What’s the liberal reasoning for why we should have borders at all? I understand having some “soft” boundaries so people can, say, choose to live in Illinois instead of Nebraska and have different tax structures or road rules, but “hard” borders don’t really make sense to me.
Borders to me seem like a barrier to a fundamental human right to be able to do the best you can for yourself and your family.
It’s easy for material goods to cross borders and extremely hard for humans.
I shouldn’t have to go through years of paperwork and jump through legal hoops to the point where immigration attorneys are needed if I just want to leave the U.S. and live in, say, Chile.
And don’t get me started on all of the wars and violence that occurs because there’s some imaginary line that says being born on one side gives you special privileges that the other side doesn’t. Because God forbid we trust humans the same no matter where they come from.
Kind of ranty because it’s late and I’m tired, but maybe if you can share how the liberal mind justifies these invisible lines that cause so much human misery and suffering then maybe I can some up with short answers & talking points to debunk their points.
You must log in or # to comment.
Discussing this with libs, they generally agree that hard borders are something generally bad and should be abolished in principle, but they believe that’s utopian because they are chauvinistic enough to believe their country is literally the best thing on Earth and obviously anyone from anywhere else, especially poorer places, will want to migrate there if allowed, and therefore welfare disappears because now we have to give healthcare to three times as many.
This is the lib reasoning I’ve encountered.
Specifically in Europe where everyone just loves Schengen. Unless you are an immigrant, then you should be kept out of it. or if it absolutely must be because not even they can argue you aren’t an valid asylum seeker, restricted to at most one city.
there might be more blowback if there was no border apparatus, but the solution to that is not doing the shit that causes blowback.
Yeah, who thought that destroying the homelands of billions of people would make some of those people want to emigrate to non-fucked lands
borders only exist for the poor. we dont need them. some rich american pig can go buy a house anywhere he wants. a rich saudi can come buy all the houses in america he wants. but if you wanna go visit your family in another country for a week? better get permission from your own AND their government. and they need to know where you’re staying and they’re gonna tell you when to leave
borders ONLY divide the working class. they make working class people in america think working class people in mexico are their enemy.
The Liberal’s purpose of borders is to create a more exploitable underclass of labourers. People who live outside of the borders of Imperialist Nations are treated as subhumans, to be enslaved and looted. Migrants who enter the borders of Imperialist Nations are subjected to extreme legal scrutiny. Migrant workers who speak out against dangerous or unfair working conditions are subjected to threats of deportation or imprisonment.
edit ----
If you want what a liberal would say in defense of having borders. They usually invent a scary enemy that has to be kept out of the country. Either communists or criminals. People who “hate freedom and democracy”. This is just fearmongering.
In rare circumstances, there will be a Liberal that says like the purpose of borders is to protect the culture of a Nation. That like traditions are sacred and need to be preserved or something. This comes off as like segregationist to me.
You can see the purpose of borders by looking at the history of border enforcement and history of migration. The concept of borders and nations has changed over time, much of it is relatively new. ICE wasn’t created until GW Bush.
The excuse I hear most often is “so they don’t waste all our tax dollars.”
Liberals believe in a strawman welfare queen, just like reactionaries, except she’s Latina instead of black.
In rare circumstances, there will be a Liberal that says like the purpose of borders is to protect the culture of a Nation. That like traditions are sacred and need to be preserved or something. This comes off as like segregationist to me.
Someone seriously asserting this as a reason for the disenfranchisement of immigrants is equivalent to an apologist for apartheid.
The only legitimate use of a border would be environmental protection. Can’t have infected lamas and crop fungus on every corner of the world
Excellent question. If you dig a little, you will find three main justifications from their side for borders:
-
Avoiding crime. They are afraid that criminals from other countries might cross the border to commit “bad scary things.” Some engage in fearmongering by mentioning “terrorists.”
-
Protecting jobs. They worry that immigrants will arrive in large numbers and “steal” jobs from native residents.
-
Avoiding people who do not assimilate. They fear that many immigrants will come in, speak the national language poorly, and refuse to respect the culture.
I have tried to keep a soft tone, but quite frankly, I find these arguments quite bigoted, as well as factually incorrect. All of them have been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.
Research consistently shows immigrants do not increase crime rates, and in many cases, contribute to their decline.
Economically, immigrants fill essential labor gaps, pay taxes, and stimulate demand, often creating more jobs than they take.
Cultural diversity enriches societies, and most immigrants make genuine efforts to learn the language and adapt over time.
These fears are rooted more in prejudice and misinformation than in verifiable evidence.why would you – a newer user without a reputation – do this
-
Borders are fine. It’s empires who criminalize migrations, simply because they’re richer. They stole money from colonies, and now they don’t want to share it with the people they stole them from.
Freeing capital movement while restricting human movement. These two are deeply interrelated.
I’ve always subscribed to a stage-theory of border abolition, starting with the immediate abolition of inter-regional borders
For instance, I’ve always held the ironclad conviction that any human being should be able to take a roadtrip from Casablanca to Mecca without any interference from any state body, from the reaches of Iraq to the shores of Mauritania, borders along those routes have no reason to exist outside of a similar structure to the state border system the US possesses, maximum human mobility paired with administrative, legal and logistical divisions
And when we expand into a trans-regional scale, then borders can acquire a harder structure similar to what the EU currently enjoys with the Schengen area, with some mobility sacrificed as a stop-gap measure to allow for increased (human) integration over time
Not just borders, but “secure” borders. Or at least thats what Bernie and AOC say
States of any ideology are always going to want to identify and control who’s coming and going from their territory for a huge range of reasons. That’s just a reality of states existing.
Being anti-border is nice and noble, but it’s utopian frankly.
It’s as utopian as abolish slavery. Identify and control is done by force and now the EU just voted to have concentration camps.
It’s only Utopian because we lack the power to enforce a shared world.
What good did state sovereignty do to Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, EU, West Asian, Africa, South America.
Being pro-state is nice and all, but it’s nihilistic frankly.
SU would’ve fallen much sooner without it. the value of a state is in who is wielding it and how effectively they do so.
Cubans might as well have not had the revolution if they were going to not have a state.
Obviously borders and national identities are good when they are used against imperialism. Just like how DPRK having nukes is a good thing.
That doesn’t mean these things should always exist. A world where borders have to always exist is just as nihilistic as a world where peace can’t exist without nukes. Because that implies we’re all inherently evil and will never change.
It doesn’t mean I will see borderless earth in my lifetime. I will certainly not see it. I don’t care about that, but I will try to make so my actions push us towards a world without borders. Even if we arrive to it in year 6025, that’s okay with me.
Why do I have to be be the one who experiences something I want to achieve?
To summarize yeah, nations can be useful and necessary, as well as borders associated with nationhood, but if they aren’t used with the purpose of ending nationalism and eventually opening up the borders or expanding them, then history will keep on repeating itself.
