[jacquesm]

It's not a 'nice John Lennon song', it is really effectively the only way we will ever be able to make forward movements rather than two steps forward one step back.

It's entirely for selfish reasons that I would like such a world to come about because it is the only future that I can envision where enough people will be pulling in the same direction to start solving the problems that we have.

We are currently wasting roughly 60% of the worlds mental capacity, we can not afford to continue to live in such a wasteful way much longer.

Pieces of paper to hold people out of places that they wish to go to ought to be a thing of the past.

I've lived in poverty and I've been too rich for my comfort and pretty much all the stages in between, there is no way that 4 million illegal immigrants would converge on any place in the world because they would be bringing their homes with them, literally.

What will happen is that just like with water vessels connected by a tube there will be a period of 'sloshing', overcompensating back and forth until some kind of equilibrium weighted by local conditions is arrived at.

That probably won't be a pleasant thing for many of us, but the sooner we get it over with the better.

The only people scared of that are those that are afraid to compete, and with the headstart that we've got competition should be the least of our worries.

The alternatives are very much worse.

As long as you are thinking in terms of 'our own people' you are completely missing my point, there is but one people.

[catzaa]

> able to make forward movements rather than two steps forward one step back.

The result of such an approach would be a repeated one step back (as with the above process I described).

> It's entirely for selfish reasons

There is nothing wrong with rational self-interest. Whether you like it or not, you act in your own self-interest repeatedly. Nothing prevents you from moving to 3rd world countries (instead of moving a third world country to you).

> Pieces of paper to hold people out of places that they wish to go to ought to be a thing of the past.

Why? People only come into my home when I invite them inside. Why should it be different with countries?

> there is no way that 4 million illegal immigrants would converge on any place in the world because they would be bringing their homes with them, literally.

You would be surprised.

> The only people scared of that are those that are afraid to compete, and with the headstart that we've got competition should be the least of our worries.

Competition is the least of your problems. The first and biggest problem is crime – crime levels (including organised crime and violent crime) that increases extremely rapidly.

The second problem is any public services that will simply get flooded – a good example in my country is health care. You will simply end up without access to decent health care.

The third problem is private property. Immigrants will squat on your land depriving you of its use (without compensation). If you own land near the land where they squatted, it will be virtually worthless because of the associated theft and crime (see point one).

And fourthly, if immigrants vote, they will most likely vote for a kleptocratic socialist-lair which will increase your taxes and thoroughly destroy what is left of the country.

[jacquesm]

I've heard these arguments time and again while the European borders were dissolved, NONE of it came true.

The only thing that changed is that the element in society that had it easy to parasite on the rest found that they suddenly had a harder time of it.

For the rest of us it is business as usual, with a whole bunch of advantages thrown in for free.

People that don't like a level playing field can't be much of a player.

[catzaa]

> I've heard these arguments time and again while the European borders were dissolved, NONE of it came true.

There is a huge difference. For a country to go into the EU, it has a lot of requirements - it isn't just an arbitrary opening of the borders.

The EU would never allow a backwards developing country to become part.

> People that don't like a level playing field can't be much of a player.

The effect of mass immigration is usually worse on the lower strata of society (plumbers, manual labourers) - not me and you.

And yes, there are people who would not be able to compete - we can't all be rocket scientists.

[jacquesm]

Have you travelled in Europe ? Say from the Polish/Russian boarder (or the Romanian one) to the coast of the Atlantic?

In spite of those 'requirements' the differences are vast, and yet, for the most part people still live where they lived before the borders opened up. Not as stark as in South Africa, for sure, but very real nonetheless.

The plumbers and the manual labourers have some increased competition but nothing they can't handle.

The only difference probably is that what used to be illegal labourers are now legal labourers, with (for the most part, though there definitely have been documented cases of very bad exceptions) better living conditions.

We don't all have to be rocket scientists in order to be able to compete for work at a fair rate. If a Polish guy could do my job they'd be welcome to it, I'd do my best to educate myself to a level where I could compete again.

I've been self employed for a long time, and in spite of a huge influx of Polish, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian and former Jugoslavian citizens there has been hardly a ripple in the market. In fact, some of these people set a new standard for quality of workmanship, something the 'locals' had gotten a little laid back about for lack of competition.

Borders are arbitrary constructs created to foster areas of artificial scarcity and control of people, the world is a much better place without them.

It seems to me that you are scared of something, South Africa is a place that has a history of very strong inequality, likely the shockwaves of the change there will reverberate for a long time, especially because of the enormous differences between those that have and those that don't.

For Europe, the opening of the borders has been a major boost in the average quality of life here for many, it will still take decades before the distribution is more uniform but at least we're underway. 50 year too late.

[catzaa]

> Have you travelled in Europe ? Say from the Polish/Russian boarder (or the Romanian one) to the coast of the Atlantic? > In spite of those 'requirements' the differences are vast, and yet, for the most part people still live where they lived before the borders opened up. Not as stark as in South Africa, for sure, but very real nonetheless.

All the poorer countries in the EU are stable democratic countries. They are poorer, but are set for enormous growth (that is why the richer countries wants them part of the EU – because they have much better growth potential than the most developed countries).

Also note that those crossing borders in the EU can’t vote in their newly adopted country (since they are still citizens of their home country). So there are restrictions on many government services also.

> Borders are arbitrary constructs created to foster areas of artificial scarcity and control of people, the world is a much better place without them.

Private property is also an “arbitrary construct” but it doesn’t mean that they are bad. Borders allow government investment of taxpayer money in a country (this being used to benefit the tax payers).

> It seems to me that you are scared of something, South Africa is a place that has a history of very strong inequality, likely the shockwaves of the change there will reverberate for a long time, especially because of the enormous differences between those that have and those that don't.

Illegal immigration could cause the government to collapse, sending South Africa into a downward spiral and de-industrialising the country.

You have not addressed any of my concerns, but try to justify it with the EU (which is only a union with very select and stable countries, with them not becoming citizens of their “adopted” country).