[majewsky]

I noticed the same about false dichotomies, particularly on the question of open borders.

> We should open our borders to immigration.

This would be a definite "No" to me, but I still answered with "Weakly agree", because otherwise it puts me in the strong-borders faction, which I definitely don't belong into. I don't want open borders right now, but I want the world to evolve into a state where we can have open borders 50 years from now.

(If you consider that outlook crazy, remember that it took Europe 50 years to get from WW2 to open borders under the Schengen treaty.)

[_dps]

It's important to note that the Schengen agreement was only about travel, and not what what is commonly assumed these days regarding border debates: the ability to come, settle, work, and take part in the social safety net.

Switzerland for example was a Schengen signatory. Switzerland has never allowed open immigration, work permits, or welfare benefits for people entering under Schengen terms.

So while I think you give a good example of what can happen in 50 years, I think it's very important to draw a distinction between Schengen-like agreements and what people commonly understand from the closed/open border debate.