Opening the borders: What would happen?

Great Debates
1

Seeing all the talk about “illegal immigration” and the rather… passionate views it inspires in people, it seems only appropriate to ask the corrollary to the “Immigration Question”: What if every country in the world simply opened it’s borders and said “Bugger it, you can live wherever you like- we don’t care.”

Obviously this is never going to happen, but let’s just suppose for a moment that it’s suddenly (legally) possible for anyone in the world to move anywhere they feel like, be it New York, London, or a small Ainu fishing village somwhere on the coast of Hokkaido (barring criminal convictions, of course).

The usual hassles in shifting still apply (getting a job, moving your stuff, language problems, etc), but there’s nothing legally standing in your way from upping sticks and moving to Beverly. Hills, that is. Swimming pools, Movie Stars! (you get the idea. :smiley: )

What would the likely results of such an event be? I really can’t imagine the entire population of Mexico suddenly deciding to move to Southern Californa ("¡Hey, hombre! ¡Hay una bebida aquí!"), or everyone in Indonesia deciding to set up shop in Melbourne.

In fact, I imagine that in most cases, the people who would decide that the grass is greener on the other side of the barbed wire fence would be the sort of people who can get through the legal hoops that exist now (but in the case of Mexico, this is a different story, obviously, since anyone who could get a lift to the US/Mexican border could conceivably just walk across).

I’d also imagine that, after a while, things would even themselves out- after all of Tijuana had moved to San Diego and discovered there really wasn’t anything there they didn’t have at home ("¿Usted llama esto un burrito?"), and people from the US discovering that although there’s lots of pretty scenery in New Zealand, it’s not really an especially exciting place to live, especially since it’s about as far from the rest of the world as you can get, whilst still speaking English and being civilised (and yes, I know that appeals to a lot of people!).

Anyway, enough of my ramblings… what are your thoughts?

2

Why** Martini Enfield**, there’s an idealistic streak in you I’d never noticed before.

Surely there’s a bit of hippie utopianism in the notion that everyone should just go where they want to go, do what they want to do, even if it’s channeling the Mamas and the Papas, and a hard nugget of free-market capitalism at its core “Build a better country and people will beat a path through your door.” Ideally, this “voting with your feet” would make a big chunk of the world happier pretty much instantly, spread the world’s resources more evenly among its inhabitants, and force countries to reform in every area where it was demanded or risk losing population, which even poor and despotic states that seem to despise their own people seem loath to do, except through mortality. I salute you. But there are practical problems, and I’ll mention a couple of them that don’t even involve xenophobia.

First, I think you first need to recognize the difference between crossing a border and moving it. The first happens between Mexico and the U.S., the second is the issue (from one perspective, anyhow) between Israel and the Palestinians. Until you do away with the nation-state altogether (a few years off even if the Democrats regain control of the Senate), governments are going to insist to varying degrees that loyalty to the country of residence is one of the obligations of citizenship, and I’m not quite convinced that that can always be taken as a given. There are plenty of places and people in the world where cultural or political ties are a lot more clearly defined than the exact spot in the mountains or desert or forest where National Geographic cartographers drew the blue line. So I think the problem of “voting with your feet” is that sometimes you might be voting not for the proposition “Resolved: This Place Is An Improvement Over Where I Came From,” but rather “Resolved: Our Country Should Be Bigger Than It Is,” and even (hypothetically) “Resolved: And Especially It Should Include That Spot Over There Where They Found Uranium.” It isn’t an abstract problem: more and more, countries are making it easier to live elsewhere and retain citizenships and loyalties at home. Cite: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/citizen/multiple.htm

Second, there’s another way for an unscrupulous government to subvert your good intentions for its own ends. By encouraging its problems (crime, disease, mental illness) to emigrate, a bad government can actually postpone the need for reform. A lot more of this was feared and broadcast with respect to the Mariel boatlift back in 1980 than actually happened, but the principle is sound. Point your undesirables toward the nearest border and make it clear that they’re not to turn around. This may sometimes be good from a humanitarian perspective in the short term, but it’s a geopolitical mess, creating a human weapon that countries with few or maldirected resources can use against a more prosperous (or not, for that matter) enemy.

