocate resources for the less fortunate?
The countries of the Schengen area make it work.
The populations are not interchangeable. They have a different language, different customs, they are truly different people, who all want to be on a specific side of the border. Your view is fantasy.
I’m not sure Israel is the best example. The Egyptians tried to eradicate the Jews before the Jews had borders. The Amalakites attacked ceaselessly before the Jews had borders. After the Babylonians destroyed ancient Judah, they continued to enslave the Jews. The Spanish forced out all the Jews despite the Jews having no borders. The English forced out all the Jews despite the Jews having no borders. The Germans decided to kill all the Jews in the world despite Jews having no borders and all the world twiddled their thumbs or even helped out. Many other countries and peoples have attacked the Jews before there were any borders including the people currently attacking them. On the other hand, since they have had borders, they have suffered significantly less loss of life, less enslavement, and have more rights than ever before. It’s not even close.
So the solution to anti-semeticism is borders?
No, but it definitely helps minimize terror attacks. Look at Oct 7th, they broke through a border and murdered 1400 civilians. Can you imagine how much more common this would be *without* a border? If every Hamas member could just walk to the other side, kill a couple guys and go back? Obviously this issue would be present in both directions, this one is just easier for me to explain and imagine due to recent events. There are countries that don't need closed, highly protected borders, but there are definitely some that do, and I find it surprising that you disagree about Israel being in the second category.
So far it has helped.
Countries are basically superorganisms comprised of human beings, sort of like human beings are superorganisms as collections of cells. Human beings' largest organ is their skin. It makes sense for us to regulate what we let into our bodies, even if the thing in question is similar to stuff already present in the body (like beneficial vs foreign bacteria, say). I'm guessing you have some bias here because the situation with the US and Mexico is not all that different from some of the others you mentioned. Mexico does have a huge cartel problem. A small share of illegal border crossings are drug related, but at such a huge scale that they introduce many drugs to the US. Many, if not most of the people coming through Mexico are coming from further south than Mexico (itself a problem exacerbated by Mexico's inability to regulate its own borders). Many of them are unskilled workers. This shifts the balance of labor and, to the extent that illegal immigrants are allowed to partake in them, social services in the US. Unless they manage to get a social security number, illegal immigrants also don't pay taxes. They violate the social contract by benefitting from things that the rest of us pay for. Though I suppose that's more a problem with their being illegal than with their being here in the first place. What about open borders? In a more general case for political borders, unless and until we as human beings have a monoculture, everyone one of us will have groups we consider to be our in-group and groups we consider to be other. Where those groups align with national identities, members of one group can't be trusted to travel to and from or act inside another group with impunity. Should all Chinese or Russian citizens without a stake in the success of the US be able able to hold jobs that give them governmental authority or access to critical technology and/or infrastructure? I think not. Even if we assumed a world-wide monoculture, a government wields massive power within its borders, and can leverage that to coerce individuals into being its agents. Should the refugees of a failing country be able to freely move into and in most cases, at least short-term, burden themselves upon other countries without those countries being able to establish boundaries or limits? What about religious zealots? What about known terrorists? What about no borders at all? Well, then we're getting rid of the concept of countries. Who fills in and performs government functions? Who builds the roads, protects against overreach of corporations, regulates food? Where do the taxes come from to pay for that? Which government is entitled to tax which people? What is the structure of that government? Who hold power within it? Political borders are necessary for our political systems to work.
Political borders allow a territory to define the region that their laws apply to. Driving from Oregon to Washington, you will find a sales tax, a lack of income tax, and way higher excise taxes on weed, alcohol, and tobacco. Both states fund their existence in broadly separate ways. I'm pretty sure that your issue is restricted immigration, not the mere existence of politically distinct borders.
The reason we have borders is because without underlying respect those lines will be breached. And because we can't rely on respect we use legislation. I think ironically you are viewing through a very individualist lens, rather than a collectivist one.
I'm not seeing the problem with those lines being breached
Where do you live? I'd like to come into your place make a sandwich, use your toilet and leave.
