askchapo

The Liberal's purpose of borders is to create a more exploitable underclass of labourers. People who live outside of the borders of Imperialist Nations are treated as subhumans, to be enslaved and looted. Migrants who enter the borders of Imperialist Nations are subjected to extreme legal scrutiny. Migrant workers who speak out against dangerous or unfair working conditions are subjected to threats of deportation or imprisonment.

edit ----

If you want what a liberal would say in defense of having borders. They usually invent a scary enemy that has to be kept out of the country. Either communists or criminals. People who "hate freedom and democracy". This is just fearmongering.

In rare circumstances, there will be a Liberal that says like the purpose of borders is to protect the culture of a Nation. That like traditions are sacred and need to be preserved or something. This comes off as like segregationist to me.

You can see the purpose of borders by looking at the history of border enforcement and history of migration. The concept of borders and nations has changed over time, much of it is relatively new. ICE wasn't created until GW Bush.

Discussing this with libs, they generally agree that hard borders are something generally bad and should be abolished in principle, but they believe that's utopian because they are chauvinistic enough to believe their country is literally the best thing on Earth and obviously anyone from anywhere else, especially poorer places, will want to migrate there if allowed, and therefore welfare disappears because now we have to give healthcare to three times as many.

This is the lib reasoning I've encountered.

The only legitimate use of a border would be environmental protection. Can't have infected lamas and crop fungus on every corner of the world

borders only exist for the poor. we dont need them. some rich american pig can go buy a house anywhere he wants. a rich saudi can come buy all the houses in america he wants. but if you wanna go visit your family in another country for a week? better get permission from your own AND their government. and they need to know where you’re staying and they’re gonna tell you when to leave

borders ONLY divide the working class. they make working class people in america think working class people in mexico are their enemy.

Excellent question. If you dig a little, you will find three main justifications from their side for borders:

1. Avoiding crime. They are afraid that criminals from other countries might cross the border to commit "bad scary things." Some engage in fearmongering by mentioning "terrorists."

2. Protecting jobs. They worry that immigrants will arrive in large numbers and "steal" jobs from native residents.

3. Avoiding people who do not assimilate. They fear that many immigrants will come in, speak the national language poorly, and refuse to respect the culture.

I have tried to keep a soft tone, but quite frankly, I find these arguments quite bigoted, as well as factually incorrect. All of them have been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.

Research consistently shows immigrants do not increase crime rates, and in many cases, contribute to their decline.
Economically, immigrants fill essential labor gaps, pay taxes, and stimulate demand, often creating more jobs than they take.
Cultural diversity enriches societies, and most immigrants make genuine efforts to learn the language and adapt over time.
These fears are rooted more in prejudice and misinformation than in verifiable evidence.

Borders are fine. It's empires who criminalize migrations, simply because they're richer. They stole money from colonies, and now they don't want to share it with the people they stole them from.

Not just borders, but "secure" borders. Or at least thats what Bernie and AOC say

I've always subscribed to a stage-theory of border abolition, starting with the immediate abolition of inter-regional borders

For instance, I've always held the ironclad conviction that any human being should be able to take a roadtrip from Casablanca to Mecca without any interference from any state body, from the reaches of Iraq to the shores of Mauritania, borders along those routes have no reason to exist outside of a similar structure to the state border system the US possesses, maximum human mobility paired with administrative, legal and logistical divisions

And when we expand into a trans-regional scale, then borders can acquire a harder structure similar to what the EU currently enjoys with the Schengen area, with some mobility sacrificed as a stop-gap measure to allow for increased (human) integration over time

Freeing capital movement while restricting human movement. These two are deeply interrelated.