I am in favor of global free movement. Partly because I stand for freedom as an universal value for all humans.
Sadly, I would say that most of people around the word still value freedom as something "national, for us, for our group", thereby rejecting the individual and personal sovereignty, and demanding arbitrary and primitive measures.
Once I was at the meeting with European liberals in ALDE during 2019 and European Parliament elections. One of the messages was that "we need to defend European freedoms" by communicating more about border controls and security. People who do not act for freedom will end up in such conclusions and behaviours, leading to overall reduction for freedom. That is also part of the problem with phrases as "American values" = freedom for Americans, mixing liberalism with nationalism, rejecting"others".
I live in Stockholm area, capital of Sweden and the largest city in Northern Europe. There are different wages and prices in different parts of Stockholm. Still, there are no border controls, arbitrary preventions of free movement, nobody advocating "jobs in our municipality should go to us first"
I would like a citation for the claim that one million American citizens were wrongfully deported between 1930 and 2000.
Also, I am unpersuaded. If the US is not to have open borders, that means there must be some sort of screening process. That process will reject some percentage of applicants, call that number x. How would a decision to change from x to (say) 2x require "ratcheting up the instruments of control"?
Or is the argument that illegal immigration will persist anyway, so attempts to control it should not be made? (One could also apply this argument to any sort of illegal behavior, why should illegal immigration be singled out?)
I am SO TIRED of the sophistry on this site. Why will your writers not say clearly what they mean?
I am in favor of global free movement. Partly because I stand for freedom as an universal value for all humans.
Sadly, I would say that most of people around the word still value freedom as something "national, for us, for our group", thereby rejecting the individual and personal sovereignty, and demanding arbitrary and primitive measures.
Once I was at the meeting with European liberals in ALDE during 2019 and European Parliament elections. One of the messages was that "we need to defend European freedoms" by communicating more about border controls and security. People who do not act for freedom will end up in such conclusions and behaviours, leading to overall reduction for freedom. That is also part of the problem with phrases as "American values" = freedom for Americans, mixing liberalism with nationalism, rejecting"others".
I live in Stockholm area, capital of Sweden and the largest city in Northern Europe. There are different wages and prices in different parts of Stockholm. Still, there are no border controls, arbitrary preventions of free movement, nobody advocating "jobs in our municipality should go to us first"
One solution for empowering humans and increasing freedom would be creating a global citizenship, something that can also be done in a decentralised way https://www.opulens.se/global/free-movement-for-humans-is-not-only-about-the-economy/
I would like a citation for the claim that one million American citizens were wrongfully deported between 1930 and 2000.
Also, I am unpersuaded. If the US is not to have open borders, that means there must be some sort of screening process. That process will reject some percentage of applicants, call that number x. How would a decision to change from x to (say) 2x require "ratcheting up the instruments of control"?
Or is the argument that illegal immigration will persist anyway, so attempts to control it should not be made? (One could also apply this argument to any sort of illegal behavior, why should illegal immigration be singled out?)
I am SO TIRED of the sophistry on this site. Why will your writers not say clearly what they mean?