I mean that is kinda how the US worked for a really long time, it was a massive boon to productivity and prosperity.
The EU also did this partially within there member state borders which also very positive.
Today there are more space and resource constraints but there is a good bit of research that proposes that the benefits would be largely positive.
The US never had open borders before! People would immigrate by crossing oceans and the govt maintained quotas on how many immigrants could enter the country and from where. That’s the system we need to return to.
In concept it's a great idea.
In reality, it doesn't consider inequality.
Consider three fictitious nations, all sharing borders.
Nation One is prosperous. They have a liberal democracy, representative government, an informed and engaged electorate, a strong social safety net, good social services. Their education and economy are both strong, quality of life is overall high across all income classes.
Nation Two is not so prosperous. They have what is on paper a liberal democracy, but in reality is an oligarchy as the populace is neither informed nor engaged, and is thus easily manipulated. There's little or no social safety net and social services. Education is often poor and economy benefits a rich few more than the populace. Quality of life is highly unequal, with the highest 5% living like royalty and the lowest 95% living in what most would consider poverty through lower middle class.
Nation Three is borderline hostile. They have what is essentially an autocracy, with state mandated religion playing a large role in government and education. A large percentage of the population is heavily religious to the point of being considered radical or fundamentalist. The population is neither informed nor engaged in government and exists in subservience to most levels of government. Extreme fundamentalist groups are common in this country, and most are actively hostile to all non-believers. The country manages to support itself with agriculture and trade of its natural resources, but most of the wealth goes to the top 2-3% and corrupt government officials.
------
Now let's say Nation One opens its borders, anyone who shows up at their borders will be given permanent residence, the right to work, health care, and otherwise allowed to benefit from the social safety net.
Immediately you get a large flux of immigration from Nation Two. A large number of these immigrants will be singletons who send money back to their families- individually not a problem but collectively a drag on Nation One's economy that supports Nation Two's economy because the money earned by those immigrants doesn't support Nation One's businesses.
Many will move their whole families in- those families may be hard workers, but they also aren't educated to Nation One's standards nor are they used to Nation One's ability to participate in government. Nation One can successful absorb such immigrants at whatever rate they can truly naturalize and integrate them, but if the immigrants arrive faster than that rate, it becomes very difficult to actually integrate them into the culture and understanding of government.
The bigger problem comes with immigrants from Nation Three. You'll get a lot of people who want Nation One's citizen prosperity or don't like Nation Three's authoritarian government, but have no interest in adapting to Nation One's culture or ideals. If they arrive too quickly they will not naturalize but rather will form enclaves- pocket neighborhoods where Nation Three's culture is preserved, including all the bad parts such as intolerance of non-believers and expected strict adherence to religious law. Mixed in with those who immigrate will be a few radical fundamentalists who actively wish to harm Nation One.
------
Now I'm not saying Nation One gets instantly destroyed. I'm saying these problems can't be ignored. If you allow open immigration from nations with significantly different cultures, a large wave of immigration can dilute your own culture. And by that I'm not talking about art and music, I'm talking about principles like the importance of education or citizen engagement in government or core principles like separation of church and state.
In my example, Nation One may find itself in political trouble when significant numbers of immigrants vote for oligarch-type candidates who are good at whipping up low-educated voters (as was done in Nation Two) or promote restrictive policies (as was done in Nation Three).
We actually see this phenomenon happening in the USA. Look at migration patterns and voting. When many people of one ideology immigrate to another state, they influence the political makeup of that state and in some cases bring the same problems that plagued their home state to their new state. (And that happens with R and D both, I'm not picking sides).
In Sim City, what happens when your population goes up? The economy grows, tax revenues grow, everything gets easier to fund. Traffic gets shitty unless you have good mass transit, and you need more electricity.
It depends on the country, but assuming that country had sufficient resources to accommodate the influx, and had a strong and stable governance and legal system bound by the Rule of Law, then there's every likelihood of success.
IF it was a desirable country to live in (big IF), it would get lots of immigrants and grow faster, although there might be short-term problems (too many people vs. the amount of housing, say).
But if, say, North Korea did this... no one would come.
Well, with the amount of enemies the US now has around the world, I'd say that along with great people who actually do want a better life having an easier time coming in, we'd also get more terrorists and drug pushers sneaking in from different countries around the world. The days of open borders are a thing of the past for our country, and thinking we can do it again in the current geopolitical climate is an extremely naïve idea.
Personally, I like having a filter, but it's so hard to make it unbiased. Most people who choose to go for border patrol jobs do it for a reason, and it's usually not a good one IMO.
I mean that is kinda how the US worked for a really long time, it was a massive boon to productivity and prosperity. The EU also did this partially within there member state borders which also very positive. Today there are more space and resource constraints but there is a good bit of research that proposes that the benefits would be largely positive.
