What if There Were no National Borders?

We ought to all know our limits. But what we can easily do is the concept of the border - at least in that it limits the liquidity of the population. This idea may seem like a simple utopia. However, the flow without borders becomes a reality, the EU is a typical example.

Imagine that this could unleash huge economic potential on a global scale. Economists estimate that global GDP may increase significantly. This effect is much bigger than the free flow of goods and capital. At a truly global level, poverty can be struck for the first time. This will be a bold social equity plan

What we are currently seeing is that there are too few international mobility. There is widespread concern that the threat of numerous immigration inflows from "rich" countries is totally unfounded. The possibility of actual immigration under free flow is seriously overestimated

As welfare immigrants from Eastern Europe and Central Europe are expected to flood the west, remember the apocalyptic scenario drawn before the expansion of the European Union. None of this will be achieved

Furthermore, even today, I live in a country where about 97% of the world population was born. This obviously hinders optimal allocation of resources. Although it is not a problem, this 97% ratio is the same as in 1900, more than a century ago. This is not an indication that globalization is sweeping the world.

Of course, unlimited liquidity will increase the number of immigrants in "rich" countries. However, it is commonly said that this will have a negative impact on locals. On the contrary, many studies have shown that immigrants have a positive impact on local wages and employment.

Furthermore, our social security system relies heavily on donations from immigrants - not other ways!

It is also certain that changes in the population will continue to increase demand for migrant workers in most developed countries.

But what about those migrating to that country? They are hurt by "brain drain". And that is a general discussion. This ignores the great potential of remittance and innovation impulses from overseas diaspora communities.

Open borders will promote more temporary and periodic immigration. Many future immigrants are not going to stay forever in the destination country. Move back and forth, it will be easy without a frame. Selection returned at any time will offset the potential "brain drain"

So, are we heading to a world where unlimited mobility can bring infinite prosperity? If you think that it can not be imagined, prosperity of everyone is absolutely possible.

Walzer thought about this. His answer is that the community is still open as the borders are (almost) closed. If the borders are open, people will gather in other communities like them and will truly close the border with outsiders. Walzer considers the most open political and social unit to be a country or country. If we open international borders and revoke the country or country as an important unit, we lose our openness (Walzer 1983, 37-39)

Although the border is historical, socially and culturally fluid, the concept of border is often considered synonymous with the country's identity. This is the beginning of the 20th century's history where the concept of the border is confused with the concept of the country's identity and the separation of the boundaries between the countries is based on the concept of common features of people living in them . Boundary (eg common language, history, culture, recognition of national identity). A more critical view on the concepts of border and state involves the idea that the boundary can only be true through common beliefs on its justification.

II. Since the 18th century, people from all countries of the world have formed new commonalities based on language, religion, social customs and territory. These newly imagined national communities tie this identity to the borders, and the government uses this idea to tie together different groups. Whether it is a tribe or a clan, whether in a caliphate system or a kingdom, people tended to regard themselves as part of a group since the arrival of society. In particular, enlightenment from the French Revolution has created a modern way of building group identity. The former identity is usually focused on leaders. Leaders have certain approvals - such as religion - to exercise power to people. Prior to the French Revolution, for example, people were considered to be the subject of the king that is dominated by God's right. When they participated in the war, they marched for the monarch