Why are borders important?

[stankeylegjones]

It's not about tourism. It's about ensuring peace. Freedom of movement was one of the three animating principles of European integration dating back to the early 1950s. The goal was to de-emphasize national rivalries in favor of a pan-European identity, to defuse the nationalism that created world wars. The idea is that if a German person's neighbor is French and their co-workers English and their company trades extensively with Italy, that person is not going to be receptive to an exclusionary nationalist movement, and is certainly not going to want to go to war with France or Italy or anyone.

It's worked pretty well, I'd say. There has been very little conflict within the European Community since WWII, which is a marked reversal from its prior history, where there were wars every 20-25 years or so and constant rivalries and tensions.

I thought it was initiated to allow folks to easily move from one country to the next, most notably workers, improving economic disparities.

 

[stankeylegjones]

But drawing a line is easy. We have no trouble determining where NC begins and VA ends. We have no trouble determining whether a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of NC or VA. The line is clear. It doesn't mean that the line has to be vigorously defended or be used to keep people in or out.

I don't understand then what you are asking. Are you asking why every country defends/protects its borders? If so, wouldn't it depend on which country you are talking about, as that country's reasons will be different from another country's reasons?

 

[superrific]

I thought it was initiated to allow folks to easily move from one country to the next, most notably workers, improving economic disparities.

This is Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty establishing the EU

The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.

Provision 4 was not initially there, at least not in its current form; it was modified by the Maastricht Treaty that created the euro. That was mid 90s. But the other stuff represent the founding principles. Promoting peace is listed first because it was the most important.

Yes, labor mobility is an aim of the union but it's a lesser goal subsumed within the framework of peace and prosperity as outlined by sections 2 and 3 pasted above.

 

[stankeylegjones]

This is Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty establishing the EU

The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.

Provision 4 was not initially there, at least not in its current form; it was modified by the Maastricht Treaty that created the euro. That was mid 90s. But the other stuff represent the founding principles. Promoting peace is listed first because it was the most important.

Yes, labor mobility is an aim of the union but it's a lesser goal subsumed within the framework of peace and prosperity as outlined by sections 2 and 3 pasted above.

Thanks for the post. Here's one that discusses its aim regarding movement of workers:

Borderless Europe: Seven Decades of Free Movement

Between Brexit and COVID-19, Europe’s 31-country zone of free movement has been profoundly tested. Still, the area has constantly evolved over the last 70 years, to include new groups of individuals who can freely move for work, study, or leisure, as well as cover larger geographic areas. This...

www.migrationpolicy.org

 

[superrific]

I don't understand then what you are asking. Are you asking why every country defends/protects its borders? If so, wouldn't it depend on which country you are talking about, as that country's reasons will be different from another country's reasons?

Look at the OP. The topic was inspired by the statement made by CRHeel on another thread.

But there's also something a bit deeper, which is to challenge the assumption that a lot of us have that the issue is simple and straightforward. As we've seen from the responses here, it's actually not so easy to articulate a good reason why we should care about the movement of people across our national border per se. Yes, we need to track criminals and check for smuggled contraband but those are independent goals of their own, and border "security" is but a functional piece of that. If we leave those aside and just concentrate on the idea of "keeping people out," why? Why are national borders in greater need of "strength" than city limits or state borders?

 

[superrific]

Thanks for the post. Here's one that discusses its aim regarding movement of workers:

The initial treaty of Rome was committed to the idea of a free movement of people. Its specific provisions dealt with workers. That's common in multilateral treaties. It's already hard enough to get a whole bunch of countries to agree on stuff; having them agree on the most expansive set of principles is next to impossible. So treaties start with the lower hanging fruit.

