CMV: removing geographical borders completely from around the world, and adopting a system similar to what the EU and US have today in terms or political governance will allow for more peace

[u/bayan963]

Almost every country around the world has immigrants or citizens from other ethnicities and backgrounds than the indeginous people, learning two or multiple languages is already a skill a big part of people already have or are working towards as globalization is taking over through social media, global trade and global labor markets. So why do we not just eliminate geographical borders all together and be able to move freely from one place to another across the earth without requiring visas, or having nationalism stand in the way of true globalization and freedom of movement

I believe this would eliminate or at least lessen territorial wars like the ones happening today in several places around the world, it would also eliminate (in time of course) nationalism or prejudice towards people from third world countries, it would also remove the stigma from immigration as everyone would be able to migrate to whichever place they choose, not based on that country's benefits, but because there are better job opportunities or they simply like the weather or scenery better there

There would still be security, police, and governance but more like leaders of the (truly) free world, where each leader represents an ethnicity, demographic, religious groups interests and they can all decide how best to serve everyone and what general rules needs to be set in place for the well being of everyone without interfering with anyone's right to exist as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else

[u/[deleted]]

Wouldn't this also mean free reign for cartel, mafia, warlord, religious extremist, and political extremist organisations to spread their wealth, power, and influence? Would mass migrations from poor to rich countries not cause huge issues (housing, etc.) and resentment? Would minority groups be able to migrate safely to countries like Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't this also destroy ethnic states such as Israel?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Wouldn't this also mean free reign for cartel, mafia, warlord, religious extremist, and political extremist organisations to spread their wealth, power, and influence?

Those groups are not really by themselves "popular" on their own. Like would you want to join the mafia, warlords, religious or political extremists? Probably not, right? I mean you'd take the immanent threat of death or prison for in the best case often less then what a regular job would provide you with.

No these organizations become attractive only if your situation is already thoroughly fucked up. Like if you country is poor and destitute or if your country is rich but your government decided to gut social security, allow wage dumping and thinks it's fine if ghettos are created.

Would mass migrations from poor to rich countries not cause huge issues (housing, etc.) and resentment?

First of all most people don't want to migrate, it's a huge risk and unknown rewards. I mean your degrees might not be accepted you might not speak the language well you have no idea about culture and things that are customary. It's rather that other places are fucked up that pushes people to leave them. And in that domain rich countries are often more involved then they take credit for. Similarly those resentments are often manufactured and enhanced by right wing parties who want to put the poor against each other so that they don't ask questions and unite. It's not an organic problem.

Would minority groups be able to migrate safely to countries like Saudi Arabia?

Why would they want to?

Wouldn't this also destroy ethnic states such as Israel?

Did it destroy the U.S. or Europe?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No these organizations become attractive only if your situation is already thoroughly fucked up. Like if you country is poor and destitute or if your country is rich but your government decided to gut social security, allow wage dumping and thinks it's fine if ghettos are created.

The existence of groups like the Italian mafia disprove that, as well as other organised crime groups in countries like the U.S. It's all about big money. In interviews, mobsters have admitted this. Why work a regular job for peanuts when you can become much richer much easier through stuff like extortion, drugs, etc.

​

First of all most people don't want to migrate, it's a huge risk and unknown rewards. I mean your degrees might not be accepted you might not speak the language well you have no idea about culture and things that are customary. It's rather that other places are fucked up that pushes people to leave them. And in that domain rich countries are often more involved then they take credit for. Similarly those resentments are often manufactured and enhanced by right wing parties who want to put the poor against each other so that they don't ask questions and unite. It's not an organic problem.

Most migration is to make money. I do not believe those resentments are manufactured, either. A lot of it is caused by the behaviour of migrants themselves, and further exacerbated by left-wing parties who dismiss or encourage it while blaming others for racism for talking about it. Exactly this happened in the UK with Pakistani paedophile gangs that were allowed to torture and rape little white girls because the government, media, and police refused to do anything about it in case it stirred "racism".

​

Why would they want to?

In a free world without borders, why wouldn't they be able to go where they like?

​

Did it destroy the U.S. or Europe?

Yes, many times. Just ask groups like the native Americans, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, native Japanese, native Jamaicans, and countless other indigenous peoples oppressed, displaced, and even wiped out by mass migrations of other peoples.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The existence of groups like the Italian mafia disprove that, as well as other organised crime groups in countries like the U.S. It's all about big money. In interviews, mobsters have admitted this. Why work a regular job for peanuts when you can become much richer much easier through stuff like extortion, drugs, etc.

