Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Should The Whole World Be Free To Be Able To Travel To An Live In?
I don't mean the traveling costs but the barriers that stop immigrants and travelers from going wherever they want to?
Anyone should be able to travel to anywhere whenever they like and live there if they feel like it's the right place to them.
No one owns the globe do they? Who has the right to tell me I can't travel and settle down wherever I feel like.
What would be the pros and cons of this new system in your opinion?
Anyone should be able to travel to anywhere whenever they like and live there if they feel like it's the right place to them.
No one owns the globe do they? Who has the right to tell me I can't travel and settle down wherever I feel like.
What would be the pros and cons of this new system in your opinion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Broseph. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who cares AOG?
If we're free to go where we want, for however long we want, I'll be here....
http://
If we're free to go where we want, for however long we want, I'll be here....
http://
In recent years I think there have been two circumstances in which this sort of experiment has been tried. The most obvious is Europe, or rather the Schengen Area, and there the results have not been disastrous as -- despite warnings to the contrary -- in the end, many people would rather stay at home than move elsewhere. Freedom of movement can bring benefits both to the individuals moving and to the countries they move to (and even from, so long as the flow of people or money isn't entirely in one direction). So it does work, although carries several problems alongside -- most notably the risk of ghettoisation and lack of proper integration between communities.
The second example is the Commonwealth. Between 1948 and 1962 pretty much everyone in the Commonwealth had the right to move the UK freely. This was a total population of something in the order of 500 - 600 million people at the time. Quite a few did come, of course, especially from the Caribbean and India, but the levels remained fairly low overall, at least compared to modern terms. (If Enoch Powell thought "we must be mad as a nation, literally mad" when only about 50,000 people per year were moving here, then I wonder what he'd say about ten times that?) Again, dire warnings turned out not to be true, as people tend to struggle to be too far away from home for long.
I expect the same would be true if the entire world opened up, and we wouldn't see Africa emptied and its inhabitants filling Europe to the brim. Several would undoubtedly come, though, and for all that I think it's right that the world should be free for all to move about as they choose, this is not something that should happen when the resulting flow of people would be so overwhelmingly in one direction. There has to be a greater level of equality first, so that people might be happy to move in either direction.
The second example is the Commonwealth. Between 1948 and 1962 pretty much everyone in the Commonwealth had the right to move the UK freely. This was a total population of something in the order of 500 - 600 million people at the time. Quite a few did come, of course, especially from the Caribbean and India, but the levels remained fairly low overall, at least compared to modern terms. (If Enoch Powell thought "we must be mad as a nation, literally mad" when only about 50,000 people per year were moving here, then I wonder what he'd say about ten times that?) Again, dire warnings turned out not to be true, as people tend to struggle to be too far away from home for long.
I expect the same would be true if the entire world opened up, and we wouldn't see Africa emptied and its inhabitants filling Europe to the brim. Several would undoubtedly come, though, and for all that I think it's right that the world should be free for all to move about as they choose, this is not something that should happen when the resulting flow of people would be so overwhelmingly in one direction. There has to be a greater level of equality first, so that people might be happy to move in either direction.
Has anyone told you you can't go to or settle in a particular place?
The problem is that a lot of people who live in places that are dangerous or very poor - and there are a lot of those - would all want to come and live in the good places - of which sadly there are not so many. Instead let's work to make the bad places better
The problem is that a lot of people who live in places that are dangerous or very poor - and there are a lot of those - would all want to come and live in the good places - of which sadly there are not so many. Instead let's work to make the bad places better
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.