As you note, the most pressing problem in Europe was labor mobility. So that's where they started. It was never the intent to finish there. The free movement of workers could have been implemented in a number of different ways that have little to do with integration. Integration was chosen because they were aiming higher than mere labor mobility.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Trump campaign would’ve probably loved to hold this thread up as Exhibit A of “they want open borders”

 

[stankeylegjones]

Look at the OP. The topic was inspired by the statement made by CRHeel on another thread.

But there's also something a bit deeper, which is to challenge the assumption that a lot of us have that the issue is simple and straightforward. As we've seen from the responses here, it's actually not so easy to articulate a good reason why we should care about the movement of people across our national border per se. Yes, we need to track criminals and check for smuggled contraband but those are independent goals of their own, and border "security" is but a functional piece of that. If we leave those aside and just concentrate on the idea of "keeping people out," why? Why are national borders in greater need of "strength" than city limits or state borders?

You pose interesting questions. I do think though, it really depends on which country you focus on as to why they protect their borders.

 

[ZenMode]

Absolutely free movement of people sounds good in principle and would probably work in more areas of the world than not. It really depends on the cultures involved.

With some minor stipulations, a fully open border between US and Canada? Sure. With some stipulations in place, a fully open border between Mexico and the US? Sure. I don't think our cultures are significantly different.

Flip-flop Mexico and Iran and have a fully open border between the US and Iran? Not realistic even if it is viewed as "right" philosophically.

 

[superrific]

Absolutely free movement of people sounds good in principle and would probably work in more areas of the world than not. It really depends on the cultures involved.

With some minor stipulations, a fully open border between US and Canada? Sure. With some stipulations in place, a fully open border between Mexico and the US? Sure. I don't think our cultures are significantly different.

Flip-flop Mexico and Iran and have a fully open border between the US and Iran? Not realistic even if it is viewed as "right" philosophically.

I confess that I have never given any thought to opening the border between Iran and the US, but I agree with you that it's neither realistic nor desirable.

 

[superrific]

Trump campaign would’ve probably loved to hold this thread up as Exhibit A of “they want open borders”

You're telling on yourself. Nothing about this thread is advocating for open borders. That you can't distinguish a philosophical discussion from a campaign slogan -- well, it's who you are.

To be clear, I'm open-minded re: any and all arguments as to why we have a "responsibility" to have control over our national borders. I'm just hoping that we can understand the issue better. Right now, in the GOP, it's pure xenophobia. And if you want to chortle because I don't think xenophobia is a good basis for policy -- well, that says a lot more about you than me.

 

[chrissteel]

The government and many Germans welcomed refugees fleeing conflicts in Syria and elsewhere from 2015-16, when more than 1 million asylum-seekers entered the country.

But as large-scale migration to Europe continues nearly a decade later, a backlash is fueling the growth of far-right parties.

Some people say social services are overwhelmed, and extremist attacks by asylum-seekers have led to security fears. It has added up to growing support for firmer immigration policies — and in some cases, backing for the far-right parties that champion such limits.

The unpopular coalition government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is trying to crack down on irregular immigration after the far right did well in two recent state elections in eastern Germany. Another comes Sept. 22 in Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin.

Germany's expansion of border controls is testing European unity

The German government says it is cracking down on irregular migration and crime following recent extremist attacks, and plans to extend temporary border controls to all nine of its frontiers next week.

apnews.com

 

[superrific]

The government and many Germans welcomed refugees fleeing conflicts in Syria and elsewhere from 2015-16, when more than 1 million asylum-seekers entered the country.

But as large-scale migration to Europe continues nearly a decade later, a backlash is fueling the growth of far-right parties.

Some people say social services are overwhelmed, and extremist attacks by asylum-seekers have led to security fears. It has added up to growing support for firmer immigration policies — and in some cases, backing for the far-right parties that champion such limits.

The unpopular coalition government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz is trying to crack down on irregular immigration after the far right did well in two recent state elections in eastern Germany. Another comes Sept. 22 in Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin.

