New Internationalist

Should nation-states open their borders to refugees and migrants?

Issue 438

The world is full of desperate people fleeing persecution and war, while others migrate in search of a better life for themselves and their families. Should Western countries open their borders to all who want to enter? Or should there be controls and filters to regulate entry and citizenship?

Every issue we invite two experts to debate a hot button issue in The Argument, and then invite you to join the conversation online - we’ll read all your comments and select the best to print next issue. (We’d prefer you to use your real name, but would love to hear what our readers have to say either way.) If you can’t comment, then you can simply vote in our poll, which you’ll find partway down the debate.

Looking for a debate from a previous issue?
Is it ever right to buy or sell human organs? - October 2010
Are public service cuts justified? - November 2010

Bob Hughes

Bob Hughes is a British advocate of ‘open borders’. He teaches at Brookes University in Oxford and is active in the ‘No-One is Illegal’ campaign.

I believe immigration controls are inhuman and should be scrapped. So do many other human rights campaigners. I’ve even met prominent academics, heads of NGOs and MPs who also agree – but only in private and with the rider that the idea is so ‘far out on a limb’ that it might even be ‘dangerously counterproductive’ to discuss it publicly.

I’ve just read an article you co-authored about the panic that seized Canada on the arrival of a ship containing 490 unfortunate Tamil refugees earlier this year (‘Why we can’t turn away the Tamil ships’, Globe and Mail, 17 July 2010). My heart sank when, after putting the panic into calm perspective and exposing the wider irrationality of controls, you went on to reassure your readers that, ‘Canada can also discourage any non-genuine claimants by ensuring timely, fair decisions in their refugee claims, followed by the prompt return of failed claimants.’

Fair decisions?’ These laws were never meant to be fair. You know their history – all of them sops to xenophobic agitation. ‘Tough’, not ‘fair’, is how they’re sold and executed. How can a law even pretend to be ‘fair’ that punishes people essentially for being who they are, where they are?

Audrey Macklin

Audrey Macklin teaches law at the University of Toronto. She was active in the campaign to repatriate Canadian child soldier, Omar Khadr, who was captured by US forces in Afghanistan in 2002 and sent to Guantánamo where he has been imprisoned for eight years.

It is not news that the citizenship privileges conferred by the accident of birth are morally arbitrary and unjust in their consequences. I confess to being a pragmatist: A ‘no borders’ argument would have zero traction with policy-makers or most of the public. It leaves one with nothing to say about specific policies. I hope you agree that one can maintain that all border control is invidious while still recognizing that certain policies are more unfair than others. It seems to me that no-borders advocates push on borders from without – they stand outside (or above) the institutions of the state and conventional understandings of sovereignty and make an ethical appeal to individuals.

To concede the legitimacy of states controlling entry, en route to critiquing a particular exercise of that authority, is to push against borders from the inside. One holds a mirror up to the policy and asks how it reflects on the values that ‘insiders’ say they endorse, principles that they may even claim as constitutive of their political community. It is absolutely true that the invocation of the rule of law, or fairness, or equality and dignity, doesn’t get you nearly as far as it should before policy-makers, courts of law, or the court of public opinion. But then again, appeals to open borders arguments don’t either. Pushing from the ‘outside in’ and from the ‘inside out’ are not incompatible. Indeed, I think there is positive value to both operating simultaneously that would be diminished if we allocated all of our energies to a single pressure point.

Bob Hughes

I think you make life hard for yourself if you concede too readily the state’s right to control entry. Borders have become fetishes with lives of their own. The amazing piece of anti-foreigner legislation that you’re currently fighting is called (wait for it, everyone): ‘The Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act’. Legislation by name-calling, or what? What makes this terrifying, rather than just comical, is the failure of those who can and should condemn it in forthright terms to do so.

