So, a world with no borders is "dumb" and "Lennonesque?" Well, for you to say that, you must concede that it's kind of normal for nations to want to be sovereign and part of that means having definitive borders and ways to control who comes in and who doesn't and what reasons are ok to come in and and which ones aren't. That being the case, why am I getting so much flack for not wanting illegals to flood the United States? And I already conceded I understand why illegals come here (empathy), but that doesn't mean I'm ok with them coming here illegally and committing identity theft (via stolen social security numbers, etc.) to make a better life for themselves. And something tells me if the people here that are fine with illegals coming to the U.S. were to be a victim of identity theft by, say, their social security number being fraudulently used, they might feel a bit differently about things.
This restriction on work and travel between three nations (yes I'm including Canada) is silly in my opinion. We have 50 states that are united, yet independent. Each with their own government and laws. Combine Mexico and Central America (if and when they're willing), the United States, and Canada. A central government with three equal parties. Majority rules. As is already set up between the states. One central government, one central military. We don't seem to have a problem between states with travel and employment. There's already a tax system set up where we must declare and prove citizenship to one state. Then we're free to work in whatever state we choose. Even in state, local taxes are simple. If I live in Columbus Oh but work in Cleveland I pay local taxes in one but not the other. Years ago, it could be viewed quite differently with restrictions of communication and travel such as they were. The only restrictions there are today (and they're becoming less and less) is language and culture) I view the sticking point as being nothing short of Nations attempting to pee higher on the pole.
I did and you called the idea of nations without borders "dumb" and "Lennonesque." Which means you're obviously intelligent enough to realize that nations with borders is kinda the norm. You don't need to "concede" anything by writing it and acknowledging it. Your reasoning made it fairly clear.
There's a difference between letting people move around to live where they think they will have the best life, and doing away with borders. If the laws in the US are different from the laws in Mexico or Canada then it needs to be clear where one ends and the other begins. Aside from convicted criminals it's hard to see why it should be difficult to live in another country, if you've got the means to support yourself there or the inclination to work to support yourself. If you decided you wanted to go and live in Norway, were willing to learn Norwegian, pay Norwegian taxes and abide by Norwegian laws, why shouldn't you do just that? Of course if you were planning to go to Norway with a view to expecting them to accommodate you, providing translators because Norwegian is difficult to learn and adapting their culture to suit your preferences, they would be entirely within their rights to tell you to take a hike. Where the US is concerned I find it quite remarkable that notionally the national language is English but it's hard to go anywhere without seeing signs in English and Spanish. It's good to accommodate new arrivals up to a point but when the system enables immigrants to live their own lives and never integrate it has gone too far.
It's interesting to compare the US to the EU in many ways. In the US as you cross a state border you become subject to some laws changing and some laws staying the same but culture is still more or less the same and language is still more or less the same. In the EU you can cross a national border and end up somewhere totally different. If you inadvertently strayed from Washington into Idaho or Oregon you might be forgiven for not realising what you had done, even if you had been into a couple of local businesses and talked to a few people. If you strayed across the border from France into Germany you'd be left in no doubt at all you were in another country - French and German as languages are hugely different. Admittedly crossing from Spain to Portugal might be less pronounced, and likewise from Sweden to Norway (I know Norway isn't in the EU before anyone mentions it). Let's spin this thing the other way around. If someone from England wants to come and live in the US, to support themselves without public assistance, to abide by US laws, to pay US taxes and to integrate into the culture of wherever they want to settle, why shouldn't they be allowed to do just that?
Well, since we're all adults, let's be real and not dance around things. No country can just let everybody in that wants in. There's the issue of, at the very least, population control. It's very possible for a country to have too many people in it. Every nation is entitled to exercise self-preservation as it sees fit, even if that means saying "no" to some people that may really, really want in.
Seems kind of silly to think there would be a place that had too many people simply because borders are open. Hey everyone, the borders are open in Urikistandi ( yes, there is no such country) Oh wait, there's no jobs and no public assistance. Nah, I'll just stay where I am.
Depends on what nation we're talking about. I can guarantee, for sure, though, if the United States said, "No borders, come on in everybody," our population would explode.
Umm... the fact that SO MANY people already come here, both legally and illegally, to a nation known around THE WORLD as the "Land of Opportunity?" What? You believe if America got rid of it's borders, and any kind of border enforcement, we would have LESS people coming here or something? ???
7.3 billion people in today's world, quickly approaching 10 billion. Over 3 billion live on less than $2.50 per day. Things are likely to get worse before they get better. Best be prepared to make room.
Well, it's either going to be more or less people (hard pressed to believe it would be "unchanged amount"). Which is it, then?
I think what you're getting at isn't whether there will be more or less. Your concern is that there will be too many. Will that be the case? Short term, it would probably be so. A slight rise in the population until word is out that there are no jobs to be had. But the same thing has been going on within the U. S. for years within the states. People migrate to the jobs. People south of the border are poor, not stupid. I see it as helping the economy in the long run. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a little competiveness to up the quality and productive quantity in the workforce. In the meantime, you'll have thousands coming into the workforce willing to take those jobs that are "beneath" the average high school graduate. And thousands of families are provided for. There's nothing wrong with an employer telling their workforce, "wanna keep your job? Be of value. Be competitive. If Joe is lazy and not dependable, Jose is."
All of that is why capitalism has worked and socialism doesn't. Competition works. I don't think we should fear population growth. Does anyone really know the limits the earth can handle? Population limits can hurt. China's former one child policy is going to be painful as it works its way out.
On it's face, that is extremely simplistic, but I get your gist. I believe China very recently began relaxing the one-child policy.
This is something of a shocking headline but does rather hide the reality in a lot of countries. Back in about 1999 I worked with a guy from Sri Lanka. He used to send the equivalent of $150 to his mother every month. With that $150 (about $5/day) she paid the rent on her three-bedroom house, paid all her utilities, paid for all her food for the month and often had some left over to share with other family members. So on $5/day she lived pretty well. At the time I was paying more than $5/day for a train ticket to get to work.