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.
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