It’s worse in the UK where the Government can lock up foreigners for as long as it likes – including children and babies. Regular furores over ever-worse abuse in detention might turn the tide of opinion against ‘strong borders’ policy. But they collapse feebly when the authorities respond: ‘If we’re going to have a credible border policy, we need detention.’ No major campaign group then asks the question the authorities almost dare them to ask: just what is it about these borders that makes their integrity more precious than human dignity and life? Millions can see what malicious nonsense it is, but who in the political class will say so?

Audrey Macklin

I confess to being a pragmatist. A ‘no borders’ argument would have zero traction with policy makers – Audrey

The question is not how to make my life easier or harder. It is whether it would make life easier for the targets of this truly vicious bill if I and every other opponent simply insisted that border control by states is illegitimate and unjust. I doubt it. I am glad that some opponents are doing so, and there may be some who will be persuaded.

But it’s not just political élites who believe in this ‘malicious nonsense’. The overwhelming majority of people in industrialized states have drunk the koolaid: territory is to states what property is to individuals – citizens/owners get to decide who comes in. We might agree that the world would be a better place if people were able to move more freely (and were less impelled to do so). But I expect we might also concur that such a world can only be realized if and when people internalize and will it – not through the application of force. So how can people un-think the habits of mind that make state sovereignty matter and make border control the quintessence of sovereignty?

Bob Hughes

Noor Khamis / Reuters
Suspected ‘illegal’ immigrants from Somalia in the dock. Noor Khamis / Reuters

We do not campaign exclusively for the abolition of controls. Most of the work that ‘No Borders’ groups do is fighting individual anti-deportation campaigns, finding lawyers for people, helping people find evidence and build their cases, supporting protests by detainees and victimized migrants or mounting protests against airlines that carry out deportations. My experience is that ‘No Borders’ groups are some of the most effective campaigners around – and their effectiveness derives in large part precisely from their principled contempt for the whole apparatus of controls.

Perhaps all of us who oppose particular aspects of immigration controls could agree simply to oppose detention, the break-up of families, deportations or whatever. Not to volunteer alternatives that may sound more humane but concede the deadly principle that it is all right, and perhaps necessary, to make some people suffer simply because they are foreign.

We have no right to volunteer the victims of abuse to milder abuse – which will inevitably turn out not to be so mild anyway.

I disagree that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of people believe in the necessity of controls. I make a habit of asking strangers what they think and very often get the response: ‘Of course people should be able to go where they like!’ Even people who seem vehemently against immigrants can quickly agree that the real problem is the lack of decent housing, education and healthcare. I’ve never knowingly had this argument with a card-carrying fascist, but fascists are few in number – so far.

Audrey Macklin

Sigit Pamungkas / Reuters
Behind bars: An Iranian child held in detention. Sigit Pamungkas / Reuters

Since lawyers and legal academics like me are the ones that ‘No Borders’ groups enlist for legal advocacy, I think that ultimately there is less distance between us than you imply. The argument you criticize is precisely the kind of argument that your lawyers make in court.

We have no right to volunteer victims of abuse to milder abuse, but if we confine ourselves to ‘all border regulation is wrong’ in response to this or that aspect of immigration control and we fail to win the day, then we simply cede the terrain of options completely and abandon victims of abuse to more and possibly worse abuse. The stakes are too high for me to accept that gamble.

I would happily be proven wrong about mainstream opposition to border control but I'm not convinced yet.

I concur that many fears about open borders are reducible to apprehended consequences (economic and otherwise). If those fears are allayed, then the fetishization of border control seems to diminish along with it. But doesn’t that remind us that if certain pre-conditions exist (like rough parity across borders along social, economic and political metrics) then borders ease as a result. The dissolution of borders seems more likely to emerge in tandem with or as a consequence of other achievements, rather than in response to isolated and direct challenge.

Photo by: Crossroads Foundation Photos under a CC Licence

This first appeared in our award-winning magazine - to read more, subscribe from just £7

Comments on Should nation-states open their borders to refugees and migrants?

