- Politics and Social Issues»
- Social Issues
An alternative explanation to why the world as we know it may never have open borders
“…Open borders, an idea that for years was treated as deeply unserious, as an extreme straw man that nativists could beat up in the course of resisting more modest efforts to help immigrants. It had its defenders — philosopher Joseph Carens primary among them — but they were relatively lonely voices. But in recent years, a small but devoted group of advocates have succeeded in turning open borders from a dirty word to a real movement with strong arguments backing it up”.
Those were the words of Dylan Matthews in his piece: “The case for open borders” on Vox. Among these new advocates, he says Brayan Caplan is the most prolific and forceful voice. In one of his writings in defense of the open borders idea, “Why should we restrict immigration?” Caplan argues, “Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third World misery. Economists’ consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty…The injustice and harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable to the injustice and harm that immigration restrictions impose”.
But, not minding all the presumed virtues of this idea, the fresh life line injected into the push for it and its relevance, particularly at this time in history, this short piece, presents an alternative explanation to why the world as we know it may never have open borders. I consider the explanation alternative, not because I don't think it makes sense. But because it’s not per se scientifically proven. Nevertheless, overall, when applied it has some bearing on life realities. Also, the explanation is an alternative view, yet it is not intended to rubbish the others out there. It’s just meant to argue on its own merits, that based on the details of a different explanation to life realities, open borders isn't an applicable idea of this present life.
Yes, the concept of divine influence on life is unscientific and theological arguments are often considered mythical than realistic, with little or no relevance to life in general. But, I agree with those who insist that everything about life can’t be explained in the context of intelligence or scientifically either. In order words, there are aspects of this life that actually continues to defile human reasoning and scientifically established cause and effect relationships. So, while this explanation is not grounded in science, it ought not be ignored in toto. To that effect, I think the idea of open borders, belongs to the class of life arrangements that is not in tandem with the divine Oder, put in place after the Fall of man. If the scriptures are believable, there will always be the poor, the downtrodden and those who will be “born on the wrong side of the border”. Those who will continue to strive to have the life of the rich and prosperous. Their presence isn't real life anomalies, but its conformities. The world will never be made better for all by humans.
Though, immigration restrictions perpetuates all kinds of inequalities and injustices, yet there are so many things about life that does same, like capitalism and still we flock towards it. It is the way the creator made it to be and it is the way it will remain. That which will make life all together more pleasurable will always fail in this present earth. An open world will only be achievable after God’s kingdom is established in a new earth. It is not an idea of the now, not matter how we try. Even the poor countries, which the advocates of open borders belief stand to greatly benefit, will resist the idea. The rich ones too, will fight to maintain the sanity in their societies; keep and preserve the benefits of their accrued prosperities for themselves and their future generations. In truth, it’s not just for its negative implications will it be resisted, but for its positives too. And such, will remain as its tale for generations to come.
While the veracity of this alternative explanation is moot and dismissible because it appears fable. But let the well established arguments in support of open borders, give the world reasons to try its implementation. Let the President of the most powerful nation in the world act as suggested by Caplan for the sake of immigrants. Still, the result will always be a stay on the status quo, which is more in line with the divine Order. What I consider the primary determinant of present life occurrences and arrangements; whether we know it or not. As humans, we can always yearn and advocate for the ideal, but if the overall idea stands in direct contrast to God’s grand intent for life, it will always end in futility.
Consider the “Schengen Agreement [that] led to the creation of Europe's borderless Schengen Area in 1995”. Like it, when the truth about it all is not acknowledged, such ideas will be thought of as the ideal, arguments will be presented in support, it will be tried out and its unworkability will always be made obvious in the process. Consequently, the doors for suggestions for it to be abolished will be opened. Sometimes such suggestions will come from unexpected quarters.
Recently, for instance, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy was reported to have voiced “his support for Europe while also calling for an end to its open borders agreement”. Without a doubt, at the onset of EU’s experiment of this idea, same virtues as are presently presented by its global advocates were the persuading factors that came to bear. But, over time, those virtues and all the promised benefits failed to match realities. Now, realists are calling for an end to it. This will always be the case, and there is nothing humans can do, to make any idea that runs contrary to the divine Order of life stand.
Again, this is just an alternative explanation and not an absolutely true one. So, read and toss if it doesn't make sense. Consider me one of those feeble idea observers. But, peradventure if at the end of the day, the idea of open borders fails to catch on globally, let this be an alternative explanation to why that became the case. Let this also be a testament that at some point, it was suggested as a reason why the idea it will never work out. Though, in itself, it is a better option for humans and our world as well. It won’t work and that’s not because the supporting arguments aren’t real, but because it is not fundamentally in line with the present Order of life as prescribed for it by God.
Matthews, D. (2014, September 13). The case for open borders. Retrieved from http:// www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double
Caplan, B. (2012). Why should we restrict immigration? Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1. Retrieved from http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/ cj32n1-2.pdf
France 24 (2014, May 22). Sarkozy calls for end to Europe’s open borders agreement. http:// www.france24.com/en/20140522-france-sarkozy-calls-end-schengen-area-european- parliament-elections/
Schengen Agreement (2014). Retrieved on September 13, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Schengen_Agreement