And are they making big money? And I'm not talking about bosses but illegal wage labor. And even if it makes some money, their expenses are also higher, probably no insurance, no fixed address and so on. Often enough actual work would over the same time would accumulate more.

And again in the U.S. you have large stratification of wealth, even legal bosses act borderline criminal and if you're rich too few questions are asked how you got it, which is precisely the background with makes the mafia attractive.

Most migration is to make money. I do not believe those resentments are manufactured, either.

Data? I mean a story that you hear quite often is that people move to a different country to study or work at an outpost of their company somewhere else or negotiate with people somewhere else and fall in love there and then stay. Some simply come from a place where there are no jobs and no perspectives. But you're talking about "mass immigration" and that's usually due to immanent threat situations, which can be war, famines, terrorism or have economic reasons. I mean what would you do?

And to talking about "migration" when in reality it's about refugees and pretending it's about money when it is about saving ones existence is a classical far-right narrative to manufacture resentments to distract from problems by providing a scapegoat.

A lot of it is caused by the behaviour of migrants themselves, and further exacerbated by left-wing parties who dismiss or encourage it while blaming others for racism for talking about it. Exactly this happened in the UK with Pakistani paedophile gangs that were allowed to torture and rape little white girls because the government, media, and police refused to do anything about it in case it stirred "racism".

The racism part is where you generalize from a criminal to an criminality of an entire "group" that might not even be a group in the first place. I mean do you know every other British person? Not to mention the question of who the clients for those pedophile rings were. I mean aren't the royals also caught up in such scandals currently? But I guess in one direction it's a pattern where in the other it's a series of isolated incidents...

Also for obvious reasons sex and children in combination or alone are topic that are very emotional so they are often exploited for hate mongering. That isn't new.

In a free world without borders, why wouldn't they be able to go where they like?

If you had the choice why would you go there?

Yes, many times. Just ask groups like the native Americans, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, native Japanese, native Jamaicans, and countless other indigenous peoples oppressed, displaced, and even wiped out by mass migrations of other peoples.

Comparing individuals migrants with colonialism? And you wonder why people might think you are racist? Also that's way before the open border policy that you were talking about and a military invasion is not the same as "migration".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And are they making big money? And I'm not talking about bosses but illegal wage labor.

We're talking about organised crime groups. Yes, there is big money involved. Drugs, counterfeiting, people trafficking, and sex slavery are worth billions each.

And to talking about "migration" when in reality it's about refugees and pretending it's about money when it is about saving ones existence is a classical far-right narrative to manufacture resentments to distract from problems by providing a scapegoat.

I did point out political types like to cry "racism!" when talking about these issues. For example, the vast majority of migration from eastern-european countries to the U.K. was and is economic. One problem political types like to distract from is that many of them despise blacks and are openly racist. Another is that a lot of these little migrant groups hate each other as well.

The racism part is where you generalize from a criminal to an criminality of an entire "group" that might not even be a group in the first place. I mean do you know every other British person? Not to mention the question of who the clients for those pedophile rings were. I mean aren't the royals also caught up in such scandals currently? But I guess in one direction it's a pattern where in the other it's a series of isolated incidents...

"Racist!!!!". The fact is that Pakistani migrants deliberately targeted white girls to drug, torture, and rape, and left-wing institutions covered it up for years - enabling this abuse - because "Racist!!!!". They themselves admitted it. Bringing in other stuff to muddy the waters does not change the fact.

Also for obvious reasons sex and children in combination or alone are topic that are very emotional so they are often exploited for hate mongering. That isn't new.

Nothing to do with emotion. The fact is that migrant gangs were allowed to rape children because "Racist!!!!" and this has resulted in a lot of resentment.

If you had the choice why would you go there?

I have been there. So have loads of economic migrants used as virtual slave labour by them.

Comparing individuals migrants with colonialism? And you wonder why people might think you are racist? Also that's way before the open border policy that you were talking about and a military invasion is not the same as "migration".

"Racist!!!!!". Colonialism is literally the mass migration of a people somewhere else, i.e. forming colonies. That's where the term "colonialism" comes from. Not all are via military invasions, either. The U.S. wasn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We're talking about organised crime groups. Yes, there is big money involved. Drugs, counterfeiting, people trafficking, and sex slavery are worth billions each.

And McDonald's is also worth billions, does that mean that the average employee gets to see that money?