Leave your comment







 

  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 IcantDanceButItsStillMyRevolution 18 Nov 10

    No Nations

    The way you've phrased your question is problematic for me. You have implicitly assumed that nation states should exist. Nation states are entities created to serve the interests of the powerful, the rich, and the ruling class.

    And guess what? So are borders. The mobility of capital in comparison to labour allows ever more efficient exploitation of ever larger numbers of people managed in ever more complex territorial arrangements. Think favelas, apartheid walls, factory zones.

    If workers found it as easy to move around the world as capital (factories, businesses) then Free Trade Zones, sweatshops and tyrannical governments would have a rather more difficult time existing. We would just leave for somewhere nicer.

    Lets get rid of borders AND nations!

  2. #2 JJ Cooper 19 Nov 10

    No traction, no action?

    How many other basic civil liberties, we now take for granted, would have been shelved indefinitely had ideas for change relied upon having 'traction with policy-makers'? Would Audrey Macklin's pragmatism have won the vote for women, the end of apartheid, the decriminalization of homosexuality? You have to swim against the tide to change it; the struggle for justice needs to start with a sense of what is right and wrong, not just what appears to be do-able. And 'appears' is a crucial word, here. Is it that we are so used to the idea of border controls (although we have very quickly got used to not having them within the European Union)that we fear losing them?
    I suspect that years from now the idea of border controls (especially our current inhumanely applied ones) will appear as absurd, cruel and outdated as Victorian vagrancy laws that restricted movement from one parish to another.

  3. #3 Ahmadul Haque 21 Nov 10

    No todos somos iguales / We are not all equal

    There's a saying in traditional Bengali - ’Kajer shomoy kaji, kaj furaley PAJI’ meaning ’One's service is utterly valued in time of need; when the need is over, the value of the same person turns NEGATIVE’ - that's the basic value of immigrants.

  4. #4 Ahmadul Haque 21 Nov 10

    Re: No todos somos iguales / We are not all equal

    Correction to the earlier post: the translation should be read as

    ’One's service is utterly valued in time of need; when the need is over, the value of the same person considered NEGATIVE’

  5. #5 KJF 21 Nov 10

    I think there has to be a distinction made here. I don't think anyone should have to suffer persecution or threat in their own country if they can have a safer life somewhere else, and I believe that it's our responsibility to make sure that this is the case (particularly as it's often the West's fault that other countries end up that way because of our imperialistic actions and our zeal for capitalism at the expense of social responsibility). I'm Scottish, and I happen to think that Scottish immigration policy (if and when we become independent) would be a heck of a lot more humane (that being the key concept) than British immigration policy. We're locking people up because we got lucky, relatively speaking, and we can't be bothered to do our duty to other human beings. That said, I think it would be far better to find ways of making it so the home countries of migrants are able to better themselves (like scrapping the monetarist IMF), so that people have less need of migration to have a better life. We can't take everyone who needs our help, and if needs be then I think refugees and asylum seekers, those who are in danger because of who they are, need to come first. *Puts on tin hat* *Runs for barricade*

  6. #6 DevorahLeah 27 Nov 10

    Same Old Immigrant Bashing

    I'm a media historian and it always amuses me to see a new generation of conservative talk show hosts huffing and puffing about the alleged dangers of immigrants, and how we need to get rid of them all (lest you think this is fairly recent, radio talk shows have been around since 1935. Before that, the newspaper columnists did the huffing and puffing).

    Okay fine, I understand that countries need rules, and for several hundred years, there have been rules about who could come here (in this case, come to the USA). But the dirty little secret is how the fees for applying legally have gone up tremendously (I believe this happened under President Bush) and I can understand why some immigrants from poor countries decide they can't afford the fees, and figure they'll try their luck by just coming here and hoping for the best.

