Schengen zone is a neat idea, not needing authorization to live and work in any of those countries. But the EU w/ respect to non EU countries of course doesn’t have that and they restrict or allow immigration based on their internal labor needs.
Open borders is ideal, but it’s understandable to have an intake process or some kind of documentation required, otherwise you might have saboteurs like those goons that tried to invade venezuela to do some terrorist attacks and got caught by some fishermen a few months ago.
Schengen is used mainly by the richer countries such as UK, Germany etc to get cheap workers from Eastern Europe, and replace the expensive local workers. For example, a lot of truck drivers or bus drivers in Germany are from Eastern Europe.
I think if you’re human, and live on the planet Earth, you’re okay to exist anywhere on the planet more or less.
But if you’re not from Earth, sorry.
We should build a space wall
We have only one hope, Mr. President. We must encase the entire planet in a protective sphere of my patented, ultra-hard Diamondium!
You’re right, those aliens should live on the uninhabitable planets nearby. Who they think they are?
Best for what and whom? Immigration is a difficult topic to be seen by itself as it is interlinked with many other policy options.
But very tl;dr: the best policy is the one that allows people to have a dignified life at home and not be forced to permanently relocate to another country.
best meaning not discriminating on the basis on religion/ethnicity/etc, plus being relatively opened to immigration
This still leaves out a lot of externalities and external drivers of immigration though.
But AFAIK Uruguay probably has the best immigration policy in that regard (Edit: well reading more recent articles about that, it seems to becoming less good in practical application).
Uruguay’s immigration policy?
Step one would be to stop destroying poor countries and forcing people to move away from them, but also to stop being racist and stop hating immigrants. (but also nation-states shouldn’t exist.)
It’s not really about “what would be the best way”. The best way is freedom of movement. There’s no ethical or just reason someone should be able to travel freely between freely between Ankara and Istanbul, but not between Budapest and Istanbul.
I guess originally it was about customs. Everyone got searched at the border, so that all your goods could be taxed. Important people could get a passport to be exempt.
Nowadays, it’s more about tracking people. For example if the CIA wants to kidnap Glenn greenwald, they know where to find him. He can’t just flee to a different part of the world. They have other means or tracking people now, but this was one of the earliest.
Or is there any more fundamental reason for states to control migration?
I don’t think it’s about mass movement of workers disrupting the economy. Then they would put the borders within countries.
You might be surprised to hear that border checks and passports were actually (mostly) a response to a pandemic.
I did not know that.
Redding your article, passports don’t sound like an effective disease control measure. Sounds like the disease was used to justify a measure that was coming anyway.
Much like the tracking, surveillance being extended today, and like putting more personal data into passports and extending the places passports will be used.
These measures have been being pushed for a long time, but they can be moved along faster now.
States like to control migration to maintain stability/the status quo.
This can be economic stability (e.g. many people move to a country to work can increase unemployment). Often states will only let people in that have skills that are in demand.
It can be cultural/social stability. Often there is a rise in xenophobia/racism when a country has a large amount of immigration (you could see this in many places in Europe). Increased xenophobia is great for the anti-immigrant and the not-so-covertly racist political parties.
Ecuador:it is free to enter, test covid must be 90 days, to immigrate you must have or an Diploma or invest $30000 or to buy house or something.
Immigration policies are discrimination policies on a global scale!
There exists no country who fails to discriminate in those policies.
People from country A benefits from free travel, work and normalization. people from country B. can only travel on study visas. People from country C need to prove they have X funds which could be worth a life’s savings. People from country D can only immigrate if they intend to invest X million money.
We are not free people but slaves to systems we (proudly) help maintain.
My idea, controversial, but by far best for all. Almost all. Abolish currency. If currency is abolished, then class no longer exists. If class no longer exists, there is no need for a state because it simply exists as a tool of class oppression. Therefore, no state could possibly have good immigration laws, becuase without the state, people can move far more freely and there is no immigration.
The best immigration policy? The best policy for entering an area is whatever the legitimate property owners decide.
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
it’s welcome here!