Without national borders, advanced civilisation would cease existing. Based on the findings of a 2017 Gallup poll, 14% of the world’s adults would emigrate if the opportunity was available. That is over 700,000,000 people. Almost equal to the entire population of Europe.
If everyone who wanted to leave could, the developed world would be overwhelmed by the rest. It is the developed world that these people wish to emigrate to, not failed states. Consider how well Europe has been coping the influx of a mere few million migrants in recent years, and then imagine the consequences of a borderless world.
This article specifically deals with the economic and scientific concerns of the borderless vision, so we shall leave aside arguments of culture, heritage and genetics for now. East Asia, Europe and North America produce almost the entirety of the world’s scientific output. The knowledge and skills necessary to ensure human advancement exist in a very small section of the world.
From medicines to computing, it all comes not just from the developed world, but from a small subsection of the population of the developed world. These things are imperative to the future survival of the human species, and so it is integral that these nations continue to be able to produce such things.
Central to why this is of great concern is that the advancement of the human species is a biologically naturally and desirable goal. I would argue that is our main imperative. It manifests in desires as simple as that to reproduce, but technological advancement is essential to it as well. You can read more that idea here.
In order for nations to produce scientific output, they must be prosperous and functional. As we have seen, open borders mass-migration leads to non-functionality in the countries that it afflicts. When a country’s economic engine is dedicated to providing welfare for unassimilable masses incapable of functioning in a developed economy, then it naturally cannot invest in the ideas and technologies necessary to the future of humanity.
With this in mind, the UN’s recently agreed upon Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is both a singularly short-sighted document and an interesting look into the minds of our ruling class. A quick summary of its view on migration is as follows:
It says migration is “part of the human experience throughout history” and “a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world.” At the same time: “This Global Compact aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin, and so compel them to seek a future elsewhere.”
There would be little migration if living conditions in the third world were improved, but when people do move, it “should never be an act of desperation” and must be “safe, orderly, and regular.” The conclusion being that developed countries should make migration easier and also eliminate the conditions that cause it. The responsibility for all of this falls on us – the developed world, the west, Europe – call it what you will.
This is the how the world’s elites perceive the issue of borders and migration. Whether you believe this perception is founded in malice or ignorance is irrelevant, what matters is that it is the consensus.
I believe this to be an incredibly dangerous view, because it refuses to take into account the wider picture. A borderless world could in theory exist, but it could never succeed. Within the space of a few decades if not a few years, the global engine of innovation and income would cease. Economically speaking, the effects of migration have already strained the budgets of many European nations, and that is with only low levels of migration relative to what could be possible.
Of course, some migration can be economically and scientifically beneficial, especially if it is confined to educated migrants or those with exceptional potential. However in doing so, you pilfer the best of the undeveloped world and remove from those countries the agents of change that might improve them – leading to more migration in the long-term.
As of now, they would ask us not only to increase migration, but also to spend more on foreign aid. If that is the case, then it would seem we are destined to eternal austerity in order to fund such conditions.
A nation bearing such burdens not only cannot advance, but will inevitably begin to regress. As we have already seen, middle-classes disappear and the cost of living rises. No time or money remains for ventures of art or science, for works of vision and passion. Instead we build a society of urbanised peasantry, slaving away for scraps to fund a financially and socially untenable vision of the world held by an elite few.
Consider that the independence of the Irish Free State was closer to the year humanity visited the moon than we are now in 2019. The entire 21st century so far has arguably been a near complete misdirection of humanity’s resources, and with the idea of a borderless world firmly implanted in the minds of the rich and powerful, we risk not only wasting the next few decades, but the entire future of human civilisation.
Ever since the first man drew a line in the sand around his possessions tens of thousands of years ago, borders have been a natural and desirable concept for mankind. The sooner we accept that a borderless world is a dangerous fantasy – the sooner we can redirect our national efforts towards meaningful change and civilisation advancement that benefits all.