There are two mindsets: 1. people should be able to move around and settle as they wish, 2. sovereign entities should have the right to control who can cross their border, and settle. (This...
There are two mindsets: 1. people should be able to move around and settle as they wish, 2. sovereign entities should have the right to control who can cross their border, and settle. (This doesn't mean "nobody should get it", just "regulate the flow in the fairest way")
The first mindset is often associated with the radical left, even though I hear it, I disagree with it. And for the sake of the argument, I'll assume that most people share, what I consider to be the most reasonable, second mindset.
In the 80s, European countries decided that the borders should be move to the edge of union, thus making the EU the "sovereign entity" for the borders. This was, in my opinion, a good thing.
The main issue is that the control of these borders was not handed over to this entity (the EU). So Germany has to control almost no border, except its airports and harbours, while Greece has to guard kilometres of land.
It's easy to blame individual members for violating the Schengen agreement, but I would argue that the Schengen agreement was never designed to be correctly enforced:
Member states have disproportionate burden when controlling external borders. (See my previous Germany vs Greece example)
Many member states have no incentives to control their borders. During the refugee crisis, Greece had to do border control for Syrian refugees headed to Germany and Scandinavia. Right now, Italy has to do all the border control for North African and Sub-Saharan migrants headed to France and Benelux. It's much cheaper to wave them through.
The real issue here is that the Schengen agreement is broken. And member states are just doing what they can do. (re-establish de-facto borders) The agreement can't be fixed. Countries with external borders don't want to handover border control to the EU, because their right-wing governments were elected on the premise of controlling their own borders. Countries without external borders don't want to pay for controlling other countries' border, because they already removed border control from their budget.
A historical note: many states didn’t control their borders until rather recently in history, because it was infeasible. In the 1800’s, immigration into the US was unrestricted and there wasn’t...
A historical note: many states didn’t control their borders until rather recently in history, because it was infeasible. In the 1800’s, immigration into the US was unrestricted and there wasn’t even any record-keeping.
Mounted watchmen of the United States Department of Commerce and Labor patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called "mounted guards", operated out of El Paso, Texas.
The US border patrol was established in 1924.
According to this article, before World War I, travelers weren’t expected to carry a passport in Europe:
A rapid expansion of railway infrastructure and wealth in Europe beginning in the mid-nineteenth century led to large increases in the volume of international travel and a consequent unique dilution of the passport system for approximately thirty years prior to World War I. The speed of trains, as well as the number of passengers that crossed multiple borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements. In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held passports.
During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of people with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming a standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanisation". The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act was passed in 1914, clearly defining the notions of citizenship and creating a booklet form of the passport.
I find the "in the 1800s there were no borders, and everything was fine" argument to be a little disingenuous. If you take the US, at that time, free plots of lands were available as far as the...
I find the "in the 1800s there were no borders, and everything was fine" argument to be a little disingenuous.
If you take the US, at that time, free plots of lands were available as far as the eye could see. They were looking for any starving Irishman to help plough the land, and control the land. Working in a factory in the US was as rough and as badly paid as in any industrialized European country.
In Europe, moving from one land to the other did not have any influence on your life. Most people were mostly poor, and not able to move around. If you moved, you were moving from one place a with a ruthless dictator, to another place with a less ruthless dictator or a semi-democracy. The states were not providing any welfare or basic service to their residents.
These were very different times. I would much prefer being an average Pakistani in 2024, than an average German in 1875. (I chose Pakistan because it is a not too underdeveloped country, while still being underdeveloped. I chose Germany because the second German empire was amongst the three wealthiest countries in the world at the time.)
Yes, you're right. I didn't say it was fine. We are talking about history, and a good rule of thumb is that all historical time periods were pretty terrible by our standards. (Still interesting,...
Yes, you're right. I didn't say it was fine. We are talking about history, and a good rule of thumb is that all historical time periods were pretty terrible by our standards. (Still interesting, though.)
Another historical trend is that technological progress has made travel significantly easier. There are obvious things like railroads, steamships, and cheap air travel, but even if you have to go part of the way on foot, widespread smart phones with GPS-enabled maps make it easier to figure out where to go. And legal barriers are sometimes effectively lower because thanks to social media, word gets out faster about loopholes like claiming asylum.
My guess that the US-Mexico border is more strictly controlled than it ever was. And also, maybe it needs to be?
My gut reaction is I don't think these are two mutually exclusive ideas, it's just that the "solution space" is constrained to a world where sovereign states decide to allow free movement and the...
There are two mindsets: 1. people should be able to move around and settle as they wish, 2. sovereign entities should have the right to control who can cross their border, and settle.
My gut reaction is I don't think these are two mutually exclusive ideas, it's just that the "solution space" is constrained to a world where sovereign states decide to allow free movement and the world is peaceful, equitable, tolerant, and honest enough (and probably a dozen other adjectives) so that the result of ongoing migration isn't particularly disruptive and thus can be maintained.