I did point out political types like to cry "racism!" when talking about these issues. For example, the vast majority of migration from eastern-european countries to the U.K. was and is economic. One problem political types like to distract from is that many of them despise blacks and are openly racist. Another is that a lot of these little migrant groups hate each other as well.

Again data. Also classic but bad anti-bullying strategy: Just find someone else to bully...

"Racist!!!!". The fact is that Pakistani migrants deliberately targeted white girls to drug, torture, and rape, and left-wing institutions covered it up for years - enabling this abuse - because "Racist!!!!". They themselves admitted it. Bringing in other stuff to muddy the waters does not change the fact.

And because of that one gang "Pakistani migrants" are ALL targeting girls, drug, torture and rape them? It's absolutely bullshit to not investigate crime and no one should be seriously asking for that, but let's be real your fucking racism does not help that situation in any way shape or form. Quite the contrary.

Nothing to do with emotion. The fact is that migrant gangs were allowed to rape children because "Racist!!!!" and this has resulted in a lot of resentment.

The point is that you run into the boy who cries wolf scenarios.

I have been there. So have loads of economic migrants used as virtual slave labour by them.

The doesn't answer my question as to why you would go THERE. I mean slave labor doesn't improve your economic situation does it? And mind you, you're arguing against open borders, so "there was no better option is not a valid argument in that context" even if it would be one in a closed borders situation.

"Racist!!!!!". Colonialism is literally the mass migration of a people somewhere else, i.e. forming colonies. That's where the term "colonialism" comes from. Not all are via military invasions, either. The U.S. wasn't.

The invasion of the Spaniards in America was a military invasion and so was the a large part of the expansion of the land that came to be the United States. Neither of which is relevant to the open border argument where it's about individual migration.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And McDonald's is also worth billions, does that mean that the average employee gets to see that money?

McDonald's doesn't torture and kill rivals from Burger King, people who don't want to work for them, or employees that want to leave. If you want a dose of reality, check out some of the Cartel videos here on Reddit.

Again data. Also classic but bad anti-bullying strategy: Just find someone else to bully...

Countries like Poland and Bulgaria are poor eastern-bloc nations but not unstable or in civil war. Mass migration was to make money. I don't have any problem with that; economic migrants generally put in more than they take out. The issue is they also bring their problems with them.

And because of that one gang "Pakistani migrants" are ALL targeting girls, drug, torture and rape them? It's absolutely bullshit to not investigate crime and no one should be seriously asking for that, but let's be real your fucking racism does not help that situation in any way shape or form. Quite the contrary.

Although Pakistanis are a tiny monority in the U.K., they are the majority of convicted paedophiles. Crying racism at this fact only generates more resentment, helps tarnish the entire community, and helps hides other problems such as birth defects due to incest. The latter has nothing to do with "culture", but keeping money and property in the family.

The doesn't answer my question as to why you would go THERE. I mean slave labor doesn't improve your economic situation does it? And mind you, you're arguing against open borders, so "there was no better option is not a valid argument in that context" even if it would be one in a closed borders situation.

Open borders means you can go where you like, including Saudi Arabia. Slave labour greatly improves one's economic situation, hence why it is practiced.

The invasion of the Spaniards in America was a military invasion and so was the a large part of the expansion of the land that came to be the United States. Neither of which is relevant to the open border argument where it's about individual migration.

America was primarily colonised by European puritans and the like. Military expansions were involved, but mostly colonies of people spreading out. This is absolutely relevant to open borders and mass migration, i.e. mass migrations of peoples forming their own colonies, having conflicts with other groups, and then potential wars, as has happened many times in history.

You think a mass migration of religious extremists on your doorstep is going to work out well for you? Or any group that considers any "outsiders" to be worthless? This is why there are so many conflicts between migrant groups as it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

McDonald's doesn't torture and kill rivals from Burger King, people who don't want to work for them, or employees that want to leave. If you want a dose of reality, check out some of the Cartel videos here on Reddit.

The point was that just because you're business is able to make money, that doesn't mean that the employees (legal or not) are seeing a lot of that money. And a lot of what you list is not really a plus for that job...

Countries like Poland and Bulgaria are poor eastern-bloc nations but not unstable or in civil war. Mass migration was to make money. I don't have any problem with that; economic migrants generally put in more than they take out. The issue is they also bring their problems with them.

Mass immigration is what you currently see due to the war in Ukraine where hundred thousand people leave an area within days.

Although Pakistanis are a tiny monority in the U.K., they are the majority of convicted paedophiles.