I’m still attracted to your idea, assuming that first everybody can agree on where one country ends and the next begins, and that the reason for moving is a free choice by the individual that he wants to give his labor, loyalty and love to his new home. It’s attractive for anyone who wants to believe that all people are valuable and that eventually this fact will be recognized and acted upon. But if that ever happened, both your and a lot of other reforms would become less urgent.

3

You know, I hadn’t considered the idea of taking the Adolf Hitler Approach To Geography and using a world with no borders to declare that, since so many citizens of Country X have moved to this part of Country Y, that the borders have now been adjusted to create some more… Lebensraum for Country X. :smiley:

I’m also surprised only one person has responded (but a great and well thought out response!)- I would have thought more people would have some thoughts on this, even if it was only to state that it was a silly idea and reeks of elderberries…

4

I recently participated in the Florida (U.S.) real estate market. It sends one’s mind down terrible paths.

Me too. Let’s bat this around a little and see if we can distract some of the other kids from their kick-ball game.

Assume for a moment that the two problems I mentioned before are solvable, or at least tolerable, or maybe by some divine grace just don’t occur (and I’m a little sorry to let the first one, in its mildest version, go: I am cruelly amused at the thought of Mexico, say, dispatching a few hundred thousand people, vote-and-jury-eligible, to Maricopa county, Arizona, in time for famous/notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s next election and/or civil suit defense, or to the execrable Tom Tancredo’s congressional district). Let’s also debar the local-yokel backlash arguments, on the grounds that (a) it’s really no fun any more to explore how an insular, privileged knot of bigots reacts to progress – we know, already, and (b) that kind of thing, trotted out by people who seem to feel that this kind of bad behavior is some kind of natural process and it isn’t to be expected that people can behave themselves even if they don’t want to, isn’t really an argument, it’s just a threat and deserves to be ignored, and © the threats may not be empty, but they’re rarely anywhere near brim-full either. The American South did not go up in flames after school integration, as predicted/threatened. There was certainly trouble, but it never came near justifying maintaining segregation, even for a few more minutes. So we’ll exclude that angle too. Having done that, have we excluded enough? If we ignore issues of sovereignty, and the use of a country’s marginal population as a weapon to discomfit and inconvenience and burden its neighbors, and assume that indigenous populations learn to suck it up and make the best of things without resorting to violence, and that their governments don’t try to appease them by making second-class citizens out of its immigrants, what will the world look like in five years?

Well?

5

Well, if you can solve this Mexico-American immigration debate, then the Israel-Palestine debate and the Native American-US debate starts to crumble. Long story short, if you solve one, you can go get your Nobel Prize tomorrow.

As far as I know, illegal Mexican immigrants cross the border because they don’t recognize a border there. Their ancestral lands were taken via treaty and war way back in the day. Some of their arguments are “We’re not illegal, we’re just going home.” I’ve said before that I think I support opening up the borders for a while and letting anyone that wants to come in to come in. Make yourself known and seen, get a Social Security card, and find your place in America like everyone’s ancestors (save the Natives) did. This situation is analogous to the Native Amreican-US debate where reservations (in my opinion) are almost like interring people into camps while you occupy their land. People that want to argue that the natives are better off have a precarious starting position to overcome at best.

After WWII, the Jews were displaced and had no possessions or home. Their homes and land and goods were all taken because paper trails were destroyed linking them to their stuff (with art, some provenance has been established and some of THAT can and is being returned). The displaced people were milling about and, because the international community couldn’t decide, the Jews went to their ancestral lands, held by Palestine.