I was thinking about this while travelling earlier this summer: Even within Schengen, I've never travelled without bringing my passport, just in case. But I never used to have to show it other...
I was thinking about this while travelling earlier this summer:
Even within Schengen, I've never travelled without bringing my passport, just in case. But I never used to have to show it other than at some hotels.
There are still many borders where I wasn't checked and could just drive right through like normal. That made all the crossings and airports where we did have to get checked so much more noticeable.
At the same time, I really don't mind the locations where they have automatic machines and enough of them that it just takes a max of 45 seconds extra to scan through. As with all immigration, that requires sufficient capacity. Several places haven't gotten that far, yet (hopefully).
I'm legally required to be able to show my passport to police while I'm in the Schengen area, since I have a long-term residence permit in a Schengen country. So I always have it with me when...
I'm legally required to be able to show my passport to police while I'm in the Schengen area, since I have a long-term residence permit in a Schengen country. So I always have it with me when traveling outside my city regardless for that reason. I've still pretty much never had to show it at a proper border check within Schengen -- I'd need it to get on a plane, since they require your ID, but once I was on the ground there was never a border authority to go through. Anecdotally, the only two times I had my passport checked were entering Denmark (once by train from Germany and once by car from Sweden), so I wonder if this is at least a little Denmark-specific. Even so, those quick checks were infinitely more relaxed and less thorough than actual border control (which I've also got plenty of experience with now lol).
Just to clarify, you are a citizen of a non-EU country, is that assumption correct? I am asking because I did not bother renewing my passport - I was under the impression that my national ID (EU...
Even within Schengen, I've never travelled without bringing my passport, just in case. But I never used to have to show it other than at some hotels.
Just to clarify, you are a citizen of a non-EU country, is that assumption correct? I am asking because I did not bother renewing my passport - I was under the impression that my national ID (EU country) would be sufficient within the EU. I hope I did not miss something.
Based on their comment history, @nacho definitely lives in Norway. While there's a possibility they're living there but aren't a citizen, I think the "just in case" in their original comment...
Based on their comment history, @nacho definitely lives in Norway. While there's a possibility they're living there but aren't a citizen, I think the "just in case" in their original comment implies that even though they aren't legally required to bring their passport with them when traveling within Schengen, because their national ID is supposed to be sufficient, they bring it anyway on the off-chance they get stopped and it makes things easier than just their national ID would. This tracks with how my Norwegian wife handles it -- outside of quick trips to buy cheap(er) drinks in Sweden, she travels with her passport even within Schengen. Someone who's not a citizen of a country in the Schengen area (like me) would, by contrast, be legally required to have their passport with them, since they wouldn't have a relevant national ID card anyway.
Many Norwegians don't have a national ID card (myself included). They have only been issued in the country since 2020. Furthermore, even if you have a national ID card, there are two versions of...
Many Norwegians don't have a national ID card (myself included). They have only been issued in the country since 2020. Furthermore, even if you have a national ID card, there are two versions of it, only one of which is considered a valid travel identification document within the EU/EEA. Domestically, the most commonly used form of ID is probably still a driver's license. I don't even know what the national ID card looks like since nobody I know has bothered to get one.
I can't speak for nacho, just a FYI, since I know you've mentioned planning to move over here.
hm you know I'm also not sure if my wife even has a national ID. She has a driver's license but she changed her name right before moving out of Norway and only bothered updating her passport...
hm you know I'm also not sure if my wife even has a national ID. She has a driver's license but she changed her name right before moving out of Norway and only bothered updating her passport (since updating anything else outside Norway is a pain). Complicates her situation compared to the average Norwegian ig...
There are two mindsets: 1. people should be able to move around and settle as they wish, 2. sovereign entities should have the right to control who can cross their border, and settle. (This doesn't mean "nobody should get it", just "regulate the flow in the fairest way")
The first mindset is often associated with the radical left, even though I hear it, I disagree with it. And for the sake of the argument, I'll assume that most people share, what I consider to be the most reasonable, second mindset.
In the 80s, European countries decided that the borders should be move to the edge of union, thus making the EU the "sovereign entity" for the borders. This was, in my opinion, a good thing.
The main issue is that the control of these borders was not handed over to this entity (the EU). So Germany has to control almost no border, except its airports and harbours, while Greece has to guard kilometres of land.
It's easy to blame individual members for violating the Schengen agreement, but I would argue that the Schengen agreement was never designed to be correctly enforced:
The real issue here is that the Schengen agreement is broken. And member states are just doing what they can do. (re-establish de-facto borders) The agreement can't be fixed. Countries with external borders don't want to handover border control to the EU, because their right-wing governments were elected on the premise of controlling their own borders. Countries without external borders don't want to pay for controlling other countries' border, because they already removed border control from their budget.
