Hacker News Reader

Comment by hirako2000 | Hacker News Reader

hirako2000

[flagged]

Where did you get your education? Serious question.

Borders have nothing to do with colonialism. There is no human right to move and settle where you please, especially in this day and age where that entitles you to many social services paid for by taxes.

A nation that does not control its borders is no longer a nation. No country on earth behaves that way. Not now, nor in the past.

A nation that does not control its borders is no longer a nation. No country on earth behaves that way. Not now, nor in the past.

The world was different, of course, but the USA basically (and I thought rather famously) behaved this way until around the Civil War period, and it remained relatively open until about the First World War.

From the horse’s mouth:

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-hi...

And specifically: https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/overview-of-ins-h... https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/mass-immigration-... https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/overview-of-agenc...

You’re right, that’s an important exception. To be fair that’s a decent policy in an era before taxes and social programs, and when you’re presiding over a vast, largely empty new territory.

I would make the case that the cost of a one way sea ticket to the US in those days was something of a restriction. But still very unrestricted compared to today.

The U.S. Government sent its first official communication to the Sultan of Morocco in December 1780. It read:

We the Congress of the 13 United States of North America, have been informed of your Majesty’s favorable regard to the interests of the people we represent, which has been communicated by Monsieur Etienne d’Audibert Caille of Sale, Consul of Foreign nations unrepresented in your Majesty’s states. We assure you of our earnest desire to cultivate a sincere and firm peace and friendship with your Majesty and to make it lasting to all posterity. Should any of the subjects of our states come within the ports of your Majesty’s territories, we flatter ourselves they will receive the benefit of your protection and benevolence. You may assure yourself of every protection and assistance to your subjects from the people of these states whenever and wherever they may have it in their power. We pray your Majesty may enjoy long life and uninterrupted prosperity.

https://ma.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/io/

I assume you’re interpreting that to mean there was unrestricted immigration from morroco. I don’t interpret it that way, I’d need to see more evidence.

The United States did not begin to restrict immigration from anywhere until the late 1800s.

There's no human right to do so simply because societies and governments have deemed it such. There's not really any decent reason it "shouldn't" be a right for well meaning people.

To be clear, I do agree that going somewhere else may grant you benefits you wouldn't have had in where you originally are from and that's due to taxes and other systems in place. But plenty of well meaning people who are skilled and willing to contribute to other societies are not allowed to do so just because they were born somewhere less fortunate or with certain stigmas attached.

Its a complex problem of course, free movement does let some bad apples in that can cause a lot of harm. But it can go too far in my opinion.

The problem of free movement is not bad apples, but simply too many apples. Even legal immigration is challenging to accommodate as a large influx of new residents disrupts everything from housing to culture.

I say this as an immigrant who helps immigrants immigtate, so I'm very much pro immigration.

I think he was questioning Visas and not borders. These are not the same thing. You can have tight borders but easy visas if the jobs are available. That being said, borders are really a new thing. In the past, people gathered in the city, but the "nation" didn't really have much oversight of what's happening in the forest. Many of the old world countries are divided by rivers, mountains and sea.

Read it again:

> They hold on by keeping people in fear and confusion between the removal of borders and human rights to visit and settle in any nation.

You see the word border there.

Indeed the word border is in there. I wrote that word, followed by a few others that point out what other commenters jumped in with: confusion between border and inherent rights to move.

I think you should read again.

Nations and countries are made up things, you know that? They are not naturally human but a social constructs made up by those in power to have better grip on other people (their serfs) in the past. Usually countries started as kingdoms and the premise was clear.

Many societies of the past were conglomerations of tribes where each group/tribe had their own hierarchy and the various groups interacted with various kinds of hierarchy or lack thereof. Think of ancient Gaul or North American native nations. Despite them being formally independent groups, a common culture united people against what they perceived foreign. Gauls resisted Roman invasion, and even managed some degree of cohesion under Vercingetorix because they felt the threat of the common enemy.

You should read the Declaration of Independence :)

It is a right to live and settle wherever you please. In practice YMMV depending on different states’ ability to recognize rights, however.

And yes, the Declaration of Independence isn’t authoritative on the topic of rights, but it is a very clear cut explanation of how rights (ought to) work, without diving into the philosophy of it.

Borders have more than nothing to do with colonialism. but that wasn't my argument.

