Talk:Open border/Archive 1

List af advantages and disadvantages
Rather than a list of perceived advantages and disadvantages, a list of the properties of an open border without comment is better.

Pol098 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is up with the debate going on in the main page?
That kind of back and forth is should be on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.68.92 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Racist Overtones

 * The first of the "arguments against open borders", contrasting the "bad behaviors" of some with the "good behaviors" of others, has racist overtones, and should be removed outright or seriously revised. In what ways are countries with lower population growth presumed to be "punished" by open borders? In what ways is their lower population growth presumed to be a result of "good behaviors" (there is a tremendous unmet need for contraception in many thrid world countries; also economically developed societies tend to have fewer children, and not as a result of their superior morals and self control).

Cartesian1 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read the first argument I note that race or culture is not included or discussed in the text, so if there are any aspects of race, ethnicity or cultural aspects it is something that the reader has included though their own experiences and interpretation of the first argument. I believe the point is valid and should stay.  But I do agree the terms "bad behaviors" and "good behaviors" are somewhat subjective and should be changed.

LifeOfoReilly (talk) 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Controlled Borders required to Save the Earth
I'm going to delete this section because it is extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

De Facto Borders
The De Facto Open Borders section need help. The language is confusing and difficult to understand. It appears to be a fragment of a longer piece, or maybe copied from somewhere out. Also, lots of poor grammar. Rather than describing de facto open borders, it describes weird half-arguments about immigration. For now, I'm just gonna remove it, since it seems to be on the subject of immigration, rather than borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.113.139 (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Open Border
The definition of an Open Border was moved from the text body to the introduction to give an improved definition an Open Border in the introduction. It also includes some well known examples of Open Borders in the introduction. The previous definition in the introduction was that the movement of the people was completely unconditional and without restriction. Even with the examples provided of the EU with the Schengen Agreement and the States within the US their are some restrictions placed on the movement of people. 203.59.34.239 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/the-ethical-case-for-an-open-border
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The US & Mexico have a controlled border period
The border is not controlled at major population centers. The entire border is controlled, ie, citizens of one coutry are allowed to pass into another only under specific circumstances.

Entry under any other circumstances is a violation of US or Mexican law.

For that matter, the US and Canada also have controlled borders.

The sentence stating "The US and Mexico have controlled borders at major population centers" should be changed to "The US and Mexico share a controlled border." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.109.215 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be a controlled border by intent but practically the US-Mexico border lacks the apparatus to control the flow of people in remote locations. And it is the practicality that matters here, not what people would like it to be or says it is. Every year millions of people move between the two countries, back and forth, through these locations outside major population areas where the borders are not adequately controlled. It is impossible to deny that outside major population areas the US-Mexico Border lacks the characteristics of a controlled border. You cannot say the US-Mexico Border is a Controlled Border in remote locations and by changing the statement as you have that is exactly what you are saying.

- So, basically, you don't understand the difference. It is a controlled border. A legal fiction controls it. Whether or not the legal fiction is easily violatable, is a red herring argument.

Just so you know, a controlled border does NOT mean barbed wire fences and armed guards. It means crossing is controlled, by physical or legal means.

I no longer wonder why this article is so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.109.215 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Schengen Zone vs. European Union
Are full Schengen Zone members sharing open borders, whereas EU and EEA members sharing open civic borders?
 * I have just revised this section to clarify. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Open border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110822200410/http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16925&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009 to http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16925&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Open border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Colemanmigration.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150914194731/http://www.americansamoa.travel/travel--transportation to http://www.americansamoa.travel/travel--transportation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I agree with the better definitions idea. The current approach leads to an illogical, extreme and apples to oranges feel. For example, US intrastate borders are cited, but exist within a federation. EU borders are cited, but exist within a kinda, sorta attempt at confederation (single monetary system and a nominal government, and a proposed constitution). Oranges when NAFTA is introduced. A trade agreement (or a military alliance) is not the same as an extension of governmental authority. It may lead to it, but there is no automatic progression to it (United Arab League anyone?). An extension of governmental authority does however lead to an open borders system.

