Nathan Smith10 months ago
@ Tyler Paziuk: Well, not exactly... there was an overlap between colonialism and 19th-century open borders, but they definitely weren't the same thing. There was nothing imperialist about mass immigration to the United States, and though immigration to European countries didn't occur on the same scale, it was allowed and there was often a fair amount of it. And there's nothing colonialist about that. When Europeans emigrated to places they had colonized, they did tend to come as conquerors or as a ruling class, which is morally problematic, even though some of them did useful things, like spread medicine or build railroads. Horizontal migration of subject peoples under an empire, such as the migration of Indians to South Africa, doesn't seem too morally problematic, but perhaps it is inasmuch as it depends on the empire that's facilitating it. Or in other words, the way freedom of migration between certain regions was established might sometimes have been morally problematic. But if open borders were established through moral suasion or international treaties and presided over by the UN, that seems to keep the good without the bad.