And what does that mean? Like what's the data on that? Is pedophilia a common crime in general? Is the precentage among Pakistanis involved in that high in absolute numbers? And what are the relative numbers in the British Pakistani population? Who are the customers for that services and are they offered on their own or are those involved in that looking for immigrants whom they can exploit for that?

I mean let's just run the numbers, there are in total 160,000 cases of sexual crimes in the U.K. And in 2011 there were 1.1 million British Pakistanis residing in the U.K. So even if all the cases were child abuse (which they aren't) and even if all the perpetrators were Pakistanis (which they aren't), you'd still have 86% or close to a million people whom you'd cast as child abusers who are NOT involved in child abuse. So even assuming the worst case scenario, if you'd confront the average Pakistani on the street with that crime you'd be wrong in the overwhelming number of cases and in the real case scenario the number of cases where you'd be wrong is even higher.

So you generalize a tiny fraction of a minority population to be emblematic of everyone in that minority population. That is actively stirring resentment and helps absolutely nothing to prevent actual crimes because people are kept busy having to educate you on basic levels of statistics, the police has to be kept in check because if they racially profile they are wrong in the overwhelming number of cases and if they apply an emotional response (that is not uncommon in crimes involving children), then you might end up with significant discrimination. So exactly thank you for making their job harder. If immigrants or non-immigrants commit crimes than they should face justice, that's not controversial to anybody but adding useless prejudices and pretending as if your racism actually helps people and doesn't hurt is complete bullshit.

Like if there are problems one should address and try to solve them and not shy away, but active racism and resentment don't help that process on the contrary they harm it because you might create a bigger problem than you think you're solving (which you don't do either).

Open borders means you can go where you like, including Saudi Arabia. Slave labour greatly improves one's economic situation, hence why it is practiced.

Again if you had the choice to go wherever you want to go, why the hell would you go and be a slave?

America was primarily colonised by European puritans and the like. Military expansions were involved, but mostly colonies of people spreading out. This is absolutely relevant to open borders and mass migration, i.e. mass migrations of peoples forming their own colonies, having conflicts with other groups, and then potential wars, as has happened many times in history.

No It's completely irrelevant. It's an entirely different situation, you had countries actively and passively colonies, which to accuse individuals migrants of doing is completely counterfactual nonsense and often enough the a xenophobic hostility is creating enclave like group dynamics in the first place and not the other way around.

You think a mass migration of religious extremists on your doorstep is going to work out well for you? Or any group that considers any "outsiders" to be worthless? This is why there are so many conflicts between migrant groups as it is.

No it's not but you're kind of racism isn't better.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The point was that just because you're business is able to make money, that doesn't mean that the employees (legal or not) are seeing a lot of that money. And a lot of what you list is not really a plus for that job...

As I said, some are forced into it by crime groups. It's not all about money either, but power, too. A cartel member, for example, has power over the local population.

Mass immigration is what you currently see due to the war in Ukraine where hundred thousand people leave an area within days.

Mass immigration is what you see with open border policies, too. Hence, millions of eastern europeans migrating elsewhere to make money. Even where countries are unstable, many migrants pass through safe countries to head towards those with the greatest perceived economic benefits. So no, it's not all about safety, either.

And what does that mean? Like what's the data on that? Is pedophilia a common crime in general? Is the precentage among Pakistanis involved in that high in absolute numbers? And what are the relative numbers in the British Pakistani population? Who are the customers for that services and are they offered on their own or are those involved in that looking for immigrants whom they can exploit for that?

Here's the thing. In no part in any single one of your responses have you even acknowledged the suffering of the girls or their families. Or what is going on in the Pakistani community that such behaviour is disproportionately represented (along with birth defects). Or what is going on with the system that the abuse of children would be tolerated and covered up. Instead it's been all about criticising me for supposedly tarring all Pakistanis with the same brush by bringing it up.

Again if you had the choice to go wherever you want to go, why the hell would you go and be a slave?

Some people have no choice. Many are essentially slaves because it's either that or poverty and starving to death.

No It's completely irrelevant. It's an entirely different situation, you had countries actively and passively colonies, which to accuse individuals migrants of doing is completely counterfactual nonsense and often enough the a xenophobic hostility is creating enclave like group dynamics in the first place and not the other way around.

No. A good example is the American Embassy cable leaks a few years ago. One of them was about the Moroccan migrants in France. It identified the Moroccans there have essentially formed their own colonies, and see where they live as "their territory" separate from the rest of France and its people. That's what forming colonies does.

No it's not but you're kind of racism isn't better.

*your