So, tell me, where’s the big difference between these two? In my relatively uninformed brain, arguing for the preservation of an Israeli state means you are pro Mexican immigration, no?
Also, the elephant in the room has to be addressed. That is racism/xenophobia. If Canadians were pouring across the relatively unguarded border, John and Jane Q. Public would care a whole lot less. Mexicans have a deep tan and speak a different language. Seems to me that these big issues are the ownership class being pissy because if they let all these new people in, in time, they’ll filter through society and possibly take their family’s position. Amazing how people at the top tend to see power as a finite resource, in which anyone that gains power seemingly gets it from them. I suppose it’s a non-zero-sum battle, much like the Cold War arms race.

My ramble ends now.

6

These arguments hold absolutely no water, of course. The border is there today, and what their ancestors did or did not control is irrelevant.

I can. The reason people leave one country for another usually involves jobs. The quest for a better life for you and your kids is a strong motivator. If the border wasn’t there, I could see most of Mexico moving north in a heartbeat. As long as jobs are here and not there, immigration will occur.

In reality, of course, no borders means no countries, and that will never happen. We are too different.

7

They do? How?

Then why do they tend to go by night, cross-country, and pay people to smuggle them in? History may serve as an after-the-fact moral justification for some of them, but I’m not persuaded that they don’t see a border there.

And this makes them unlike the rest of the world how?

That’s what we’re talkin’ 'bout!

Until… you’ve had enough?

I’m not seeing that. The illegal Mexican immigrants aren’t creating space for themselves by killing us.

A lot of people don’t seem to connect the two that strongly, so I guess it’s possible to separate them. Most of Congress, I’d guess, would say yes to the preservation of Israel and also yes to tighter immigration controls. But if the two were inseparable, what’s the effect?

They actually care quite a bit more in states that border Canada, much as the southwest cares more about Mexico.

Yep. But as I said, letting racism dictate policy is a craven thing to do.

Who? I think you’re describing everyone. Anyhow, it isn’t the economic elite, the people who actually own a lot, who are competing with illegal immigrants, it’s folks quite a bit farther down the trickle, so to speak.

This is a little nebulous for me. In what sense is power not a finite resource, and what does it mean if it really isn’t?

And hi, silenus. If countries really are too different, won’t that just serve as a check on immigration, preserving national identities? If jobs (in another era, perhaps, the commodity would be arable land) are the issue, and they trump culture, the differences are by definition not insuperable. If culture trumps economics, the clash won’t occur. Isn’t the problem you’ve described just one mechanism by which crossing borders will be self-regulating?

8

I’ve never head any illegal immigrans saying they don’t recognize the legality of the border. Nearly all of them are looking for work and a better life for their kids. But I have heard many (and many Americans) who don’t recognize the moral authority of the border.

9

Good point.

The problem arises when governments get involved. That, and the trumps change with every individual. You, for example, may think that economics trumps culture. I may feel the exact opposite. Between us are a million other people with feelings all along the spectrum. What happens when my desire for my culture runs into your desire for a job? Do we settle it among ourselves, or do our respective governments get involved? Of such little things wars are made of, unfortunately.

10

I don’t buy the “No border formalities= No countries” thing.

Let’s assume (as I intended in the OP) that being able to move anywhere you like doesn’t automatically give you voting rights- you have the right to move wherever you like (and obtain whatever benefits paying taxes normally get you- social security after a certain period of time, health care, etc etc), but you can’t vote in local elections unless you’re a citizen of that country.

Further assume Citizenship isn’t especially hard to get, requiring no criminal convictions, have been gainfully employed for a certain period of time, of good character and health, and residency for a certain period of time.

I’m really not entirely sure why this proposal can’t work (at least in theory), short of xenophobic sentiments from the locals…

11

I would find two neighboring countries with different tax deadlines, say January and July. I’d live in Country A from January to June, when taxes are due; then I’d move to Country B from July through December, when taxes are due there.

On second thought, scrap that plan. I could never live in countries with such boring names as “Country A” and “Country B”. Pshaw!

