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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

> 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.

I think you should read again.

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/

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.

> 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."

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 I bet doesn't include the Arabs and Perses themselves colonizing Europe in your thoughts...

These attempts at guilty tripping European descents like they are the root of all evil have lasted long enough and are completely off topic to the matter at hand at first place.

Why do so many nouns in Spanish start with a?

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