the ethical implications with open borders

The Decleration Throughout history man has created borders to protect themselves forging kingdoms and later nations.  Some of the most brutal wars have been fought over which country should have more favorable borders.  With all the examples of man's territorial nature, there are some who believe that open borders and the free movement of people could be the solution to a society that favors human rights and that by deniying people those freedoms you are stepping on their rights. in the book Exit West, the book describes how the world would look if freedom of movement was suddenly possible and people begin to flood into foreign places. As they arrive in these new places the migrants are often seen as invaders and attacked by nativist groups. While these attacks seem harsh are there ethical problems with completely open borders. to answer that question it truly falls down to what you consider ethical. to some they look at the third article of the universal declaration of human rights which states that every person has the right to life liberty and security of person. They interpret this article as in the fact that to deny

another human being safety is unethical. while on the flip side a person who believes that open borders are unethical sees not that taking in fleeing people as a responsibility but a failure of the country that they had fleed from. To continue, the reason people feel that open borders is a bad idea and unethical is that borders were often put up to protect something. They feel that if they had open borders the outsiders would come in and soil whatever they put up their borders to protect. They often talk about how it is unethical for a non-citizen to get the benefits that the citizen's taxes paid for. while this point does have some bits of truth in the fact that I do seem unfair for people's money to go towards somebody who had not carried his own load. hyistaria over open borders That being said I often find that the argument that open borders are unethical often leaves out the human factor of this whole argument. I believe that as "enlightened" Nations to knowingly see the suffering of our fellow man and not try and assist them in any way possible is unethical. We should not if we truly believe in the words of our enlightened forefathers reject the helpless the stranded and the poor and if opening the borders would help our fellow man and create a better world then I would wholeheartedly believe that open borders in an ethical thing to do. that being said opening our borders would not pose a host of other ethical debates as well. an example of this would be the fact that if the surge of new inhabits created such a strain on the government of that area would it be ethical to turn them away in order to save the people already there. Furthermore, who would govern this now the borderless world? would the world descend into proxy wars to expand the territory of other nations? Lastly, could borders be completely removed or would just the free movement of civilians is possible but not the total elimination of borders? In conclusion, if we were to eliminate borders completely would it be the breaking of chains set forth by our authoritarian ancestors or would the opening of borders start to unstitch the fabric of human civilization. no more borders

In the book Refugees, the main characters struggle with life as a refugee and are helped by people who are courageous enough to go against their own government to help their fellow man. even though this book was a work of fiction the stories of people helping a group of endangered people from their government is not unheard.  During the second world war the Greek island of Zakynthos there was 275 jews on the island and when the Germans asked to hand over a list of jews the mayor sent a piece of paper only with his name on it. The people of the island hid all 275 jews for the whole war. In 1953, a recode earth quake hut the island and the first sign of support was from the isralie goverment with a message that the Jewish people did not forget the people they saved. Furthermore, in the early 1990's the government of Rwanda enacted a genocide that targeted a sub-culture of the population. during this period there were swarms of vigilantes that would murder people in the streets.

One man named Pual Rusesabagina offered shelter to the victim of the genocide and by the time the war had ended he had saved over 1200 refugees, none of which were ever harmedRwandan genocide . Lastly, there is a famous resistance fighter in France who specilized in the forging of government papers that helped over 14,000 jews. He has been honored i isreal as well as winning 3 of Frances highest metalsThe resistance . looking deeper into these people you begin to understand the extent that people will go to help their fellow human regardless of the personal risk these people overcame. 