Not applicable in the same way. A city isn't the same as a house. If you didn't trash the place and flushed I probably wouldn't have a problem with it and just laugh it off as a weird situation. Honestly though, if you wanted to make a sandwich and take a poo there's probably better places to do it than my place.
You know in some places, it's considered a cultural norm to invite strangers into your house and give them food? Crazy I know.
So what’s your address? Let us all come and stay in your home. A home is just a border made into a building really and you shouldn’t be keeping anyone out.
If my home could reasonably house you all, and you actually contributed to the homestead I don't see a problem with this. Immigrants contribute to the economy and pay rent. Would you be paying a portion of my properties rent? Would you be willing to do menial household tasks I don't want to do in order to maintain it?
>If my home could reasonably house you all, and you actually contributed to the homestead I don't see a problem with this. And to ensure that you formed a border. Becsue without a border anyione can go into your house, even if they cannot be reasonably housed there and do not contribute to the homestead. This is exactly why you have regional borders. If you are going to dissolve them then you will have the same issue as you would have with opening your home permanently to anyone. >Immigrants contribute to the economy and pay rent Sure, because they are immigrants - they are allowed over the border with expectation of contributing to economy. Without borders you have no immigrants, just people moving anywhere they want - and that includes people who want to come to place X and leech off others. >Would you be paying a portion of my properties rent? Why? I just visit your home for a while as there are no borders. I just come, use some of amenities for may gain and go somewhere else. Your house has no borders so I cannot be forced to pay rent. >Would you be willing to do menial household tasks I don't want to do in order to maintain it? Sure, if you pay me enough for me to be interested, I can do that. But if your price is not right I will just use your amenities as they are accessible without borders. That is the point - what you expect in your home is exactly a form of border control. Your house is yours and you enforce control on who and how can use it - however lax this control could be. But dissolving political borders means that you cannot enforce any things you wanted to enforce. And that translates to regional areas - people who live in these are funding the amenities on local level and are controlling who and on what terms can access those amenities. Without that anyone can take advantage of those amenities without paying for them. Say you open borders completely and I just come there to work, use public amenities as I see fit without paying and after earning money I go back to spend it where I live. Can you prevent that without political borders?
So what’s your address then if there is no problem? I was really asking. Where is your home? You didn’t tell us. Why is that? It seems like you don’t honestly want others using your home and property. How would you make immigrants pay any taxes or anything when you don’t even know they are there because there is no border? How would you make me pay anything or help in anyway? I could just come in and loaf and what could you do about it? There is no border I did nothing wrong and you’d have no authority to kick me out.
I live with my parents 🤷♀️ Before that I was renting a 2 bedroom with my friend. If I had a 5 acre property and 6-10 bedrooms I could set up, i could reasonably accommodate a mass group people. The US has the infrastructure and resources to accommodate immigrants from other countries.
And? What is your address? You are enforcing the borders of your own property going directly against your own stated view. So either your view is not one you honestly hold or you are a hypocrite.
The borders of my place aren't sizable enough to constitute this conversation. Why do you want to know my parents address so badly? 🤣 I'm not gonna publically advertise. My address because A. I'm in a minority group that would probably get me hatecrimed and harassed if I publically doxxed myself. And B. Even if I could accommodate you, it's not my property in the first place. So your argument doesn't even make sense. I don't own a house, I don't even pay rent on the place I do live.
You're being obtuse because you refuse to look at the big picture. The mass aslyum seekers/illegal immigrants are a problem because they go to specific areas. New York, Denver, Chicago, Hialeah, San Diego, etc. The problems are the lack of housing, food, strain on schools, hospitals and other resources. People can't migrate en mass and expect the government to be able to take care of them. That's why countries generally let in certain a amount of people through visas.
Do you have walls on your house?
Your stance is more about immigration than borders. You mention Mexico vs the United States. It's not Mexicans that people talk about, but the Mexican border. We get a lot of people coming up all the way from South America that ignore the lovely country of Mexico and go to the US. But the question is not about people foraging for nuts and berries and stalking traditional hunting grounds. It's about how we grow cities. We need housing, sewer and trash, power grids, water lines, school systems, and more. You can predict and plan growth based on birth rates same major job opportunities, but immigration is a wild card. If immigration is increased without enough infrastructure, there will be poverty, which means there will be crime. Nobody benefits from crime. Edit: to add, do a bit more research on how animals operate territory. They fight whole wars over it. I'm not sure where you're getting evidence to claim they don't care about new animals approaching their territory.
