Open Borders : The Case

The Case for Open Borders

Although tempers may be too hot right now to allow the idea to root, or allow experts to investigate these with any depth, the fact that prominent economists and scholars have been debating the potential benefits of open borders suggests there may be a future for them.

▻https://daily.jstor.org/case-open-borders

Commentaire d’un ami sur FB (Franck Ostermann) :

Frank Ostermann Unfortunately, a very bad (cherry-picking) use of Bauder’s article. It completely ignores the second part of Bauder’s article, in which he lays out in detail the problems associated with the concepts of open or no borders, e.g. "... the opposite: from a materialist position, neoliberal (and neoclassical) calls for open borders can be interpreted as an ideological legitimation of the acceleration of capital accumulation (Gill 2009). In fact, open borders under existing structures of statehood and global capitalism may fully unleash the brutal forces of accumulation that have been constrained by border controls and migration restrictions. Open borders may increase global labor competition and drive down wages by pitting migrant and non-migrant workers against each other in a race to the bottom (Bauder 2006b). Furthermore, under the contemporary neoliberalist regime, which has already weakened the social progams that redistribute resources and protect workers and citizens (Peck 2001), open borders—es pecially in combination with domicile citizenship—would wreak havoc on the existing national welfare systems by entitling migrants to access collective resources to which they have not contributed (Friedman n.d.). A world under the conditions of contemporary capitalism without the constraints of border management and exclusionary citizenship practices may be akin to a “neo-liberal Utopia” (Samers 2003,214) in which not only labor is freely mobile, but capital accumulation, labor exploitation, and the demolition of welfare systems would also proceed in an accelerated fashion."

Ma réponse :

That’s why it is woth reading the conclusion of Reece Jones book “Violent Borders”: « In addition to the freedom to move across borders, this means a global minimum wage, global standards for working conditions, global social safety nets for the poor, and global environmental standards. These basic regulations would prevent corporations from playing different countries against each other to get the lowest wages possible and would encourage corporations to locate factories where they make economic sense. Over time, such a change would create a global consumer base to buy products. It would slow the flow of jobs out of wealthy countries, because at some point moving jobs will no longer be as economically advantageous. It would improve living standards globally, as people would have enough money to support their families and send their children to school. In the short term it would hurt corporate profits, but in the long term it would create consumers globally, which would provide vast new markets for goods. A global minimum wage would go a long way to stabilizing wages in both wealthy and poor countries. » (Jones 2016: 175) ►https://www.versobooks.com/books/2231-violent-borders