Under NAFTA, what is being de facto proposed by the economically largest partner is an increasingly militarized closed border, not open borders. A proposal comes from the polity or the government, not academic circles. I suggest the paragraph that starts with "open borders under NAFTA have been proposed" be reworded to perhaps include Fox's suggestion, any other resources and footnotes, but that other serious discussion has not been forthcoming.

I deleted the most offensive POV item, the "i.e." referring to a single child policy resulting in a regret about not having any grandchildren (really, really sexist). Opposition to the single child policy in China is far more likey to revolve around the eldest boy being the social security for the parents old age. Girls go with the husband's family. In the US, the argument is far more likely to revolve around environmental issues, as in planetary resources are limited, or that fewer children means an increase in the family's financial well being.

Overall, I suggest someone rewrite the entry using a different approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.133 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The US states are still theoretically sovereign. They cede the right to external border control to the Federal union through the Constitution, but I don't see how, in terms of classifying border controls, this is substantively different from having any pair or group of sovereign states institute a system of common border control as with the EU etc.. What is dubiously termed "open borders" here would more logically be termed something like "collectively controlled borders". The term "open borders" should be reserved for situations when there is actually no border control. AFAIK, that doesn't exist anywhere in the modern world, but it was commonplace before the modern era, so it's not like the term doesn't have some application. What we really need to do is find an authoritative reliable source for this. I think there's a lot of dubious OR in here that's not coming out of a scientific classification but rather a reflection of popular debate.Tarchon (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Better definitions needed

 * Is there a clear and unambiguous definition of an open border? For example: unrestricted passage may be allowed, but does that give the right to residence (migration) as well as movement? If papers are required, but anybody with these papers may pass freely and without restriction, is the border open?


 * What is a "civic border"; if it is just a region within a country, is it not assumed that it is open with unusual exceptions (i.e., while open, it would not explicitly be called an "open border" in the same way as we don't normally speak of a "transparent window"). I would think that the concept of "open border" only has relevance as a border between sovereign nation-states nowadays (although a mention in passing of open US interstate borders may also be wanted).

There are plenty of grey areas. The border between the UK and continental Europe is not a land border. European citizens may pass freely for any purpose, but must prove citizenship. I don't think EU citizens can vote in national elections. There are restrictions on importing certain goods (alcohol, tobacco) into the UK by anyone unless they can be proved to be for personal use. (I'm not entirely sure of the details, but am sure it's not open in the sense that absolutely anybody may cross the border into the UK with any goods and without inspection.)

