Process
Status Items Output None Questions None Claims None Highlights Done See section below
Highlights
id583722526
It’s worth responding to the oft-invoked comparison between protecting one’s home from intruders and having a militarized border. I don’t think the analogy is sustainable, because I think there is a critical difference between individuals and nations. I respect people’s personal boundaries, because I think that people have an entitlement to be free of intrusion into their homes. But nations, and national boundaries, strike me as much more of an arbitrary and unnecessary mental construct. If someone walks into my house and takes up residence on my sofa, it also affects me much more than if someone crosses a border thousands of miles away from where I live and takes up a job in a restaurant. (And anyway, I wouldn’t install booby-traps to maim strangers who try to wander into my yard, even if I would prefer that they not do that.)
✏️ When people argue that protecting country borders are akin to protecting one’s home. The immediate affect of an intruder upon my home is extremely different in scale and meaning than a person crossing my country’s border. Also the intent of the person crossing is invariably different. 🔗 View Highlight
id583722992
While there are plenty of examples of historical barriers, they were certainly not any kind of norm. For instance, here’s the border between the U.S. and Mexico in 1900:
We see here the border between Nogales in Mexico and Nogales in Arizona. They were separated not by a barrier but by “International Street.”
id583722935
We could easily have a world of free movement between nation-states (the EU has demonstrated this,
id583723338
These are people who, often fleeing things like gang violence, rape, corruption, lack of educational opportunities, and homophobia in their home countries, want a marginally decent life for themselves and their families in a country that is more than capable of providing it.