[brm]

In the interest of moving the Overton window, I've yet to hear a good, logical reason why we don't allow the free movement of people between administrative states.

[prepend]

From a US perspective, I think it’s because people enter on travel visas and do not leave.

I had a coworker from India who was a naturalized citizen for 5-10 years and he was trying to get travel visas for his parents to visit. He had applied many times and been denied each time. We talked about it and he said that the reason given was that the state department considered his parents a risk to not leave at the end of their visit. Comically, when I complained about how that was wrong and his parents would obviously go back he said “100% they will stay, I don’t really blame the visa people. My in laws stayed on a travel visa years ago and are still here.”

There’s also a reciprocity issue that’s sort of chicken and egg. India didn’t grant visas easily back in 2005 because the US didn’t grant their citizens visas.

[eloisant]

The question isn't that much "why don't we accept all travel visas" but "why don't we accept all immigrants".

People are talking about the "risk that they stay" like it's something bad to have too many immigrants. And it ended up like some common sense idea. But what if it's not?

Did California or New York suffer from getting people moving from all the "country side" state? Did the US suffer from their immigration waves when they had open borders, and all you needed to get in was a medical exam on Ellis Island?

[arvinsim]

Same thing happened to my country. In the 90's, the US was a lot more welcoming. But because a lot of tourists stayed, it is a lot harder now to get a tourist visa.

[detrites]

Just move to any place that's had its workforce, welfare system and social order decimated by impoverished immigrants and given enough time to amass some awful experiences, you'll be able to list your own reasons.

[eru]

> Just move to any place that's had its workforce, welfare system and social order decimated by impoverished immigrants [...]

Can you name an example?

[fires10]

I have heard this claim before, but I haven't been able to find any strong evidence of this. Can you provide some links to places this has happened to? Developed countries specifically.

[elvis10ten]

Because of the asymmetry of prosperity? Movement is gonna be one-sided from a lot of less prosperous countries. I think this list clearly reflects that: you are ranked higher if movement is close to equilibrium (you have a country lots of people also want to move to or not a lot of people want to leave).

[_xnmw]

1. Large-scale free movement of people between administrative states is called "an invasion". Why doesn't Ukraine just let Russians walk into Kiev?

2. Because it would lead to further concentration and centralization of power and money and influence and insanely expensive real estate in the hands of even fewer.

3. Because it is nice to live in a community of people that speak the same language, have a shared culture, and can interact according to some shared norms. I understand this is already lost in Western urban centers, so cultural homogeneity not valued anymore. But those who have it, value it.

[082349872349872]

> I understand this is already lost in Western urban centers

I don't want to accuse anyone of lying to you on the internet ... but as I've had no problem interacting according to shared norms (with varied languages and varied cultures) in many* Western urban centers, I will suggest you may wish to reconsider the veracity of your sources.

* eg. Amsterdam Barcelona Boston Edinburgh Hamburg London Los Angeles Milan New York Paris Salzburg Seattle Vancouver

[snowpid]

1.) welfare state 2.) some people refuse to integrate like Expats using only English.

[eloisant]

1. Immigrants are a net positive for the welfare state because you don't have to pay for their education and all their young years where they don't produce anything. They come ready to work and pay taxes.

2. Expats who only speak English and not the local language are the one who have no trouble getting a visa anyway. To take the example of France, the countries from where people want to migrate (and can't even come with a tourist visa) are mostly African French speaking countries.

[eru]

You can have free movement without extending to welfare state to non-citizen.

[082349872349872]

probably not the why you were looking for, but 1914*.

cf Zweig, The World of Yesterday for the memoirs of someone who remembered a world without.

* iow, the start of the "short 20th century"

[yourapostasy]

Man, did Zweig ever have an ear for lyrically lush phrasing. His and Garet Garrett's polemics against strident nationalism unfortunately fell upon deaf ears.

[balderdash]

Well considering one general way of defining the purpose of a nation state is to provide for the security, economic/social/public welfare, and administration of justice for its citizens - its hard to see mass migration from certain states to others as aligning with those obligations.

[whodidntante]

The current politics around this issue is not simply about free movement. It is about economics. For example, it is easy to travel to Denmark, using Denmark as an example of an "enlightened" state. However, if you intend to stay for more than 3 months, you must secure work/residency before even arriving. State benefits are also available only to citizens and others of certain legal status, with more limited benefits available to EU citizens.

The actual question that is being debated is allowing free movement into this country while at the same time providing full benefits (welfare, housing, health, etc) without requiring job/work permit/etc.

[yucky]

The same reason that has been true since the beginning of civilization - resources are limited.

Also, not all cultures align. Hundreds of millions of people are very much against some of the values that you may hold dear. If enough of them become your neighbors, you may be forced to align to their values.

[klntsky]

Public goods exist.

[eru]

Public goods are by definition non-rivalrous. So other people coming and enjoying them is fine.

[rippercushions]

For bonus points, explain why that reason should apply to movement between nation states, but not to movement between the states of a nation state.

[michens]

To reduce the impact of foreign intelligence agencies? Especially important in the EU nowadays.

[gggggg5]

Basically any foreign intelligence agency can produce perfect fake passports (except for the chip, but you don't need a functional chip).

Even regular criminals manage to produce good enough documents to travel with, and those guys don't have access to Heidelberg printing presses.

[eru]

Huh? As if an FSB agent couldn't get a passport..

[dfadsadsf]

Same reason you do not invite local “unhoused” meth addict to live in your spare bedroom. There are significant negative consequences from crime to destruction of high trust society.

[SCdF]

Are you intentionally equating people who are from countries with less passport mobility than yours with meth addicts?