But the possibility of moving permanently (or to study at the university) to another country without needing a visa, well, that's a game changer. Not to mention the agreements between European countries (e.g. If you move, there's no need to change your driving license)
Is it though? I mean it's sure helpful if that's what you want to do, but it's not like that was impossible before. Given that relatively few people make use of it (relative to the population) it seems to be a small win, easing the bureaucratic process for a small number of citizens (that, I suppose, in Western Europe are generally wealthier than the average, and wouldn't exactly have to jump through hoops before).
Also in the past people moved abroad for work. Now it's easier, from a bureaucratic and economic perspective. Doesn't mean everyone WANTS to move: most people are perfectly happy living in their hometown, or at least same country, as long as you can make a living there[1]. But this should not surprise anyone, it's not that most refugees would leave their countries if they could find a job and security in their homeland .
[1] btw, I have no stats but the feeling is that most internal migration in Europe is from the poorest countries and/or social classes to the richest countries. Which, again, makes a lot of sense...
[citation needed]
There are vast numbers of cross-border workers and internal (to the EU) migrants. I don't have numbers, but I really think that statement is misleading.
What is also a benefit of ever more unification across Europe: communication. Family vacations in Croatia meant next to no communication with friends back in Germany as phone calls and SMSes were ludicruously expensive, and mobile internet roaming all but unaffordable. Now? No roaming charges any more.
except Switzerland.
The common currency is valuable for more than just tourism purposes. A business in one country can much more easily trade with businesses in other countries if it doesn't have to deal with currency risk and the resultant necessary hedging, and if the business is selling services to consumers the single currency allows them to compete with businesses across the whole Eurozone on a level playing field. That's just considering currency; the single market is of course a much broader concept.
That's exactly what I wrote. Open borders as an idea is about global free movement. Schengen on the other hand is just a bigger kind of fenced area, international agreement simplifying travel and trade for citizens of participating countries. When @cojxd asked "For whom is open borders a dream?" I'm pretty sure it was meant as an idea/ideology. Because, if someone agrees to lift this border, but not that - there's simply nothing to discuss. It's a kind of position acceptable for almost everyone.
You're pretty wrong about that. Borders are a nuisance, and lifting all of them is a good long term goal to have. But in the intermediary we can only move so fast. Saying that you don't want to discuss lifting individual borders as long as we are not lifting all borders is like saying you don't want to make a first step as long as we're not agreeing to walk all the way to the destination. That's not how societal change is achieved, it is achieved one step at the time, usually without lofty long term goals and every border that falls is one more step along the way towards open borders and should be applauded.
(And before the cynics note that open borders are incompatible with welfare states, that's not necessarily true, and the path to open borders is a long one, not a sudden change we can make without massive upheaval right now.)
Ok, why is that not true?
And I'd argue that any Einsteins born in Africa are going to find moving to another country and near impossible task regardless of how open the borders are.
Take universal basic income, if combined with open borders, you are attracting people who would like to also get (say) $1000/m, who will now use that welfare to induce demand on people who may like to trade this freshly minted coin for some service they can render, so the economy grows through immigration instead of debt.
Without debt how would the state pay the monthly income for the increasing number of people coming to collect it?
So you have a bunch of new people move, they start collecting UBI, the government prints money to fund the new liabilities, the newly-immigrated spend their UBI, incomes/revenues go up for businesses, the overall size of the pie grows, and if inflation starts to get out of control you raise taxes such that everyone is still better off than before.
Unfortunately this wouldn't work because of politics. You need a relatively reactive monetary & tax policy which just is not realistic.
The money has to come from somewhere or you _will_ have runaway inflation.
I think open borders is inherently a call for decreasing standards of living for the populations of those countries where most of the migration would be directed to. I just can't picture a scenario where hundreds of millions of people move to my country within a short span of time and not completely destroy the infrastructure under the weight of sheer numbers.
And with the EU shortly after came the complete freedom of movement inside the EU. While the EU is made out of many often quite different countries, any EU citizen has the freedom of movement. That not only means I am allowed to travel to any of those countries but I have the same rights as any other citizen of that country. I could tomorrow decided to move do Edinburgh, I could do so without having to apply for anything. Just go there and look for a job. Even if any German citizen usually has little restrictions on international travel - which is great on its own - having the full rights to move is a great achievement.
The example of Edinburgh also shows how disastrous the looming Brexit is. All economic reasons aside, the pure fact that there is a new border raised in Europe is so heartbreaking and of severe consequences for all involved people. And this is the reason, the EU won't accept any treaty which does not grant the fundamental rights, like the freedom of movement.
I think people here would be a lot more in favor of them, if we were treated the same going to other countries as people in the developing world are treated coming here.
For people who see closed borders and border "crises" as largely manufactured political and tribalistic/cultural barriers.
You would probably find Guns, Germs, and Steel [1] quite illuminating.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1rzm07/wha...
I did nothing but be born and follow the path expected off me -- handed reliable and cheap electricity, water, free schooling, internet connection; and lastly great jobs giving my primadonna arse more $$$ than I need. Idk dude, I wouldn't mind taking credit but I'm not being honest.
A good example are the capitalist versus communist countries.
Two sets of countries making different choices and ending up with different results.
Grew up in Europe and I see no reason why others shouldn't have the freedom of movement that I have, practical consequences aside. In my book it is (or should be) a fundamental right. It's more than just travel and tourism, it's also the right to settle as long as you comply with local law.
I've been saddened and disillusioned to see the rise of support for restricted border control in my home country during the past decade.
America's foundational documents are based on the the social contract theory of Hobbes & Locke - they differ on some aspects, but largely agree that governments are formed to elevate people from the State of Nature - we enter into a social contract to elevate ourselves.
But people nowadays don't form governments - and very few have much influence over the government in which they live. If you are born into a country, you are subject to the governance of that country.
By restricting the right of people to relocate to new governments, we deny them the ability to meaningfully assent to the social contract in which they live. If I'm born in a "shithole country" and I don't like it, tough luck. I gotta roll the dice to see if I get accepted for immigration in countries whose social contracts and mores I do agree with. I've never agreed to the social contract under which I am forced to live.
The conservative view on borders is based on fear - the desire to protect the in-group from the out-group. Despite their objections, it is in direct opposition to the foundational ideals of this country.
For whom is open borders a dream?