    I am also really concerned about how the Republicans are playing politics with the Dream Act. I know a number of students who wish they could be ’legal’ and who are illegal through no fault of their own-- their parents brought them here when they were babies. Yet I am not hearing a conversation about solutions for these kids who are stuck in a sort of limbo. I am hearing on the aforementioned talk shows lots of outrage and lots of ’send 'em back to their country’-- except, this IS their country, the only one they know.

    If I had a wish, I'd like to see the topic of immigration policy removed from the angry talk shows and the partisan politicians. I'd like to see some courageous political figures and community leaders working together to develop policies that give poor and working-class immigrants a chance to become Americans. Alas, right now, that conversation is not taking place. And that is a shame.

  7. #7 Civvie Politikon 28 Nov 10

    Begin with the problems at home

    It would be counter-intuitive for me to argue against immigration, since I'm not conservative, and my parents themselves were immigrants to Canada, a country that has been historically recognized as a land of immigrants. Humanitarian policies and international aid are really important for any developed nation to keep up a noble global image, but that should not come at the cost of diverting from issues at home. There are significant populations of immigrants and refugees living in Canada, as well as other Western, immigrant-receiving nations, who suffer from homelessness, poverty and unemployment. If Western nations cannot resolve the issues that surround such a significant proportion of their domestic population, they cannot emanate a very postive image at the international stage.

  8. #8 ONEworldcitizen 29 Nov 10

    The Illegal Lover

    Beautiful thread. To express what I feel/think goes beyond the world of words, so here is a poem that flowed through me.

    Undocumented and unafraid,
    Francisco Ramos-Stierle

    The Illegal Lover
    The Moon shines in my body
    and so is the Sun and the planets and the stars and the galaxies.
    The beautiful light of eternity is within me
    but my blind eyes cannot see it.

    Then I decided to become your lover…

    My love for you, my angel, is written in the history of time
    and I need no papers to show it.
    My home is everywhere I go, including your heart,
    and I need no permission to stay in this part of the planet,
    because I adore you.

    Bureaucrazy asked for a green card
    but I only have a red heart
    saying your name, Beloved One, in every heartbeat.

    And you might build prisons, and borders and walls
    but how does the air know the difference?
    How do the stars stop shining in the side of your country?
    How do the currents in the Oceans stop flowing in between imaginary lines?
    How do the magical meteor showers discriminate the non-real divisions below?
    How does the Earth pass customs to enter into the SOULar System?
    How does the Moon can be chased by “la migra”?
    How does the Milky Way get deported from the night sky?
    How does the Sun show her passport?
    How do the undocumented clouds are blocked from flying to your town?
    How do you know the nationality of the oxygen molecules visiting your lungs?
    How does the fierce hurricane of my love can be delayed to reach the coasts of your heart?

    This is my immigrant illegal love for you:
    to block the gates of weapons of hate
    to liberate libraries
    to emancipate public spaces
    to work the land
    to nourish your body
    to cherish your soul
    to conquer your heart
    with my unconditional love for you, your children and the children of your children.

    My illegal love has existed since the beginning of time…
    and, as the letters of a lover, as your first kiss,
    you will remember us as new worlds to be discovered.

    As citizens of the World,
    our illegal love has existed since the beginning of time…
    when you look into our eyes, my dear,
    when we look into each other sunshines
    you will understand how much we love you,
    because this is an unconditional timeless borderless love
    that has crossed the entire Universe with the only purpose to hug you.

    As citizens of the World,
    our planetary letters will penetrate the walls of prisons
    to tear down the imperial dehumanization
    with hope, truth, detachment and love.

    As citizens of the World,
    our visa is that of the disobedient-servant-cross-pollinating monarch butterflies
    or that of the subversive meditative gray whales.
    We will cross the oceans to heal your children
    and to bring smiles to your communities.

    In an illegal Big Bang of service in stillness,
    our humble love for you, my angel,
    is filling your Supreme Soul
    with an ever expanding happiness, aliveness and joy.

