> The 1918 flu pandemic spread so rapidly that, in general, there was no time to implement cordons sanitaires. However, to prevent an introduction of the infection, residents of Gunnison, Colorado isolated themselves from the surrounding area for two months at the end of 1918. All highways were barricaded near the county lines. Train conductors warned all passengers that if they stepped outside of the train in Gunnison, they would be arrested and quarantined for five days. As a result of this protective sequestration, no one died of influenza in Gunnison during the epidemic.
The sentiment that we are "all free people" may sound nice but is unfortunately a meaningless platitude bearing little resemblance to the real world. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh
I already drew a parallel between towns and countries.
Remember, we're all free to visit or even move to a different town right now, and yet we don't have chaos.
With increased revenue from where, exactly?
What will you do when your neighbor country is stricken by communicable diseases? Will you still think that movement should be entirely restricted?
And, the distinction would be between public places and private places. Anybody is free to exist in any public place with no permission required (just like you are already allowed to do once you're in the country).
It would all be exactly the same as it is now, except there are no checks at the border, and no visa requirements.
I think it's utopian to believe that this would lead to anything but slums and shanty towns. People with no wealth will all flock to areas with wealth, which won't have the infrastructure to support them. They'd camp out wherever they could with whatever they could - possibly right outside your house. Probably in your back yard actually - local law enforcement would be too overwhelmed to go around persecuting squatting or trespassing.
Travel to a large city in India to see what happens when free movement is coupled with massive inequality.
People will find a way to keep people they don't want near by away from them.
1. if any person on earth could sleep in their bed, would they want to?
2. if they do want to, what circumstance are they in that that's something they would want?
i.e. if everyone has their own bed, why take yours
Obviously I'm simplifying and referring to an impossible utopia here, but the sentiment stands regardless. The point is, once you're taking it that far, both sides are absurd.
Under the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, Svalbard is under Norwegian sovereignty. It is also an entirely visa-free zone. Anyone can go there, including same-day visa-free transit at Oslo Airport en route there. If someone lives there for 7 years they can then get Norwegian citizenship.
People can be deported from Svalbard if they are unable to support themselves or commit a crime, which I think answers your migrant topic.
FWIW, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has no territory, and hence no borders, but has widely recognized sovereignty.
However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be accompanied and indeed preceded by economic development.
The Schengen agreement for example only works because of the relatively similar economic situations of the member countries and even then it unfortunately has been a considerable cause for discord in recent years.
Or, to put it another way: what gives you the right to exist in a public place in the country you live in, but not a poorer person?
However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof).
Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible.
Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.
Let's say opening borders does have to to be accompanied by economic development: fine. How does that then not work when migration occurs from areas with different economic situations?
You seem to be proposing that migrants from economically areas necessarily depress a developed economy?