argument top image

Is a world without any borders a good idea? Show more Show less
Back to question

Nation-states maintain borders for safety, maintaining political jurisdiction. Yet, some forms of open borders exist between nation-states: the Schengen Agreement in the European Union, borders between India and Nepal, Ireland and the U.K., and the CA4 Border Control Agreement in Central America. Most nation-states maintain strict border controls, restricting travel between countries and barring entry to migrants. Millions of people risk their lives trying to cross borders into other countries. Some are fleeing violence and war; others are looking for better economic opportunities or to be reunited with family members. Borders protect but they also actively promote death and suffering, as seen in the strategic placement of border patrol along the US-Mexico borderlands. What are the possibilities of a world without borders?

Yes, we should abolish all borders Show more Show less

Borders—and border control—cause unneeded suffering, promote discrimination, and legally motivate border control to kill people seeking safety or better economic freedom. Borders should be abolished not just for the sake of human rights but also for improving countries' economies.
(1 of 2) Next position >

Moral Case: Open borders would reduce deaths and suffering

Millions of people die every year as a result of trying to cross borders illegally
borders migration suffering
(1 of 3) Next argument >

Context

Migrants undergo a lot of harship as a result of being forced to enter countries illegally. There are many cases of torture and robbery at the hands of people smugglers, arduous journeys across seas and deserts, abuse at the hands of police and citizens in their host countries amongst many other physical and mental hardships.There are many deaths.

The Argument

In the year 2017, there were over 6000 officially recorded deaths of people who perished in the intentional process of migrating towards a country different from their country of residence. (1) The actual number of deaths is expected to be much higher. This is a direct result of border regulations which prevent people from crossing borders legally. Opening the borders would reduce the number of people who have to die and suffer as a result of being forced to enter countries via illegal routes.

Counter arguments

It is also possible that open borders will increase the number of immigrants choosing to relocate, and that the number of crimes committed against them will increase. It is also likely that the people that are committing these crimes will also immigrate to the same countries, and commit crimes there, both against the vulnerable immigrants as well as the vulnerable citizens of origin. It is also possible that policing in the destination country will become over taxed, resulting in ineffective policing, and result in increase death and suffering to both immigrants and the citizens of origin.

Premises

1. Migration through illegal routes causes death and suffering. 2. Opening the borders would stop migration through illegal routes. 3. Therefore opening the borders would stop death and suffering through illegal routes.

Rejecting the premises

The premise contains at least one logical fallacy. People are not forced to immigrate, it is a choice. Open borders will not stop people from abusing vulnerable immigrants.

References

    Vote

    Not sure yet? Read more ↑

    Discuss

    This page was last edited on Sunday, 12 Jul 2020 at 05:29 UTC

    Explore related arguments