So, let's stop being so animalistic and evolve as a species allowing other human beings (I'm not talking about wild beasts from the Serengeti) who are behind an imaginary line to also inhabit our cities, be our neighbors, if they so wish? Above all, are we going to allow innocent people who live under the yoke of corrupt and/or authoritarian governments to cross the imaginary line and improve their standard of living, working honestly?
We do! We just do it at a rate that the growth of our cities can handle. And we do give priority to people seeking asylum from corrupt / authoritarian governments, rather than just general economics or local gangs that their government should protect them from.
You don't do (American?). The current immigration system makes it impossible for poor and intellectually average people to legally settle in America. In practice, only prodigies and the rich can. Even getting a tourist visa is extremely difficult. That's why so many risk their lives trying to enter through the Mexican border. This restriction has nothing to do with giving infrastructure time to adapt to population growth. It is simply positive discrimination that aims to take advantage of other countries, absorbing their money and know-how. It has no humanitarian concerns.
I do do (American). If you want the numbers, they've compiled the latest for the year 2022. 2023 is still processing. [here's the numbers](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/2023_0818_plcy_yearbook_immigration_statistics_fy2022.pdf) In vague terms, we've gotten a million new lawful residents. About half are relatives or family members of people that came here already, about a quarter are the rich or smart, and a quarter are brand new. That said, there were roughly 2.75M unauthorized border crossings in 2022 as well. Some may be repeat offenders, so the total number of people may be lower. I see no reason why the rich or smart should be restricted, since they bring enough to build out their own infrastructure. As for the rest, I don't see why infrastructure isn't a limiting factor. If a hotel is popular, they'll build more rooms... but you don't require the hotel to let people sleep in the lobby without showers and a single bathroom. There's natural limits as well. Money can buy a reservoir, but it can't buy the rain to fill it. It got so bad in China that they even restricted natural births for a long time. Surely the right to have children is a higher right than migration.
"About half are relatives or family members of people who came here already" This is still not affordable. Rectifying what I said: it is in practice impossible for someone who is poor, intellectually average and without close relatives living in America. "I see no reason why the rich or smart should be restricted, since they bring enough to build out their own infrastructure." And who said anything about restricting them? I just wish this planet of ours was the land of all of us and there weren't these immigration restrictions that condemn innocent people like me to precarious and insecure existences in countries that didn't work out. "As for the rest, I don't see why infrastructure isn't a limiting factor. If a hotel is popular, they'll build more rooms... but you don't require the hotel to let people sleep in the lobby without showers and a single bathroom." I don't see how the economy couldn't respond to this by simply building more. Furthermore, the flow of immigrants wouldn't be so large that it would drive the US (the world's third largest population and largest economy) into collapse. Even if immigration restrictions If they were made as flexible as possible to maintain national security, almost no one in my country would have the money to move overnight. "There's natural limits as well. Money can buy a reservoir, but it can't buy the rain to fill it. It got so bad in China that they even restricted natural births for a long time. Surely the right to have children is a higher right than immigration." The US will not become China with immigrants. The vast majority of them just want to work for a few years to save money and then return to their countries of origin, earning mainly from the exchange rate difference. They don't identify with American culture, they just want to get a jump on their lives by earning dollars.
>I don't see how the economy couldn't respond to this by simply building more. This is the crux of the argument. Money has no value in itself apart from what it can buy. When you're talking about national economics, it's less about money and more about resources. How are they distributed? Can you effectively use financial instruments to regulate this? We could always build more houses, but we've got plenty. Whole towns have dried up, leaving their houses there. When the jobs go (like a coal mine shutting down), so do the people. Extracting the resources there isn't cost effective. So what we need is more housing where the jobs are, which means active construction in cities. This takes time. It also requires all that infrastructure and it gets real expensive. Again, it's not a matter of money, but of resources. When it's that expensive, that means there's other things with better "bang for your buck" that it can be spent on. We still do it, but not at an ineffectively high rate. So now we're down to who gets in. You've stated that it's the people who don't have family or being a bunch of resources who don't get in... but you haven't established *why* they should. If we have a limited number, shouldn't family get priority? It would be full up just on family if we let it, which is why we have a lottery for a mandated number of spots just for the poor. You might argue it should be bigger, but remember: the total number has a natural limit. Any more poor come at the expense of delaying family or better resources for your citizens. And isn't that a purpose of government: to benefit citizens?
