Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

History
International Relations
Politics
Millions of people risk their lives trying to cross borders into other countries. Some are fleeing violence and persecution, others are looking for better economical opportunities or to be reunited with family members. But is a world without borders a good idea, if it is even feasible?

Positions

Arguments supporting this position

Details

openborders global apartheid equality

Context

Borders prevent the world's poorest people from accessing resources and opportunities that are available in richer countries. (1) This has led to people in poorer countries being forced to live with a lower minimum wage, greater passport restrictions, less social security and a poorer quality healthcare system than that which people in richer countries enjoy.

The Argument

There is large discrimination in the world based on place of birth/origin. This is enabling the rich to preserve their wealth and keep the poor oppressed. Immigration restrictions are similar to apartheid and Jim Crow laws, but with the criterion of discrimination being place of birth/origin rather than race (2). In this way, country borders have become a form of global apartheid.

Counter arguments

Enter the counter arguments here ...

Premises

1. Borders act to preserve the priveledges of the wealthy at the expense of the poor across the global population. 2. Preserving the priveldges of the wealthy at the expense of the poor is a form of global apartheid. 3. Borders enable a form of global apartheid.

Rejecting the premises

The premise is based on a logical fallacy. Preserving wealth does not inherently oppress the poor. This is a false dichotomy.

References

Content references here ...

Proponents

Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Sunday, 7 Apr 2019 at 18:59 UTC