Germany's expansion of border controls is testing European unity

The German government says it is cracking down on irregular migration and crime following recent extremist attacks, and plans to extend temporary border controls to all nine of its frontiers next week.

apnews.com

The German politics of immigration are quite complex. Remember: East Germany has only been part of Germany for about 20 years. A lot of East Germans grew up under Soviet control. They see themselves as victims (they are), not part of a rich country that has a special responsibility for refugees. Or to put it differently, for them, the DDR and its secret police was penance for the Nazis.

And of course, the sentiments that created Nazism have been part of German culture for a long time and have not everywhere vanished.

I'm just not sure what to do with stories like this. Should we turn away people in need because some assholes will vote against us for doing so? They are assholes, that's clear. If they focused their efforts more on asking for assistance instead of lashing out at people who are different, they would be more successful politically. But once you vote for a right-wing party in Germany, you're rightly tarred and then you lose political influence and pretty soon all you have left is anger.

 

[SnoopRob]

I think the simple answer is that national borders are where most countries - and the people within those countries - have drawn the most significant "in-group/out-group" delineation between those who are part of the "in-group" and should receive the benefits of being a part of that group and those who are not part of the "in-group" (and are therefore designated as the "out-group") and should not receive the benefits of being a part of that group.

I would say that the concern about in/out-group dynamics and who benefits from collection action through government/society has always been a key concern regarding governmental boundaries and actions. Initially, governmental bodies started likely around family groups (both immediate and extended) as the main one understood by humans. This was followed by homogeneous ethnic groups and the lands they lived in as the defining borders/boundaries. Later, cities (particularly if you add in the immediate agricultural land around said cities) were the defining governmental entity. As we move forward in time, states (or other regional governmental structures) constitute the most important governmental entity. We're now in a period where national governments are the defining governmental entities and therefore national borders are largely the defining borders of our world. However, one could make a pretty convincing argument that we're well into the transition beyond national governments/borders being the most important/defining ones to a larger world where continental and transnational agreements/governing bodies/boundaries are the most important.

How do people determine which set of geography is most important? I'd argue it comes down to 3 factors...how large of an area can one overarching governmental body (a) protect (largely militarily from outside groups), (b) control (the actions of the folks inside the area to ensure compliance with in-group ideals), and (c) reap the benefits of inclusion (meaning make use of resources, both material and human, within the designated area). As technology - military, mechanical, scientific, and informational - has expanded the amount of territory that one governmental body can protect, control, and reap the benefits of inclusion, the size of the area that governmental bodies attempt to control has increased (as allowed by existing governmental structures and the actions of other groups of people) in a similar manner.

So, why are national borders important? Because in our current time, they are typically the geographic border that defines the in-group/out-group boundaries for the most important governmental body to the lives (both real and imagined) of most humans, although a case can be made that those borders are fading in importance as transnational agreements/governing bodies become increasingly important.

 

[superrific]

I think the simple answer is that national borders are where most countries - and the people within those countries - have drawn the most significant "in-group/out-group" delineation between those who are part of the "in-group" and should receive the benefits of being a part of that group and those who are not part of the "in-group" (and are therefore designated as the "out-group") and should not receive the benefits of being a part of that group.

I would say that the concern about in/out-group dynamics and who benefits from collection action through government/society has always been a key concern regarding governmental boundaries and actions. Initially, governmental bodies started likely around family groups (both immediate and extended) as the main one understood by humans. This was followed by homogeneous ethnic groups and the lands they lived in as the defining borders/boundaries. Later, cities (particularly if you add in the immediate agricultural land around said cities) were the defining governmental entity. As we move forward in time, states (or other regional governmental structures) constitute the most important governmental entity. We're now in a period where national governments are the defining governmental entities and therefore national borders are largely the defining borders of our world. However, one could make a pretty convincing argument that we're well into the transition beyond national governments/borders being the most important/defining ones to a larger world where continental and transnational agreements/governing bodies/boundaries are the most important.

