Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: THBT borders should be open

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Background and context

An open border is one that allows unrestricted migration and trade. Interstate borders in the U.S. are open borders, for instance, as are borders within the European Union.

The presence of borders often fosters certain economic features or anomalies. Wherever two jurisdictions come into contact, special economic opportunities arise for border trade. Smuggling provides a classic case; contrariwise, a border region may flourish on the provision of excise or of import–export services — legal or quasi-legal, corrupt or corruption-free. Different regulations on either side of a border may encourage services to position themselves at or near that border: thus the provision of pornography, of prostitution, of alcohol and/or of narcotics may cluster around borders, city limits, county lines, ports and airports. In a more planned and official context, Special Economic Zones (SEZs) often tend to cluster near borders or ports.

Human economic traffic across borders (apart from kidnapping), may involve mass commuting between workplaces and residential settlements. The removal of internal barriers to commerce, as in France after the French Revolution or in Europe since the 1940s, de-emphasises border-based economic activity and fosters free trade.

Political borders have a variety of meanings for those whom they affect. Many borders in the world have checkpoints where border control agents inspect those crossing the boundary.

In much of Europe, such controls were abolished by the Schengen Agreement and subsequent European Union legislation. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, the competence to pass laws on crossing internal and external boders within the European Union and the associated Schengen States (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the European Union, except where states have used a specific right to opt-out (United Kingdom and Ireland, which maintain a common travel area amongst themselves).

Migration of people is a very important problem today. They migrate because of different reasons - because of their own choice or necessity. Looking for a job, an education, for a better life or just ravelling they cross the borders of different countries and many of them can find it difficult nowadays. Countries have very different relations with each other that is why there are different rules of crossing the borders by people.

Also the interpretation of the motion maybe about free trade. In the history of free trade, two types of argument have been advanced in favour of allowing purchases from abroad, and "Free trade" in the broader sense. The first set of arguments are essentially economic, that free trade will make society richer (more propsperous in money terms). These are mostly technical arguments from the discipline of economics, starting especially with Smith's "Wealth of Nations", which overthrew the mercantile orthodoxy. The other set of arguments for free trade could be classified as "moral" arguments, which are pitched at a more high-minded level.

Arguments against free trade typically take one of two sorts: economic and sociopolitical. Economic arguments against free trade critique the assumptions or conclusions of the economic theories that support it. Sociopolitical arguments against free trade do not attack the mathematical and theoretical salience of free trade theory, but rather cite social and political effects that economics-based free trade arguments do not capture, such as social stability, political stability, cultural independence, and national security. Many sociopolitical critics of completely free trade support the economic conclusions of liberal trade policy in general, but are against it in specific cases.

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]

Argument #1

[Add New]

Yes

If the borders will be opened, people will get an opportunity to get better education in universities of different countries, to get a well-paid job and finally make their living better. It all leads to higher quality of life for people who can't go to another countries because of some problems with visas and other procedures to cross the border.




[Add New]

No

If the borders will be opened, the amount of different crimes will increase. This way we just open a road for prisoners, who managed to get out of prisons, for terrorists to any place they want. All these people will get a good opportunity to move freely, to hide themselves wherever they want and to commit crimes.




[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Argument #2

[Add New]

Yes

The freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights. We cannot deprive people of a possibility to see how foreigners live, to learn how they can improve their own lives. We should not make it so difficult for people to meet their relatives and friends who live in other countries. We must not restrict communication between people from different nations, definitely it is not beneficial for the society.





[Add New]

No

We must not allow people to migrate freely to other places, because this way we will get an aging of population in places from where they migrate. Young people will go abroad and stay in better places for living. People who will continue to stay in their countries and not go abroad will become older and older and population will constantly decrease.





[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Argument #3

[Add New]

Yes

In many cases going abroad means cooperation with foreign companies, sharing experience in many areas. People interested in different sciences and other cooperations to make our world better should have a possibility to go abroad, to discuss problems, to share opinions. This way we will also promote democracy all over the world.





[Add New]

No

If we open borders we factually open a free way for human traffic. People without passports and other documents can be easily transferred over the border and further become slaves. The situation with human traffic is a great problem even nowadays and we can just imagine what will happen if we will open the borders. Also opening borders can influence positively on drug traffic.





[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Argument #4

[Add New]

Yes

Increased commerce means reduced war. Countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war due to the enormous cost of suddenly disrupting their trade abroad, particularly since they would be dependent on the world economy as a result of specialization and comparative advantage.

The fact that some wars have been fought between trading-partners does not prove that increased trade lowers the willingness to go to war, simply that however much it does so, other considerations sometimes overwhelm the economic. McDonald's is in the vanguard of global free trade, permitted to spread its brand of consumerism by the free trade in capital (its product is mostly sourced locally). Famously, only a single, short, war has been fought between any of the 122 countries having franchises. This fact might not be due to the ties of trade, but could still be attributed to the homogenizing effects of free trade, as identical consumers the world over see less reason to wage war on one another.

The post war concencus expressed at Bretton Woods was that government coordination was necessary to prevent trade wars and competitive devaluations, to ensure free trade and peace.

[Add New]

No

Free trade creates dangerously porous borders. Terrorism in the broader sense frequently benefits from porous borders. Another common national security argument against free trade - this one often brought up in the context of the United States-Mexico border and the trading links between Europe and the Middle East and North Africa - points to the tendency of liberalized trade to encourage such porous borders. The radically increased volume of trade that passes over a given border can swamp border controls that were once sufficient before the implementation of freer trade. Even with sufficient border controls, it is considered that the cost of such border controls, both to the government and traders having to endure the time and expense of passing through them, could be prohibitive to trade.

Concern about uncontrolled immigration in the wake of free trade, and about legal immigration itself within trading blocks have added anti-immigration campaigners (not all of whom are xenophobic) to the lobby against free trade.

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Argument #5

[Add New]

Yes

Open borders and free trade reduce poverty. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus on international development challenges ranked trade liberalization as third on the list of development priorities; the experts judged that modest costs could yield large benefits for developing nations. (They ranked freer trade as a "Very Good" opportunity for fighting misery along with cheap measures against HIV infection, micronutrient distribution, and anti-malarial programs.) The conference was of the opinion that reducing subsidies and tariffs would improve the wellbeing of the global poor being more than any agricultural, political, or environmental program. They considered that the free trade in labour would also be a significant (although less important) move against poverty, especially if skilled worker migration were permitted. The approach and conclusions of the "consensus" have been widely criticized, especially trade liberalization's high ranking.


[Add New]

No

Open borders and free trade cause social dislocations and emotional pain. Free trade changes living conditions and careers too fast. Economic disruptions from "structural adjustment" once happened slowly enough that natural attrition (deaths and retirement from existing jobs) took care of the shift into new patterns of employment. At one time, a farmer could expect to finish her life as a farmer, although her children may have been forced to take up mining or manufacturing instead of farming. Now, changes happen on a sub-generation level, quicker than a natural-attrition rate.

Coping with these transitions can be very difficult, especially for those entering middle-age and the elderly, who tend to have a more difficult time making career changes, either due to age itself or age-related discrimination. The problems associated with adapting to economic change are generally not factored into the economic calculation of Free Trade's effects.

Welfare economics deals with the question of the overall benefit on society of changes that harm some and help others. In a straightforward, utilitarian view; the generalized benefits of cheaper supply are given equal weight with the more concentrated impact of ‘lost’ jobs in the labour market. Many economists have argued that this is the wrong scale to use, and that the harmful effects of greater Free Trade on some should be given much greater weight than its benefits for all

See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.