Did you read the OP? It’s defined as something like the EU.
BTW, I think it’s a crying shame that the US and Canada do not have open borders, like the EU. I’m not seeing the gun thing as such a big issue. Americans can move to Canada and work, but they have to abide by Canadian gun laws. It’s not like people have guns surgically connected to their bodies (well, I hope not!!).
I think this has been going on for more than two decades via multinational corporations and international financing.
There’s your problem right there. Even though the US, France, Germany, UK, Italy and the Netherlands are first world countries, the legal systems can be VERY different, and guaranteeing “the same liberties and protections” might be very problematic when one country’s absolute protections aren’t present in another country.
Take for example, double jeopardy. In the US, there’s a blanket prohibition in the form of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Other first-world countries such as the Netherlands and the UK have certain situations where double-jeopardy is allowed.
This is such a no-brainer. I’m not sure why everyone thinks putting up fences everywhere is a good idea. It’s economy-shrinking protectionism at best. At worst it’s racism, xenophobia and nationalism wrapped into one. Free migration world wide would be a bigger boon to the world economy than free trade has been. Everyone would be better off. I wouldn’t limit it to the first world either. Every country should have a sign at the border that says “Humans welcome here”.
You are happy for someone to pitch a tent in your garden and eat the apples from your tree?
Immigrants still have to find their own place. Nobody is suggesting we give them our homes and our land. I’m just saying let them into the country. Let them rent or buy a home just like the rest of us.
What’s the difference between someone being born in Mexico, waiting until they are 18, and then coming to the US and finding a job and apartment, and someone born in the US, waiting until they are 18 and then finding a job and apartment? Treat them like they were born here, is all I’m saying. Place of birth (or prior residence) should have no bearing on how someone is treated today.
It’s about equality and respect for humanity as much as economic prosperity. It’s a good thing all around.
I consider myself very pro-immigration, even by northern European standards. But we have to be aware of the potential dangers of completely open borders. To name just one possible problem:
- Norway opens its borders
- Thousands and thousands of people from poor countries decide (quite rightly perhaps) that being a beggar in Norway is better than living a normal life in their homelands.
- Norway has to cope with thousands and thousands of beggars.
- Norway’s safety net, which is wide-reaching and in many aspects universal, has to take care of all these people who then pay no taxes.
Wouldn’t that be the end of Norway’s welfare state? Or do you suggest that immigrants should be allowed in Norway, but their access to state support should be limited?
Do only beggars immigrate? Perhaps Norway would be swamped with high-tech skilled labor and academic types who love contributing monetarily to a welfare state? And that’s not a flippant remark – people are a valuable economic resource, and only rarely a net drain. Most countries would be better off with more, not less, especially if they’re working aged. And just like jobs, people are vastly more productive when they are allowed to go where they want rather than being forced into some place or position they hate.
Yeah, as services in one location begin to be used at an unsustainable rate, they will have to lower the amount of services or else make up the budget elsewhere. Eventually, a balance must occur where it is no longer attractive for a significant fraction of the population to move. Either because the target country got worse or the home country got better, or (probably) both.
The only reason this hasn’t happened yet, is that we’ve artificially sequestered whole populations into unnatural borders. Yes, opening the borders will create winners and losers, but only because closing them artificially made winners and losers in the first place.
Just like getting rid of tariffs and busting up monopolies, opening borders will make some people worse off in the short term. In the longer term (and for the majority, in the short term too), it is absolutely worth it.
Besides, you could get rid of your beggar army problem just by requiring a six-month residence before granting citizenship. Not many people will voluntarily starve on the street for six months in the hope of eventually getting some free food stamps. And six months is way better than the decade-to-infinity it currently takes to become a US citizen.
No of course not. But beggars would migrate. And the more there are, the larger the burden on the welfare state.
Of course. The Nordic countries are quite good at attracting the best from every country. But that is because they can close their borders to those who won’t be a net benefit. Limit Norway’s ability to do that, and immigration to the country may soon turn into a net drain.
As someone who is proud of his country’s safety net, I’m not willing to accept that. I’m all in favour of open borders from a philosophical point of view, but I’m even more in favour of having a sustainable welfare state. If those two are not compatible, I’ll have to choose the latter.
Few civilised countries would let people starve to death on their streets. I think that would be an immoral solution
(I’m probably coming across as a hard-liner, but I honestly understand where you’re coming from. I just think that we should think very carefully about the consequences that tearing down our borders would have. The net effect might be negative rather than positive, unfortunately)
That’s well and good in the long term (well, maybe), as you noted.
