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.
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.