How do people determine which set of geography is most important? I'd argue it comes down to 3 factors...how large of an area can one overarching governmental body (a) protect (largely militarily from outside groups), (b) control (the actions of the folks inside the area to ensure compliance with in-group ideals), and (c) reap the benefits of inclusion (meaning make use of resources, both material and human, within the designated area). As technology - military, mechanical, scientific, and informational - has expanded the amount of territory that one governmental body can protect, control, and reap the benefits of inclusion, the size of the area that governmental bodies attempt to control has increased (as allowed by existing governmental structures and the actions of other groups of people) in a similar manner.

So, why are national borders important? Because in our current time, they are typically the geographic border that defines the in-group/out-group boundaries for the most important governmental body to the lives (both real and imagined) of most humans, although a case can be made that those borders are fading in importance as transnational agreements/governing bodies become increasingly important.

More on this later, but this is a good answer. It's what I was getting at with the mention of the book "Imagined Communities," which was a study of the building of modern nation-states as the creation of an identity that could unite people from very different circumstances. I don't remember the book at all except in broad contours, and I doubt it used "in-group, out-group" terminology, but I think that's at least similar to the animating idea there.

 

[MendotoManteo]

The question "why are borders important?" involves so much it would obviously be impossible to responsibly address here. As you said, a guy wrote a whole book about it, as have many others.

I'll just say that a border does and is several things:

1. Seeks to establish and preserve an in-group's identity and moral certitude. While the former is likely self-evident, the latter probably needs more explanation. By that, I mean a border functions much like a rule or law. It establishes "clear" precepts for things like culture, values, laws, "right and wrong," etc. In this sense, without a border, a place is either a state of anarchy or a cosmopolitan space. While neither is inherently good or bad, the "moral confusion" resulting from an absence of borders can also lead a people to experience the same "lack" in their own lives. Or at least perceive things that way.
2. A border is threatening. This serves to reinforce the broader idea expressed in point 1. A border can be chaotic and violent. The other always threatens. This can result in bad actions from either group (or groups) but can also spur good actions.
3. Very much relatedly, a border is regenerative. This is the inverse of point 2 but inextricably connected. A border is a place of transgression and creativity. Interchange. It's the place where things can be reborn and where new things can come into being. Be these ideas or material being. Even if borne of violence or transgression.

Regarding the difference between an internal border (between, say, Indiana and North Carolina) and an external one (between, say, the US and Mexico), I think you make an exceptional point, one to which I've never given any thought. I have been contemplating the matter since you brought it up, and I have yet to think of a good explanation (although I suppose internal borders can function the same way as external ones but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case at least in the United States). I'll have to keep marinating on this one.

Borders are important because they serve multiple and conflicting roles. Borders are a point by which we can mark progress or regression, whatever those things may mean.

A border is a paradox. As, I suppose, death gives meaning to life.

 

[MendotoManteo]

Trump campaign would’ve probably loved to hold this thread up as Exhibit A of “they want open borders”

Dumb post is dumb.

Isn't there any part of you that ever stops to wonder about "larger" things? Like wondering about the mysteries of space?

Rhetorical question, obviously.

 

[CRHeel94]

I haven't had the time to play around with this interesting philosophical question. At the core of the issue, I think there's concepts like wanting to best provide for your people (starting from the family out). As long as an outsider can contribute, he is welcome. But as soon as outsiders are perceived to take more than what they provide, then the tide turns. The exercise of power is usually done under the pretense of what's best for the people, either by gaining additional resources or by protecting current resources. Borders in a way are a reflection on that power and the balance achieved in relation to other tribes.

 

[superrific]

Couple of really good posts in the last page. I will read and think and respond.

 

[mpaer]

But as soon as outsiders are perceived to take more than what they provide, then the tide turns.

And in the case of USA and folks from South of the border the "perception " being presented by the MAGA crowd is total baloney
None of us eat without those migrants