A historical note: many states didn’t control their borders until rather recently in history, because it was infeasible. In the 1800’s, immigration into the US was unrestricted and there wasn’t even any record-keeping.
From Wikipedia:
The US border patrol was established in 1924.
According to this article, before World War I, travelers weren’t expected to carry a passport in Europe:
I find the "in the 1800s there were no borders, and everything was fine" argument to be a little disingenuous.
If you take the US, at that time, free plots of lands were available as far as the eye could see. They were looking for any starving Irishman to help plough the land, and control the land. Working in a factory in the US was as rough and as badly paid as in any industrialized European country.
In Europe, moving from one land to the other did not have any influence on your life. Most people were mostly poor, and not able to move around. If you moved, you were moving from one place a with a ruthless dictator, to another place with a less ruthless dictator or a semi-democracy. The states were not providing any welfare or basic service to their residents.
These were very different times. I would much prefer being an average Pakistani in 2024, than an average German in 1875. (I chose Pakistan because it is a not too underdeveloped country, while still being underdeveloped. I chose Germany because the second German empire was amongst the three wealthiest countries in the world at the time.)
Yes, you're right. I didn't say it was fine. We are talking about history, and a good rule of thumb is that all historical time periods were pretty terrible by our standards. (Still interesting, though.)
Another historical trend is that technological progress has made travel significantly easier. There are obvious things like railroads, steamships, and cheap air travel, but even if you have to go part of the way on foot, widespread smart phones with GPS-enabled maps make it easier to figure out where to go. And legal barriers are sometimes effectively lower because thanks to social media, word gets out faster about loopholes like claiming asylum.
My guess that the US-Mexico border is more strictly controlled than it ever was. And also, maybe it needs to be?
My gut reaction is I don't think these are two mutually exclusive ideas, it's just that the "solution space" is constrained to a world where sovereign states decide to allow free movement and the world is peaceful, equitable, tolerant, and honest enough (and probably a dozen other adjectives) so that the result of ongoing migration isn't particularly disruptive and thus can be maintained.
I was thinking about this while travelling earlier this summer:
Even within Schengen, I've never travelled without bringing my passport, just in case. But I never used to have to show it other than at some hotels.
There are still many borders where I wasn't checked and could just drive right through like normal. That made all the crossings and airports where we did have to get checked so much more noticeable.
At the same time, I really don't mind the locations where they have automatic machines and enough of them that it just takes a max of 45 seconds extra to scan through. As with all immigration, that requires sufficient capacity. Several places haven't gotten that far, yet (hopefully).
I'm legally required to be able to show my passport to police while I'm in the Schengen area, since I have a long-term residence permit in a Schengen country. So I always have it with me when traveling outside my city regardless for that reason. I've still pretty much never had to show it at a proper border check within Schengen -- I'd need it to get on a plane, since they require your ID, but once I was on the ground there was never a border authority to go through. Anecdotally, the only two times I had my passport checked were entering Denmark (once by train from Germany and once by car from Sweden), so I wonder if this is at least a little Denmark-specific. Even so, those quick checks were infinitely more relaxed and less thorough than actual border control (which I've also got plenty of experience with now lol).
Just to clarify, you are a citizen of a non-EU country, is that assumption correct? I am asking because I did not bother renewing my passport - I was under the impression that my national ID (EU country) would be sufficient within the EU. I hope I did not miss something.
Based on their comment history, @nacho definitely lives in Norway. While there's a possibility they're living there but aren't a citizen, I think the "just in case" in their original comment implies that even though they aren't legally required to bring their passport with them when traveling within Schengen, because their national ID is supposed to be sufficient, they bring it anyway on the off-chance they get stopped and it makes things easier than just their national ID would. This tracks with how my Norwegian wife handles it -- outside of quick trips to buy cheap(er) drinks in Sweden, she travels with her passport even within Schengen. Someone who's not a citizen of a country in the Schengen area (like me) would, by contrast, be legally required to have their passport with them, since they wouldn't have a relevant national ID card anyway.
Many Norwegians don't have a national ID card (myself included). They have only been issued in the country since 2020. Furthermore, even if you have a national ID card, there are two versions of it, only one of which is considered a valid travel identification document within the EU/EEA. Domestically, the most commonly used form of ID is probably still a driver's license. I don't even know what the national ID card looks like since nobody I know has bothered to get one.
I can't speak for nacho, just a FYI, since I know you've mentioned planning to move over here.
hm you know I'm also not sure if my wife even has a national ID. She has a driver's license but she changed her name right before moving out of Norway and only bothered updating her passport (since updating anything else outside Norway is a pain). Complicates her situation compared to the average Norwegian ig...
You should be fine with your national ID from an EU country for anything and everything Schengen-related, AFAIK.