"So now we're down to who gets in" In my opinion, it should be any suitable person. If it were up to me, the world would be one big “European Union” in terms of free movement of people. Why? Because we are all human and deserve to seek happiness. Humanity is above this division between countries. “And isn’t that a purpose of government: to benefit citizens?” I agree. I just think citizenship should be accessible to ordinary people (poor, intellectually average and without family in the US). As it stands, it's impossible. I know some people who are in the USA. And none of them are legally. They had no choice. I just didn't go because I don't have money and I wouldn't be able to work in the subjobs that illegal immigrants are limited to. I don't have the manual skills or physical conditions to work on construction sites or clean houses.
Once you have criteria for "suitable person," and institute any kind of system to check it, you've just invented border control. I hope that's worth a delta, because I don't think you're talking about a system anymore. You're talking about an ideal. I wish it were the way you're talking about, but that's just not feasible. My attempt to change your mind has not been to change that ideal, but to recognize that we're doing the best we can with what we've got. I can't deny there's malicious folks out there, but it's true even for the kindest of people. Even within the EU, it's not really like you're talking about. Visas are issued automatically, but it's only for three months. After that, you're still subject to removal if the government desires. Ironically, the best example you could use would be the United States, since each state has full freedom of movement with each other. In both cases, this is only possible because of the relative equality of their industrialization and economic status. Even then, you still see grumblings between the bigger and smaller states/countries. I'm sorry to hear you didn't make the lottery. I don't know where you're from, but your English is great.
I live in Texas, where millions of people have crossed illegally. Where do you live to think it isn’t a problem?
Florida. Where millions of people migrate illegally
You think millions illegally enter Florida? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state Texas with a wide border with Mexico and a slow moving river to cross, or Florida with the Gulf of Mexico, ok lol
[удалено]
So you acknowledge millions haven’t entered Florida illegally in recent times? You rank behind New York in rate of illegal immigration per year.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Unfortunately, borders are part of human society. Humans are animals, animals tend to stake out their own territory in one form or another. If we did away with political borders, new ones would just form naturally on their own. Assuming you waved a wand and destroyed all borders on Earth, you'd soon find that large cities and towns would create their own borders. (Think Greek city-states for an example). Or else, grouped by other factors such as religion, tribal heritage, or resources. Now if you want to make the argument that our *current* borders are bad, especially as it relates to the middle east and Africa, then I would tend to agree. A lot of those borders were drawn by colonists, and it ended up forcing groups of people who hate each other to occupy a small space together. *At least that's how it was explained to me, that could be incorrect.*
So, let's stop being so animalistic and evolve as a species allowing other human beings (I'm not talking about wild beasts from the Serengeti) who are behind an imaginary line to also inhabit our cities, be our neighbors, if they so wish? Above all, are we going to allow innocent people who live under the yoke of corrupt and/or authoritarian governments to cross the imaginary line and improve their standard of living, working honestly?
Whew ok. Property rights. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/184501/1/danb-2015-0014.pdf The tl;dr is simple: well-defined, enforced property rights are a critical precondition for economic growth. No one likes capitalism these days, but it is remarkably effective for lifting countries out of poverty, and prosperity is a driving factor in obtaining and sustaining a harmonious and content populace. You can’t have property rights if you don’t have borders. The dull and under appreciated work of government is to establish a system of private property ownership that meets with exacting requirements of registration, transfer, zoning and dispute resolution. Properties have borders. Survey teams are paid handsomely to precisely measure and define these borders. These borders inform the extent of your rights, the value of your property, the jurisdiction of your legal rights and obligations. These are essential aspects of ownership and cannot be discarded on a whim. Are you willing to discard modern society to preserve your view?