  9. #9 ONEworldcitizen 29 Nov 10

    A Neuron With Imagination

    and here is a second contribution in this debate to the emergent paradigm:

    [a href=’http://www.ijourney.org/index.php?tid=720’]A Neuron With Imagination

    The old paradigm of life tells us that we are a collection of separate objects. We focus our attention, but in doing so, we often dissect a part of the whole without taking into account the visible, and often invisible, connections. As a result, we miss seeing relationships and only see the effects, the ’what’. In this old paradigm, knowledge comes from analyzing a static Nature -- a ’stuff-based’ view of reality. Because reality isn't experienced dynamically, we relate to things with a sense of conquest. In this paradigm, power is something you acquire as a top-down force that is exerted over other life.

    To be vulnerable, then, is seen as a sign of weakness. That's why being ’invulnerable’ is about finding security by shattering your enemies; I create defenses and walls and borders to isolate me from the ’danger’ of being violated. A dramatic image for this view of life is the single neuron that tries to build higher and stronger walls to stop communication with its ’dangerous’ surroundings. In this ill-conceived notion of reality, it is a matter of time before the neuron atrophies in isolation and dies prematurely.

    In the new paradigm, though, the entire Universe is in communion. It is a science of relationships in all dimensions, and life is experienced as a flow. Organisms are alive with visible boundaries, but determined by what flows through those porous boundaries: matter, energy, information, love. This paradigm is process oriented, and we are constantly asking “how,” not “what.” And so, knowledge is dynamic and always changing, like the flame that keeps its shape by constantly burning. When we experience this dynamic knowledge, it turns into wisdom and then reality cannot be confined only to the material world.

    Here, power is shared in an inclusive and horizontal way, from the bottom-up, such that its value resides in the way an organism serves the community. Instead of looking for perfection, life looks for wholeness. Being vulnerable with courage is my best security because I see my security as the security of all. There are no enemies. A neuron, in this new paradigm, is interconnected and functional. While it has clear boundaries, it has imagination, and understands how matter, energy, information and love flow through molecules, society, mind, family and communities. Because of the plasticity of other connections in the brain, when a healthy neuron dies, being loved by the community, its legacy carries on.

  10. #10 Norah 05 Dec 10

    Unrestricted migration is a luxury the Earth can no longer afford

    Hopefully many of us have now got to the point where we realise that the population of the world is too big and we need to think about positive ways to tackle the issue. Access to family planning and its positive promotion does seem important as most of us haven't realised how difficult it is for women in so many communities, often due to fundamentalist religions. (I gather that the UN reports that there are 40 million unwanted pregancies every year.) If it wasn't for Aids, honour killings, and rape as punishment no doubt many women would still not have the courage to stand up for their rights against their dominant men, religious, and community leaders. That's what made me aware of how little choice many women actually have about their family size and just how much courage they need to have fewer children. It is women who bear, feed, educate and raise the children - too often on their own. Educating women, and better health care for them, results in smaller families, more hope for peace at local level, and thus less need for migration.

    The other key issue is the global economy and unrestrained capitalism, which means that over populated countries export some of their surplus people to the first world resulting in unsustainable use of overstretched first world resources, and adversely impacting the low paid jobs in the first world.

    I feel that there are huge challenges on social policy for old style liberals, because the needs and resources of the Earth have now to be balanced against the human rights of people. The sum doesn't add up, and we are in the very uncomfortable position of having to choose. But really there is no choice - unsustainable use of the Earth's resources will result in disaster for all humanity. This means that unrestricted migration is a luxury the Earth can no longer afford.