As a starting point, the article subheading "Countries with Open Borders" should be renamed to "Countries with Partially Open Borders," or, more accurately, "Countries with Open Borders with Other Specific Countries as Defined by Law or Treaty." A country with a truly open border would permit anyone to enter legally without regard to existing citizenship and to remain forever with full access to all rights and privileges. No such country exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.213.176 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this current definition of an "open border" is kind of nonsensical. The EU doesn't have open borders at all. They don't let just anybody go through an external port of entry. Yeah, sure you can cross an internal EU border freely but that's because the land border controls are elsewhere. If you fly to Frankfurt from outside the EU, they have controls. How is this any different from the United States? You can travel over the internal borders freely there too, and similarly the controls are done at the external border. The only difference is in the precise legal form of the association between the American states vs. the EU states, but in either case the individual states are at least theoretically sovereign and the authority for collective international border control is ceded to the union entity. To me, "open border" implies that anyone can legally enter. As far as I know, no modern state has that kind of arrangement, but it certainly existed in the past. Tarchon (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lede so that it doesn't implicitly equate open borders with open international borders to deal with this problem of conflating intra-federation and intra-confederation borders with strict international borders. There are in fact a number of past and present states that have interior border controls as well, so I discussed the differences between the cases and added some conspicuously absent wikilinks like border control and internal passport. It's still got a long way to go, but I think this makes the approach a lot more rational. Could use more references though. Tarchon (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Security checks
Wait, when I flew from Edmonton to Calgary Airport last April, I went through a metal detector and they put my bag through an X ray and I had to put my laptop in a separate tray, plus I had to produce my driving license, but I never had to answer questions like how long am I going to stay and why am I going. Is this an open border or not? Driving between Edmonton and Calgary doesn't get you stopped at all though. I also had to go through the same checks from London UK to Paris by EuroStar train, but that's considered to be a closed border. But if you drive from Milan to Zurich, you don't have the police going through your car or asking you questions at all, but if you want to stay, you have to file paperwork. So what is the definition of an open border now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.25.94 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Security checks are not the same as border control. You didn't have to satisfy an immigration officer as you would have had to do were you travelling from say Boulder, Colorado. The borders between Canadian Provinces are 'open borders', the border between the US and Canada is a 'controlled border' [not a closed one], as is the border between the UK and France. The border between North and South Korea is 'closed'. Does that answer your question? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Appropriateness of this material
user:Calavj added this text to "Criticisms":  According to critic Erin M. Worrell, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its partner, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), promised that cross border travel would be made easier. The NAALC and NAFTA, 1994 agreements promised prosperity to the nations and citizens involved. In the early 2000’s, after the events of September 11, 2001, the United States took action and reconsidered alliances with its international allies, and the SPP was then created to consider raised national security concerns. As a result of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, NAFTA leaders “recommend the facilitation of cross-border travel, at least as far as short-term business-related travel is concerned.” As a result, travel decreased drastically for the Northern and Southern borders of the U.S. In order to enter on official business, documentation had to be shown to ensure the person was not trying to enter the labor market of the country. Research shows that open borders are needed to achieve economic justice in a region where goods and jobs can be moved with almost no barriers. Open borders are borders that permit free movement of people between different jurisdictions with limited movement, or a border that is without border control. The idea of the creation of open borders is opposed by those who want the creation of walls to protect national security. Worrell criticizes NAFTA’s supposed failure to keep borders open, saying: “To date, the promises of NAFTA have gone unfulfilled, and disconnected among workers in particular have led to calls for the rescission of the agreement and a return to a more protectionist trade policy.” The Schengen Agreement for example, establishes an agreement among the European Union members, that allows residents to travel easily and without limits.  I have deleted this from the article pending further discussion, for these reasons:
 * 1) The critic quoted is not evidently wp:notable - there is no article about her.
 * 2) the material itself reads as a proposition rather than an arm's length neutral point of view.
 * 3) It is not at all obvious that the material is appropriate to the 'criticisms' section.


 * OK, I agree, but I have looked at other WIKI articles that use the "according to" model, what if we deleted this according to if it seems like the information is about the author, rather than the info about open borders?
 * It helps in a way - you might say "according to X" if you wanted to add credence or quote extensively from an acknowledged expert (see, for example, non-tariff barriers to trade). In almost all cases, the citation is enough BUT the author cited must have status (this is a controversial area, I admit. But it is fairly widely accepted that academic citations must be of a member of faculty, not a student. For popular culture the standard is lower).

I invite others to comment. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For reasons that have not been explained anywhere that I can find, @Calavj has ignored this invitation to discuss these edits. Furthermore, they have added further material that in each case cites a single non-notable source. Additionally, the text is excessively focussed on the immigration policies of one country.


 * With a bit of work and engagement, I believe we can significantly improve this article because the material has merit but it has to be done in accordance with Wikipedia's norms. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think this should go under economic borders, as Nafta is an economic open border, or was intended as one, what do we think? Calavj (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead has become too wordy
The lead [US:lede] is supposed to be a succinct summary of the body of the article: someone in a rush should be able to spend a couple of minutes reading it and get the essence of the article. Otherwise it becomes "too long, didn't read." We don't want to spend time on an article for readers to just skip it. I'm afraid that the lead as it currently stands has become over-long and lacks this concision. May I invite those who have invested a lot of time in the article recently to look at it again to see how much material can be moved into the body and be summarised in one or two sharp sentences. To take an extreme example, we have two statements that the borders between states of a federation are open, when one is certainly plenty. [IMO, interstate boundaries in a federation is close to the null case. The term 'open borders' refer primarily to the borders between sovereign states, not really to a glorified county line - though others may disagree. For counter-arguments to my assertion, there are two good examples: India is a federation that has open borders for people but seems to present great difficulties to inter-state trade. Conversely, the European Economic Area (EU plus EFTA plus micro-states) is not a federation but does have free movement of people, goods, capital and services. Those members of the EEA who are also party to the Schengen Agreement allow people to move across their borders with no checks whatever.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