> A nation that does not control its border is no longer a nation.

Argument is about VISAs.

And so what? I would trade justice for the concept of nations if nations are prisons for many and wall gardens for a few.

> No country on earth behaves that way. Not now, nor in the past.

Whataboutism.

Again the argument is about VISAs, not borders, but was the U.S not a country?

> There is no human right to move and settle where you please

Does it not make the UN declaration absurd?

Article 23 is interesting.

"to just and favourable conditions of work"

So let's say, Michel. born in London.

Michel could be a citizen of some EU country, the US, South Korea or any of another dozen specific countries, that's about the same.

Equiped with his education or simply interest in trade and business, decides that what would please him most is to go to Singapore. Whether his desire is to settle or just to visit, he himself don't even know, so a short visit will do:

He goes to Singapore, gets a 90 days visit stamp on arrival.

Replace Michel by any of the billion(s) of citizens who don't have that privilege and the result is this: - visa application in advance - fees - no guarantee to get it issued

Is this is compatible with "just and favourable conditions" and "right to employment" ?

> but those rights only apply within a particular country, the declaration says.

I hear you say.

Yet Michel from London can travel to most countries present on all continents, if that pleases him.

> that entitles you to many social services paid for by taxes.

Blame the benefit systems then if they are the barrier to true freedom of movement.

For precision, non tax payers also benefit from social services. In fact even more so than those who pay taxes.

It isn't about tax and a sensical distribution of benefits, that would easily be solved.

> Where did you get your education?

No idea why that would matter but here is a serious breakdown.

- early education from a private school - then from a couple of public schools - then from several semi private schools - then from a state university - then from another University, this time private.

From two countries, both former colonial empires and members of the United Nations. Signatories of the declaration which was meant to enshrine "the rights and freedom of all human beings."

If you remove borders, you also have to remove social safety nets and other things which make rich countries better to live in than poor ones.

There's no inherent truth of the universe that requires countries to have such disparate wealth that some are so much better to live in. I bet most people arguing for removing borders would also argue there should be much better global equality.

So prior to colonialism, there was peaceful free movement of populations?

I don't know about peaceful but you could move. There were no visas and in fact no passports. Though, trying to get inside a "city" (ie: citadel) might be tricky. I guess they used gifts before to convince the other party.

That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain.

> That being said, if you settled somewhere in some large empty land, no one will complain.

That's because any empty land would probably be entirely unsuitable for a settlement.

Obviously we haven't specified a period in history but this all sounds suspiciously rose-tinted to me.

Plenty of land was suitable for settlement (ie: Argentina). Mostly empty and competing empires were too far. Of course, after the discovery of the "new" world, the amount of empty land reduced significantly.

Not always of whole populations (though often that too) but individuals travelled much more freely.

At least part of the reason that individuals traveled freely is that only rich individuals traveled.

Paupers from London didn't get on ships to the new world - not without selling themselves into indentured servitude.

When the economic barriers to migration fell to the point that subsistence farmers could travel between continents, we were always going to see either an equalization of living standards or the rise of political barriers.

Yes.

Even before the adoption of visas, the traveling experience for a first class passenger on a ship was very different from third class getting routed via Ellis Island in the US.

Not in the majority of Europe, especially places like England or Poland which had strict restrictions on what serfs could do for hundreds of years.

Part of the reason for Britains diverse regional dialects is due to this.

That was within the country though, right? Not between countries? And this article [1] says enforcement of serfdom was localized and costly and there was de facto serf mobility.

[1] https://broadstreet.blog/2021/05/07/serfdom-the-state-and-th...

I don’t know enough about history to say how connected colonialism and visas are, but it feels deeply unfair that citizens of some countries have many visa free countries (USA, Japan, Singapore have some of the best passports) while citizens in other countries have to deal with a ton of paperwork and uncertainty.

> VISAs are a left over abomination of colonialism.

This is patently false. Borders and border control are as ancient as human societies themselves and were not invented by those you deem "colonialists", which for you I bet doesn't include the Arabs and Persians themselves colonizing Europe... Or the mongols...

Ignoring Arab colonisation of Europe is something most Europeans do.

Why do so many nouns in Spanish start with a?

> human rights to visit and settle in any nation.

Well when Europeans move to other countries en masse (even without violence), it's called colonialism too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com