  11. #11 Raven 05 Dec 10

    The concept of an external border defines a nation state, and therefore no state can exist with a completely open border. States will always seek to exert control over the free movement of 'undesirable' elements, which is how refugees and migrants are increasingly seen in Europe whether on economic, demographic or openly racist pretexts. But what is not apparent to most people is that the integrity of every border in the world relies on extreme brutality and violence in order to keep people out, or in. I work with Calais Migrant Solidarity, part of the No Borders network which actively resists and intervenes in police oppression of UK-bound undocumented migrants stuck in the French port town of Calais. Every day these people are subjected to horrific attacks by the French CRS riot police who routinely beat them up, pepperspray them, detain them, piss on their personal effects, destroy bedding, Bibles, Qur'ans and food, and scrawl racist graffiti in their squats. Muslims are victimised particularly during Ramadhan when they are arrested at nightfall before they get a chance to eat, and are released in the morning when they must continue their fast. Many of the refugees are children, teens or young adults from places like Afghanistan, Darfur, Kurdistan and Eritrea, desperately trying to escape war, persecution, torture or poverty. In Europe they find a systematic and demeaning effort to detain, brutalise and deport them, to deter them from settling by stripping them of their humanity. If the vicious targeting of such vulnerable people is the only way to maintain the integrity of any state or its border, then neither, in my opinion, is worth a damn. People should be allowed to move freely wherever they want to go and for whatever reason, 'without let or hinderance', whether or not they can afford the luxury of a passport and a visa. We were all born on this planet, and since the emergence of our species humans have traveled, migrated and settled at will. Freedom of movement is our birthright; it existed long before the nation state, and will continue to exist long after it.
    It would be great if New Internationalist covered this issue in more depth. Fascist and neoliberal anti-migrant scapegoating are on the rise in Europe, and groups like No Borders and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns are some of the only people mounting a serious, concerted resistance to this threat. The struggle against oppressive border controls is an antifascist struggle, and as such it needs more attention in the alternative media and more commitment from activists on the ground. Please check out http://calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com for updates on the situation in Calais, and get involved!

  12. #12 Peter Foreman 14 Dec 10

    Immigration

    We have had 13 years of no borders in the last government and as a result our population is rising excessively, which is unsustainable. Asylums should be allowed in, but weddings abroad being imported and all their relatives must be banned. The government pension scheme has to be modified so that it is not paid for by present employees. They allowed the immigrants in to pay for the present pensions, but ignored that they were the next pensions!
    We must reduce our population to avoid transport emissions importing food and goods, which we can produce.

  13. #13 Stuart 17 Dec 10

    There is already a de facto ’No Borders’ regime in existence around the world. The problem is, it's only for the super-rich.

    For example, when Hong Kong changed it's status from British colony in 1996, Chris Patten on behalf of the Conservative Government, offered British citizenship to any Hong Kong resident with over £150,000 in the bank. No money - no citizenship.

    The demand for the abolition of immigration controls is the (very basic)demand that workers should be able to travel to see their labour.

  14. #14 Arrby 26 Dec 10

    A simplistic view of fascism?

    ’fascists are few in number - so far’ Capitalists (actual owners of capital, namely people who both believe in capitalism and who have money to spare) are few in number, relatively speaking. But America (as is my country, Canada) isn't a communist country. Think about it.

    Check out Paul Bigioni's ’Fascism Then. Fascism Now?’ at http://bit.ly/hLqh56

    Paul writes: ’At present, we live in a constitutional democracy. The tools necessary to protect us from fascism remain in the hands of the citizen. All the same, North America is on a fascist trajectory. We must recognize this threat for what it is, and we must change course.’ His assessment is off, in my view. We have fake democracy, vestiges of it and instances of it here and there notwithstanding, and real corporatocracy. Corporatocracy is fascist.

  15. #15 Nandita Sharma 29 Dec 10

    No Borders Depends on No Capitalism and No State

    A No Borders politics recognizes that the demand to abolish national borders is not a policy recommendation. It is, instead, a revolutionary social demand. A world without borders will not, indeed cannot, be legislated into existence through the acts of existing national states. It can only be realized by a strong social movement whose vision is daring enough to build a new world and, just as importantly, a new sense of who we are.