South American nationals
Since 2016 the twelve South American countries (together as Unasur) allow their nationals to travel with their ID and stay up to 90 days on a neighbor territory. Temporary residence of up to two years for the Mercosur countries.

In 2014 they start to consider an single joint passport...

Is this an Open Border?

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations#Free_movement_of_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyKL (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If people and vehicles (including freight) have to stop at a border post, then it is not an open border. It does not have to confer the right to work, that usually requires a higher degree of confederation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion
I deleted this section because it is very hard to follow, it repeats parts of the article, and there are no citations. The next part should also be deleted, but I noticed someone asked for citations...I'm new to editing here, so please let me know if I'm doing it wrong. "These countries also tend to more developed and wealthier than other countries, because they contain desirable work conditions and are ideal places to receive and send remittances. The United States has developed from immigration and immigrants since the 1880s into the 1900s, mostly for economic purposes and religious reasons. Immigration also helped create a more affluent society due to internationally wealthy people being able to move freely through borders. Goods and other objects are transferred freely." Mangofirst (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

About that first paragraph
''An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement[...] The term "open borders" applies only to the flow of people, not the flow of goods and services,[...] ''

So uh... which is it? just people but no goods? or people and goods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.35.58.40 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguments against
This article is lacks a good summary of criticism. At the very least, the collapse of the welfare state should also be mentioned as a concern (c.f. Milton Friedman's "welfare state or open borders - pick one"), as well as concerns about crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.64.18 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add such material provided that it is properly cited from a wp:reliable source. Prejudice that all foreigners are criminals is unlikely to survive. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I also find it odd that there are 7 "pro" arguments listed, and only two "con" arguments. And many of the key opposing arguments are omitted:  The two which 94.119.64.18 listed - strain on social safety-nets in developed countries and crime - and also downwards pressure on wages, particularly for un/low-skilled labor, in developed countries.  The latter is perhaps the biggest argument against.  And, with all due respect, John Maynard Friedman, it strikes me that you're straw-manning (whether intentionally or not) 94.119.64.18's argument regarding crime.  94.119.64.18 never said that "all" (or even most) foreigners are criminal, but it is a fact that crime rates are considerably higher in many less developed nations. -2003:CA:873C:B4E6:7845:ED68:D01B:8CF2 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I said above: if you identify a deficiency in the article, fix it. Material that is supported by a wp:reliable source can and should certainly be included. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia: we report reliable sources not our opinions, wp:Wikipedia is not a forum. See also faulty generalization. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are closed and controlled borders discussed in this article?
This article is for the topic of open borders, and covers that topic fairly well, especially in the Examples of open borders section. But significant sections of the article aren't about open borders at all. The worst example of this is the Types of borders section, which discusses all the types of borders except fully open borders for the purpose of comparison. If these border types can be discussed extensively, they should probably be given their own article, or at least placed into the Border article, because having extensive discussions of a topic in an article about the opposite of that topic doesn't make much sense. The sections Examples of controlled borders and Examples of closed borders are also bad examples of this, as they don't relate to open borders at all. Descriptions of controlled borders and closed borders should be in this article, but only as brief descriptions for the purpose of direct comparison to open borders, not as separate sections with extensive detail. This article has other problems, such as the US-centric discussion of government policy and the over-quotation of scholars in the Arguments for and against section, but I think the way it extensively discusses closed and controlled borders is its biggest problem. - InterestingTime (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)