But in the short term, there’s going to be an awful lot of people who aren’t happy with the transition period. And when enough people get angry, governments get overturned and things get really violent.
This sounds like a surefire way to have millions of people in every advanced country take to the streets in protest. I guess you can make the assumption people will be non-violent and agreeable about the change, but that’s an awfully big and unfounded assumption.
ETA: It’s kind of like Keynes’ old line. In the long run we’re all dead. We must consider the short term implications, because they may be pretty ugly.
Why do you support a safety net in the first place? If it is out of compassion for the less fortunate, why wouldn’t you offer benefits to people regardless where they were born? Are non-Norwegian-born people sub-human?
I’m simply stating the way things should be. The way things are… you’re right, this will never happen.
On the other hand, there’s nothing like a grand vision to inspire a gradual shift towards the right direction. Maybe we won’t just open the floodgates one day, causing worldwide chaos, if however temporary. But maybe enlightened leaders around the world will slowly bring open migration to the table the way they pushed free trade over the past few decades. We’re not anywhere near “free trade” in an absolute sense, with tariffs and embargoes everywhere, but we’re a lot better than we were in the past.
You yourself stated that imposing a six month residency-threshold for people applying for benefits would be OK. How is that any better?
If there are too many people taking out from the system compared to those providing to the system, then there can be no safety net. It is not sustainable. So I’d rather have a sustainable safety net for a few than a non-existent one for everyone.
It’s a horrible idea, obviously.
Unless you live in one of the shitty countries, in which case, you just got a free lunch.
Fair enough. My only point is that allowing some but not all is necessarily discriminatory. Either you discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin or race or seniority or income level or whatever. I’m not actually accusing anyone of thinking others are subhuman.
But it is arbitrary. In my opinion, the number of people on Earth who would voluntarily choose to be needy is miniscule. Most of those who are needy are that way due to circumstances beyond their control. Not being able to follow demand for labor is certainly one of those obstacles, and one I’m suggesting we remove.
You would absolutely have some people who are a net drain on society finding a good safety net country somewhere to be comfortable in. But it would have to be good enough to offset the cost of migration, which can be substantial. And it would have to be good enough to motivate people to avoid productive work, which is an even higher bar. Most people want to feel productive and creative, if you give them enough so that “I’m still alive” doesn’t feel like a huge accomplishment.
What is the rate of “unproductive beggars draining the public teat” in Norway anyway? What makes you think that rate would be any higher among immigrants? If anything, I’d imagine someone with the motivation to pack up their whole life and family to travel across the world would be more willing to bust their ass to improve their lot.
Let’s use the US as an example. There is a huge oil boom in North Dakota, and jobs are popping up so fast people have to sleep in their trucks because housing and hotels just aren’t being built quick enough. What if it took years to get a North Dakota work visa, and only a predetermined number of immigrants were allowed? Unemployment in the rest of the country would be higher, and ND would have a lot of vacant oil fields with nobody to work them. Lose-lose.
But the US is smart, and we forbid those kinds of restrictions on travel between the states. If only the world were smart, and we could forbid travel restrictions between countries too.
Yes, I did read the OP, in light of the applicable EU law.
In the EU, one of the conditions for exercising the right of open movement is that the visiting EU citizen must have comprehensive health insurance valid in the host country that they’re moving to.
The right of free movement doesn’t give a visiting EU citizen an automatic entitlement to the host country’s health-care system.
See the EU Directive on free movement, art. 7:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cited by the OP is not a specifically EU treaty. It’s an international treaty which any country can sign.
Yes, that is a bit unfortunate. But I think that in this case removing that arbitrariness would have negative consequences
Absolutely, I agree. But an economy can’t just create thousands of jobs over night. If tonnes of migrants enter a country all of a sudden, many of them will inevitably be unemployed no matter how much they want to be productive.
As I said, it’s not about people’s willingness to do anything. It’s about their capacity to do so. Eastern European migrants certainly seem to be overrepresented among Sweden’s homeless population, for example. Many of them simply do not have the educational background necessary to make it in Sweden. So it’s very unlikely that any of them will find jobs, and yet their lives in Sweden are arguably not much worse than in their home countries. Imagine how bad it would be if, instead of opening its borders to Romania and Bulgaria, the borders were opened to the other 120 countries that are much poorer than Sweden.
A better way to put it would be “you just got a chance to make a better life” which is what you’d want if you’d been born there.
Morally I’m in favor of open borders but I recognize that a completely open system would (at least short-term) cause problems. I am, however, in favor of opening what we can and work towards open borders.
Likely, many of the investors of top corporations in the U.S., including oil companies, are found in various countries in the Middle East and in Asia.