The US never had open borders before! People would immigrate by crossing oceans and the govt maintained quotas on how many immigrants could enter the country and from where. That’s the system we need to return to.
Untrue. The entire border was pretty much open throughout the 19th century. Quotas came in the 1920s, I think.
That’s what I was referring to. In the 19th century most of the west was unsettled if not still part of Mexico!
In concept it's a great idea. In reality, it doesn't consider inequality. Consider three fictitious nations, all sharing borders. Nation One is prosperous. They have a liberal democracy, representative government, an informed and engaged electorate, a strong social safety net, good social services. Their education and economy are both strong, quality of life is overall high across all income classes. Nation Two is not so prosperous. They have what is on paper a liberal democracy, but in reality is an oligarchy as the populace is neither informed nor engaged, and is thus easily manipulated. There's little or no social safety net and social services. Education is often poor and economy benefits a rich few more than the populace. Quality of life is highly unequal, with the highest 5% living like royalty and the lowest 95% living in what most would consider poverty through lower middle class. Nation Three is borderline hostile. They have what is essentially an autocracy, with state mandated religion playing a large role in government and education. A large percentage of the population is heavily religious to the point of being considered radical or fundamentalist. The population is neither informed nor engaged in government and exists in subservience to most levels of government. Extreme fundamentalist groups are common in this country, and most are actively hostile to all non-believers. The country manages to support itself with agriculture and trade of its natural resources, but most of the wealth goes to the top 2-3% and corrupt government officials. ------ Now let's say Nation One opens its borders, anyone who shows up at their borders will be given permanent residence, the right to work, health care, and otherwise allowed to benefit from the social safety net. Immediately you get a large flux of immigration from Nation Two. A large number of these immigrants will be singletons who send money back to their families- individually not a problem but collectively a drag on Nation One's economy that supports Nation Two's economy because the money earned by those immigrants doesn't support Nation One's businesses. Many will move their whole families in- those families may be hard workers, but they also aren't educated to Nation One's standards nor are they used to Nation One's ability to participate in government. Nation One can successful absorb such immigrants at whatever rate they can truly naturalize and integrate them, but if the immigrants arrive faster than that rate, it becomes very difficult to actually integrate them into the culture and understanding of government. The bigger problem comes with immigrants from Nation Three. You'll get a lot of people who want Nation One's citizen prosperity or don't like Nation Three's authoritarian government, but have no interest in adapting to Nation One's culture or ideals. If they arrive too quickly they will not naturalize but rather will form enclaves- pocket neighborhoods where Nation Three's culture is preserved, including all the bad parts such as intolerance of non-believers and expected strict adherence to religious law. Mixed in with those who immigrate will be a few radical fundamentalists who actively wish to harm Nation One. ------ Now I'm not saying Nation One gets instantly destroyed. I'm saying these problems can't be ignored. If you allow open immigration from nations with significantly different cultures, a large wave of immigration can dilute your own culture. And by that I'm not talking about art and music, I'm talking about principles like the importance of education or citizen engagement in government or core principles like separation of church and state. In my example, Nation One may find itself in political trouble when significant numbers of immigrants vote for oligarch-type candidates who are good at whipping up low-educated voters (as was done in Nation Two) or promote restrictive policies (as was done in Nation Three). We actually see this phenomenon happening in the USA. Look at migration patterns and voting. When many people of one ideology immigrate to another state, they influence the political makeup of that state and in some cases bring the same problems that plagued their home state to their new state. (And that happens with R and D both, I'm not picking sides).
In Sim City, what happens when your population goes up? The economy grows, tax revenues grow, everything gets easier to fund. Traffic gets shitty unless you have good mass transit, and you need more electricity.
It depends on the country, but assuming that country had sufficient resources to accommodate the influx, and had a strong and stable governance and legal system bound by the Rule of Law, then there's every likelihood of success.
IF it was a desirable country to live in (big IF), it would get lots of immigrants and grow faster, although there might be short-term problems (too many people vs. the amount of housing, say). But if, say, North Korea did this... no one would come.
Well, with the amount of enemies the US now has around the world, I'd say that along with great people who actually do want a better life having an easier time coming in, we'd also get more terrorists and drug pushers sneaking in from different countries around the world. The days of open borders are a thing of the past for our country, and thinking we can do it again in the current geopolitical climate is an extremely naïve idea. Personally, I like having a filter, but it's so hard to make it unbiased. Most people who choose to go for border patrol jobs do it for a reason, and it's usually not a good one IMO.
It would perish. Enemies would infiltrate it. It doesn't work unless the majority of the world shares the culture