- Position‹2 of 2
- No, we should keep our borders
There are many criminals and terrorists in other countries who would move to richer countries if they could. Abolishing borders would threaten countries' national security.
The argument
Advocates for open borders cannot ignore security threats posed by criminal immigrants. In 2018, undocumented immigrants made up 26% of the federal prison population in the United States. In Sweden, migrants tend to commit more criminal activity, but it is because these migrants are young and male. At the same time, 73% of migrants to Europe are young males, according to Pew Research Center in 2016. Open borders would make it easier for young, male immigrants to enter countries, cause crime, and endanger citizens already living there. Terrorists take advantage of refugees and asylum seekers into European countries. In November 2015, terrorists linked to ISIS killed 130 and injured 368 people across Paris. These terrorists were able to hide themselves along migrant routes between Syria and Europe. Open borders would only make such migrant routes easier to cross, thus making terrorist attacks more frequent.
Context
Though many people migrate to a new country for better economic opportunities or to escape violence and war, we cannot ignore migrants who are criminals and terrorists seeking to take advantage of wealthier societies or disrupt the countries they migrate to.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Border controls do not necessarily and cannot prevent all national security threats. A vetting process for immigrants, such as a background check, can still exist with open borders. Maintaining a vetting process while lessening immigration restrictions can still help countries prevent national security threats.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The prison figure is misleading in a specific and well-known way. US federal prisons are where immigration offences are prosecuted, so unlawful entry and re-entry inflate the federal share directly; the overwhelming majority of American prisoners are held in state facilities, where the picture is different. Research using state-level data — most extensively in Texas, which records immigration status at arrest — has generally found lower offending rates among undocumented residents than among native-born citizens. The premise also concedes its own defeater in noting that the Swedish pattern tracks age and sex rather than migration. [Rejecting P2] The Paris example does not support the premise. Most of the attackers were French and Belgian nationals who could move freely within the Schengen area as citizens, so border controls on migrants were not the constraint the argument supposes. [Rejecting P3] The counter-argument on record notes that vetting and open movement are not alternatives: background checks, watchlists and intelligence sharing operate independently of whether entry is numerically restricted, and can be maintained alongside a more open regime. [Rejecting C] Border enforcement also does not prevent all threats, as the argument's own example shows — so the comparison it needs is between the marginal security gain and the costs of restriction, which it does not attempt.
Framing
People will take advantage of resources in richer countries if they can, even if it means infringing on those countries' national sovereignty.