–KidScruffy

12

This is already pretty much handled by treaty between friendly countries. I’ve lived in Japan for over 5 years, and by the end of the second year of residence I had to pick a country to pay taxes to. I could either pay US income tax or Japanese income tax. Local taxes and sales taxes, of course, I already had to pay. Same thing happens when you move states; you’re still liable for income taxes in whatever state you lived in recently until you have lived in a new location for long enough to qualify as a resident there instead. That’s one of the reasons you pay out of state tuition if you go to another state for university, because you haven’t been there long enough to have paid local taxes and so you don’t get the same subsidies that a long-term resident would.

–
I don’t see a real problem with opening the borders. There are fairly open immigration policies already in place between many countries with good relations. Umbrage is usually taken with “undesirables” which tend to revolve around discriminatory ideas. Realistically, there won’t be too many more people willing to uproot themselves than there were before. It’s the same sort of idea as the drug legalization issue. There will probably be a spike in the behavior right after the restrictions loosen, people will experiment for a while, eventually settle down, and a new equilibrium will be reached.

There will be some upheavals, both good and bad. Economies will make some adjustments, which will probably cause some problems at first. For example, there might be more US citizens buying property in Mexico, which will affect the real estate values, which will change the property taxes, which will change how much money the local government has, etc. The population makeup of an area might well change faster than the support systems can. Those are two things I can think of right away. I’m sure there are more that others can think of, but I’m also pretty confident that they are neither insurmountable problems nor universally negative potential outcomes.

As long as both governments are open about things and are conscientious about confirming each other’s compliance, you could probably prevent the exporting problems issue. Considering the US’s prison population, I actually think the Mexicans and Canadians have more to worry about than the Americans do. By the way, King of Soup, that whole “taking over the territory by planting people there” is part of how the US got Texas, you know.

13

Cite? My understanding of Japanese tax law is that you would have to pay Japanese income taxes if you live and work in Japan. Doesn’t matter for me, I’ve got permanent residency, so I have to pay Japanese taxes.

I think that there would be major consequences. For example, consider the number of jobs which have been outsourced to India, which has a large population of educated English speakers. They work for a lower wage than what they would get in the States or other English speaking countries, but are happy getting more than other workers in India. Removing barriers to emigration would allow a significant number to compete against native speakers. It’s not practical to outsource most jobs, but non-natives could compete for most jobs. They would accept a lower wage in the States, because their wages would still be better than in their homeland. This would work to equalize help wages throughout the world, but when you think of the discrepancies in standards of livings, then the possibilities for large-scale changes is not trivial.

14

I was a “non-permanent resident” up until last year. Re: your source, my income was considered “taxable in principle.” If they’d wanted to be pushy, they could have forced me to pay Japanese income taxes, even if I were already paying US taxes. In practice, though, as long as you pay US income tax you don’t get hit up for Japanese taxes and vice-versa until you hit the 5 year limit. There are tax agreements between the US and Japan that lay out the rules for this, but I haven’t looked at them for a while since I’ve been paying Japanese taxes since my third year here.

A couple of years ago, people living overseas almost lost any US tax-exempt status they previously enjoyed. If the bill had passed, that would have meant I would be double taxed, having to pay income tax in both Japan and the US. (If you are not a naturalized Japanese citizen it probably would have affected you also.) That would have basically impoverished me since I already send a significant portion of my net pay back to the US to pay for debts, and I would likely have been forced to either move back to the US or do something drastic like default on my student loans. I was pretty relieved when it died without getting passed.

15

On no, I’m not a naturalized Japanese :eek: and have no plans to.

What was happing was that they were talking about eliminating the exclusion for overseas residents. This is currently about $80,000, so the first $80 k in foreign income isn’t taxed. I was pretty concerned as well. However, even though they were talking about eliminating the exclusion, they were not going to eliminate the tax credit for taxes paid to foreign countries on foreign income. (See with me? You get a credit for paying income taxes to the Japanese government on income earned in Japan.) There’s a fairly complex calculation involved, but it worked out that because Japanese tax rates are comparable to US rates, you don’t get double taxed.

The poor ex-pats in Hong Kong and other locations with lower tax rates get hit harder.