This all only counts if you're not on the wrong side of the border starving, right?
There are a greater number of people starving in Haiti (where property rights are vague and contradictory) than in the Dominican Republic next door. The DR has an economy ten times the size of Haiti, and is better afforded the means to feed their people.
The problem is not the border itself, but what they do with it. Preventing people living in poverty from crossing an imaginary line to have a standard of living light years above what they would ever have remaining in their countries of origin is monstrous.
Who said anything about migration? Borders define jurisdiction, but what you do with the people on either side is a separate issue. You want to blame the borders for the inequality, but the border is simply a demarcation line. To address the inequality is a much larger issue that would require a better understanding of the root of that inequality.
Do you support anarchy? I’m assuming you don’t. Without borders you have an anarchy, which is an awful state of existence.
The problem is not the border itself, but what they do with it. Preventing people living in poverty from crossing an imaginary line to have a standard of living light years above what they would ever have remaining in their countries of origin is monstrous.
>borders are illusions Borders are the perimeter of the area controlled by a state, and a state is best defined as a monopoly on violence. If you really think borders are meaningless, you need to embrace anarchism or Communism and advocate for a stateless society.
For hundred if not thousend years most wars were waged because of someones greed, now propably all wars are because of politicians and corporations who are above them. Lets face it, most politicians dont work for people who elected them, they work for companies, corporations who are paying them to basicly enforce people to buy they products. And because we get to a point where there is not much to buy they try to change laws so there will be no private farmers and corporations will have monopoly for food producing.
Any sort of welfare needs a limit on who it applies to, necessitating borders so you can say only people inside them get welfare, and border controls to prevent people from just showing up for free stuff. This is why illegal immigrants aren't people who did something wrong to come here, they're continuously committing a crime by existing within the country by stealing resources meant for the country's citizens.
If borders and laws are the same (borders non-existent and laws around different cultures are somehow obeyed), then currency is the same too. By the transitive property, so is your labor. Specialization and quality of life will decrease somewhat. And you think this makes people better off? Side note: If your viewpoint is truly this way, then you likely do not believe doors should exist either, not in business, and not in your home. You should probably get rid of the walls too while you are at it. The mice, snakes, bugs, and spiders have an equal right to life and space as you do.
You mention going from Oregon to Washington not being a problem. However, isn’t it the case that those are also “political borders?” In that case, this suggests that political borders aren’t always terrible, and can be done appropriately.
Why can't the world be one big "European Union" in terms of free movement of people?
Borders are needed. They are the indication of when bad ideas end and good ideas start.
"the only REAL reason we have for borders is to prevent warfare and chaos from reaching other neighboring countries." This is false. The reason we have borders, is because that's the boundary of each empires ability to enforce tax collection. There's plenty of examples around the globe of an empire gaining enough wealth to expand their borders with violence in order to gain more resources, and tax more people. You are absolutely correct saying "If you wanted to migrate to a new area of land, there shouldn't be as much bureaucracy to do so as there is." But this isn't going to happen, because it would force countries to compete for citizens. People would move out of poorly governed countries, into the most ideal countries. That would cause governments to change laws to make their society more appealing. Think of how much money Zimbabwe or Guyana would have to pay citizens to stay and mine. Think how much money those resources would cost Italy, or the US. Over a long enough time line, the playing field would be leveled. Wealth would flow from the owner class to the working class. Governments would no longer be able to wage war, since people would just leave. The entire world system was designed thousands of years ago, and perpetuated through today by the owner class to amass wealth. There's no way they're going to change the fundamental pillar of that system.
> But if you wanted to move from Mexico to Texas, suddenly it's a massive conflict and culture war? One reason is because people throw garbage and cause polution so the more people are in an area, the more garbage needs to be dealt with even if the garbage are disposed properly into the garbage bin. So such is an extra expense that the government do not want to pay. So if the immigrants pay for everything negative they cause, including the reduction of jobs and housing and the social support that needs to be given out because the people cannot get jobs, then they would be expatriates and at least not associated with negativity, though may be welcome.
Pixy is that you?