What would happen if a global and unanimous agreed that all visa requirements should be abolished immediately, so that every citizen of the world can live and work in each country?

We have known this situation between roughly 1870 and 1914.Then people didn’t need a passport to travel around and were allowed to settle almost everywhere. There were also no or very few barriers to trade. It was a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity increase. In that period too, most of the inventions that belong to a modern world were made, such as telephones, cars, television, radio, and airplanes. The world changed altogether. If someone from the Middle Ages ended up in 1800, they would see a world that would still be reasonably recognizable to him or her. However, if one were to move from 1800 to 1900, it would end up in a totally strange world for him or her.

The borders were more closed during the First World War and when the welfare states arose.A welfare state and uncontrolled immigration are two things that do not go well together.

Start the race to the bottom in the west.Fair work, such as cleaning, will be destroyed in a country like the Netherlands, more Wanderers begging, pressure on social safety net will be very large, taxes will rise or our social safety net will be broken down.

I expect that no one would really get much better and that only the lower and middle-class in wealthy countries are going to deteriorate.The rich will become even richer, because the low and middle class in wealthy countries will now be mainly concerned with survival, just like in poor countries.

Borders can only fade between equivalent countries.With the Schengen convention, e.g. Many eastern Europeans went to Western Europe and they work here for lower wages than for the Dutch themselves is possible. This undermines the well-being of the lower class.

I am for immigration to the Green Card model.Competition between highly educated persons is good and provides innovation. Competition between cleaners threatens their existence.

I see a total social disruption if this would happen, even in the unlikely scenario where Eastern European countries are also opening up to the whole world.

Countries like Pakistan will indeed be largely deflated towards the western countries.Soon the shore will turn the ship: Exponential growth of xenophobia, moving into pogrom-like states and then civil war, after which democracy is being surged and right-authoritarian regimes to mass deportations, if not ethnic Purges will go on.

In the aftermath of this, wars can arise with countries of origin that will not accept their citizens being affected in this way.Pakistan has a nuclear weapon (of which, incidentally, the technology with knowledge stolen from the Netherlands is obtained).

We should not want to create a precedent for such a nightmare.

In the short term, this will of course mean considerable pressure on the state of care, as well as the police and the labour market of wealthy countries.Perhaps not only in the short term.

In the long term, however, I hope that we are taking that side.The accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU has caused little problems and I hope that within my time we will also get countries like China and Russia. Idealbe also Mali and Yemen but it will happen after my time.

In the short term, however, I was ambivalent in terms of immigration.It is not fair that someone who was born coinciibly in Pakistan does not have the same rights as someone born in the Netherlands. However, the visa requirements for immediate abolition seem to me to be too risky.

If it is not clear that it is for eternity, whole tribes are adrift.To a better place. What would you do if you did not go well?

If the guarantee is that it will never be reversed again, and the state where you were born would remain responsible for income and well-being, wherever you live, then it could have been a giant windfall.

This is one of the questions that Open Borders: The Case is trying to answer.It is a complex issue, but a number of substantiated estimates are:

I have, of course, made a selection of topics that appeal to me.Especially take the time to look around yourself and then check their sources.

In radical reforms it is difficult to know for sure that it is going well, but it should be just as difficult to know for sure that it is running out badly -in other words, expecting disasters is as foolish as expecting miracles. A reasonable starting point is that the consequences will be boring, but people have little trouble figuring out doomsday scenarios.This is a congenital bias, which you must guard against when you judge radical reforms. Remember that the abolition of slavery and electoral rights for women were once again radical reforms that were expected to be disasters.

In an ideal world, or in an ideal community, one could start gently and wait and see how such displacements would develop.I fear that people would soon land in chaotic situations.

The world is not ideal, the human community even less, and people are not… Angels!Interesting as Tema in a philosophy-kursus, but there it remains…

Then 1/3 of Africa and a large part of the Middle East suddenly sit in Europe.

You will get about the same effect as there is now in Europe. A group of youngsters who are looking for better opportunities and a group of happy people who sometimes have more and sometimes less problems with the emigrants.

There is no pressure to settle your legal tricks somewhere permanently, you don’t have to let children and family come over ‘ because it still can ‘ and so on.

Mobility is increasing with pressure on air traffic and more pollution.

At free migration It is often precisely the people who have something in their Mars that emigrate.

I think that in total only a few percent of people really emigrates.However, much more cultural mixing occurs, but especially among the migrerenden among themselves.

In Some areas with high unemployment is then exodus of many people.However, there would not be a problem like now because everyone can just legally work. The so-called refugee crisis is rather caused by the closed borders, making people much less mobile. In the current situation, you can’t go back to see if you like it, but you’re stuck to your status.


If you do a lot of trouble, then you will not say that it does not suggest anything.The term ‘ cognitive dissonance ‘ is used. If it takes a lot of effort to get to Europe, then you are not going to say it is disappointing. If you can easily get here, you will also easily go away. Eventually you go there where you want to be.


In the extension, for example during the popular removals, a population attracts a country and it conquers the country on the indigenous people.You see the same thing in America’s history. The original population is being walked under the foot. But at completely free migration, people come and go on all sides, but there is not a certain group that dominates the other, but a mixture of cultures like the one that is already taking place in the Netherlands. This cultural blending creates all sorts of new ideas and goes against calving and self-determination, because everyone must somehow relate to these innovations.

Leave a Reply