Anti-immigration sentiment in the Western world has steadily increased in
recent years, and national borders and
immigration barriers have recently come to the fore due to Trump’s presidency. But Trump’s executive order to ban passport holders from certain
countries from entering the US may have been a step too far. The protests and
general backlash have been considerable. This may therefore be
a good time to look at what the general effects are of hard national borders.
Are they good or bad? In the following, I argue that they are unequivocally
bad.
First of all, let
there be no mistake: Borders are deadly. The most obvious example comes from
the very centre of Europe where 90 people were shot and killed by border guards
on the border between East and West Berlin. A more recent example are the
almost 5,000 people who drowned in the Mediterranean in 2016, trying to reach
Europe using overcrowded vessels because they were banned from travelling to
Europe by normal means. An example from
the other side of the Atlantic are the Mexican immigrants dying of thirst and
exposure after having crossed deserted sections of the US/Mexican border.
Secondly, states
engage in war in order to expand or defend their national borders. By national
borders I mean the borders of the state, which are not necessarily identical
with the borders of any given ethnic area. Throughout history, states have hired
or forced citizens into the military to defend or expand the national borders.
Most of these people have been farm labourers or workers from modest
backgrounds. Yet, they were told to defend the state borders and the privileges
of the kings, dukes, emperors, and presidents as soldiers and pay with their
lives, whether they wanted to or not. Millions of people died horrible deaths
this way. In Serbia during the four years of WW1, 60% of the male population
died - most of them as soldiers. Obvious examples of war fought over national
borders are WW1 and WW2. More recent examples are the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
and the Russian invasion of Crimea.
Thirdly, borders also
kill indirectly. Protectionism, which includes tariffs (i.e. import taxes),
import bans, and technical trade barriers (that is, overly strict product
specification requirements) would not be possible without national borders.
Protectionism causes sub-optimal economic growth, which, in turn, causes
poverty, higher prices, and insufficient health care, among other things. In
other words, protectionism is deadly. Current
examples are Brazil and India, which are among the countries with the highest
import tariffs. Poverty is rife in both countries. The EU and the US tend to
favour import bans and technical trade barriers over tariffs, but the net effect
on the economy is still entirely negative.
On a related note, trade
embargos and sanctions are only possible because of national borders. Sanctions
almost always cause suffering of innocent civilians. The state leaders that the
sanctions are supposed to hurt are rarely affected. In fact, a common result is
that the population of the sanctioned state comes out in support of their most nationalist
politicians instead of supporting the domestic and international opposition. This
is obviously the exact opposite of what was intended by the governments introducing
and enforcing the sanctions. Examples of this are Russia, North Korea, and –
until recently – Iran.
A fifth reason why
national borders are bad is that they enable welfare states to use their
extensive taxation and redistribution as a pretext for keeping foreigners away.
If welfare is freely available, it will naturally attract a large number of poor
immigrants, thus making the welfare state unsustainable. So in order to sustain
themselves, welfare states keep immigrants out. These immigrants are people who
bear no responsibility for the creation of the welfare state in the first
place. Nevertheless, they are punished for the existence of the welfare state -
regardless of whether they intend to claim welfare or not - by being denied
physical access to the country in question. Having their global freedom of
movement curtailed in this way can have dire consequences. Many people - unable
to move to a country in which they are able to support themselves and their
families - are killed in wars, imprisoned or executed by the governments in
their countries of origin, or die from lack of proper food, shelter, and
medical care. The deadly immigration barriers of Europe, the US, and Australia are
examples of this social protectionism.
National borders
encourage nationalism, support monarchies, and promote mono-ethnicity, bigotry,
and stereotyping of other people. Once a person has no direct exposure to
people of other cultures or nationalities, it becomes a lot easier for that
person to dehumanise and demonise such people. This claim is supported by the
fact that the recent rise of nationalism in Europe has occurred mainly among
voters in rural or post-industrial areas where there are relatively few
immigrants. Much of Trump’s support came from such areas. Conversely, large
cities with many ethnicities typically embrace a culturally diverse society
open to the rest of the world.
All this suggests that
hard national borders are a bad idea if the aim is to save lives, prevent war,
promote economic prosperity, and encourage cross-cultural understanding. Alas,
it currently seems like the Western world is heading in the exact opposite
direction.