    While we might imagine borders to be difficult to abolish, we must recognize that a large part of what borders do (perhaps the main thing) is not in keeping people out but to render migrants incredibly vulnerable and ’cheap’ once they are inside. That is why states, especially in the ’rich world,’ are busily creating new ’managed migration’ schemes while limiting people's access to permanent residency and citizenship. This works spectacularly well to keep the costs of labour low. That is why business groups advocate (and get) such policies.

    Just as both the system of capitalism and of national states are now global, so too is the society in which we all live. Thinking we live in ’American’ or ’British’ or ’Indian’ society is not just inaccurate, it is a concerted attempt by elites to deflect our attention away from the global control that capitalists and national states have over our lives and our labour. And, just as importantly, the global power we might enjoy if we refused to be divided by nationalisms from ’above’ and from ’below.’

    The demand of No Borders, then, is a demand for a world in which people are not divided in order to be ruled by capitalism and nation states.

    While a contemporary movement against borders is a couple of decades old it is, in another sense, as old as are the first attempts to control people's mobility. It will not go away. Failing to recognize this is a failure not only of imagination but of the reality we all face.

  16. #16 Tess 24 Jan 11

    Other alternatives

    Although the 'no border' idea sounds fantastic, it isn't practical in a world were people have such different values and ideaologies. I disagree with people being locked away just because they need a new place to live, and especially not if they have suffered in the past. However, I don't think countries can sustainably adopt an endless supply of people from all over the globe. A proposition needs to be opened to refugees, asylum seekers and migrants: to take an imediate citezenship test on thier values (not their knowlege). If they fail; if their values differ too much from the values the country tries to uphold, and it is clear that a comfortable life in that country would be impossible for both them and those living near them, then they have two options: to either leave the country and retain their current values and beliefs, or to attend to a type of free bording school that teaches people how to live happily and successfully in that country.

  17. #17 WorldMigrant 12 Feb 11

    This is a complex issue as there is, generally speaking, a lot of fear around anything that is foreign. Alien. Unknown. The question around 'security' arises. Not only in the 'national, xenophobic sense' but also on a personal level - people fear what they don't understand and naturally have concerns around 'how will these new, strange ideas/beliefs/people change my experience?' I think education (the battle of misconceptions!) is a key part in the solving the border issue.

  18. #18 Rich 28 Dec 12

    I have been looking at your campain, and what it beleives in, it's still not clear to me, the more i look into it the more it uncovers horrific extreme political veiws, that make Pol Pot look sensible.

    If any one can explain simply what you beleive then i will be glad to look at it, but i can't find it.

  19. #19 Mirgan Borito 25 Oct 13

    I think this idea is good because the world became the fruit of war that many of people escape from their country.for example:if nation-states don't pen their borders to refugees and migrant,one day will come the nation-states escape from their country and however no body will help them to enter another country. Actually,in syrian have war and there have more immigration;they wanna get the same life that we are and they want to us open our bortheir.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

This article was originally published in issue 438

New Internationalist Magazine issue 438
Issue 438

More articles from this issue

  • Back to the future

    December 1, 2010

    What will it be like to live in a zero carbon world? George Marshall encourages us to look to the past to find out.

  • In search of Utopia

    December 1, 2010

    Communities across Europe are already living the alternatives, discover Isabelle Fremeaux and John Jordan

  • Indonesia’s Abu Ghraib

    December 1, 2010

    West Papuan freedom struggle gathers momentum.

New Internationalist Magazine Issue 436

If you would like to know something about what's actually going on, rather than what people would like you to think was going on, then read the New Internationalist.

– Emma Thompson –

A subscription to suit you

Save money with a digital subscription. Give a gift subscription that will last all year. Or get yourself a free trial to New Internationalist. See our choice of offers.

Subscribe