Storming the wall

In class, we talked at length about storming the wall. the article was an amazing source of information about the level of power that states have to raze borders around themselves to keep out their own citizens. throughout American history we often see these instances of states often taking their own boarder's protection to an insane level. The idea of states protecting their own border is not a new one. during the early days of the united states often did protect their own borders with armies they raised from their own citizens. In fact, it was such a common and important idea that the founding fathers made an implied right in the second amendment that not only protects the rights of states to protect themselves against outside threats but also goes as far as to say that one of the key reasons that Articals of confederation   favored states rights to control trade movement and even the currency that entered their states. As you can probably tell if you have ever taken an American history class that the articles did not last long partly because of the fact that allowing states to control their own currencies and borders often lead to unneeded unrest and it was extremely inefficient. Even though we don't have the articles in place the states themselves have still found ways to implement control over their own borders. In the article, it points to the bum blockade in 1931 but it also talks about the Chinese exclusion act. this act was a way primarily to stop the flow of Chinese workers to California during the Gold rush. When this law was passed the remaining immigrants from China were systematically hunted by the united states which lead to two separate massacres. These laws of Chinese migrants getting abused did not fully end until 1965 when the national origin formula was abolished by the united states. Furthermore, you may think that I bring up a law from the gold rush seems like nothing more than a bad memory but George had implemented a controversial law in 2012 that latently lead to the near failure of most of Georgina agriculture. the law was called HB 87 this law was effectively the harshes anti-immigrant worker law in modern American history. the law stated that steep penalties would be implemented if anyone was caught using illegal workers for labor. In the time it was a law there was such a shortage of labor that crops literally rotted in the fields and the state had to resort to using prisoners to boost their own labor pool. This law which saw thousands of workers who had been living peacefully for years thrown out of their homes and almost lead to a complete collapse of Georgias agriculture. In addition, during hurricane Katrina the united states declared martial law on its own citizens. This was so emergency crews could help people and that no fleeing people who left in the wake wouldn't get hurt on the way back to their homes, in reality, the blockades ended up leading delays in relief and cost more lives then they saved. in conclusion, the use of militarizing borders against countries own citizens never yields the perpetrator's goals of order, in fact, they often lead to more chaos then if they had just helped their own people.

we have the second amendment, to begin with. That being said after we won our independence the first ruling document we had, the articles of confederation,

   The book the "water knife" is a story about the failed states of the American Southwest due to climate change. while the book is a work of fiction the scenes where the author portrays criminal activity that has a great deal in common in real life. For example, During the book, we learn of what happened to hundreds of migrants that were being illegally smuggled into different states. The book states that the coyotes that were smuggling these people were just taking the peoples money and killing them in mass graves.

 This scene originally resonated with me due to the close similarity that it has with the Cambodian genocide, which is famous for the government's use of mass killing fields. Then I did more digging and found that outside of Yemen, a group of smugglers internally drown 50 migrants when a patrol boat appeared. most of the bodies were found washed up on the beach. The story In addition, to the graphic imagery created with regards to the smuggling of people the book also shows us the constant violence that refugees often face.

In the book, Lucy and Angle get involved in a fight at a local gas station where a group of Texas refugees joins in due to the fact that they mistake the charters as fellow refugees getting attacked the Story. This scene is not just a work of fiction in Germany there are ten attacks a day directed at refugees hey click me . Once again the book paints a graphic picture of the violence that often awaits refugees. Lastly, the book also shows the lengths these criminals are willing to go to for the rights to the Colorado River. during the book, many characters are integrated and murdered to obtain the rights to the Colorado river. for most, we would not believe that people would go all the way to murder to obtain the rights to water, something we all see as a human right. But, for over 35 years the united states wagered a collection of attacks to secure its own fruit industry in Latin America. the companies themselves would often use thugs threats and even murder to obtain their goals. Going as far as to use the United States army to forcibly secure their Fruit interests. In conclusion, the violence seen in the "Water Knife" is not just an over exaggeration of made up events but a work of realistic fiction that vividly paints a picture of what an American failed state.The Bananna wars

paper ideas

The general idea of what my paper will be about will be how migration and cultural change often leads to authoritarian government. This can be seen during the book with how the California government creates almost vigilante justice to stop the ecological refugees. This point is fascinating especially, because of the fact that instead of helping their own citizens the government of California decided to trample the God-given rights of their fellow Americans to protect themselves from a problem they helped create. The short-sightedness of the California government is not unique to its situation. Over the course of the last century and into the 21 century we have experienced the rise of fascism. In an interview with NBC News, Medina Albright talks about how " out of social, economic, or political chaos fascism will rise"Stuff that will help . Her point rings true within the world of the Grapes of Wrath because the characters are set in a place that has all three of these types of chaos and the California government acts as most governments do and gain characteristics of a fascist regime. Furthermore, the idea of authoritarianism actions out of social unrest is not new in America. Shortly after the great depression, the united states government responded to the perceived threat of Japanese citizens being agents of the Japanese empire. Because of this cultural chaos as the government saw it, they suspended the rights of these American citizens just to retain some form of fabricated social order. There is a great article explaining the actions of the government and the problems it caused for the Japanese that were forced to relocate written by the Smithsonian. Stuff that is cool and helpful

Lastly, I'm going to link in some stuff about the lives of the Japanese that lived in the camps it's a really amazing book similar to the way the Joads dealt with hardship. book stuff