What would be the effects – practical, political and demographic; short-, medium- and long-term – of allowing the free movement of people across the globe? Hutomo Narang, Makassar, Indonesia
Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.
Readers reply
My father-in-law would physically explode in fury. thenewschmoo
One step closer to being allowed to join the United Federation of Planets? bewilderedpenguin
Free movement, globally, is a generous policy that will tackle the ever-compounding inequalities and ensure everyone’s rights. However, it presents a short-term negative effect on low-paid workers through exploitative employers, but that can be addressed by stronger workers’ rights. The frets about the “global free movement” are implicit and merely hypothetical. elboadi
The Pew Trust did a survey in the early 2010s asking people in Mexico if they would move to the United States in the next year if it were legal to do so. A large proportion said yes, equating to millions of people. Obviously, such a survey is about discontent, not intention. But the only comparable movement of people like that in the modern period was at the formation of Pakistan and India. Again, there were complicating factors, but the mass migrations were rife with violence, impoverishment and material loss.
Open borders will depend on multidirectional, casual movement being a reality. When people are no longer running from something, such as drugs or religious violence, then open borders can work. In this, the west has work to do. The US taste for drugs has destabilised all the nations represented by the immigrants at our southern borders. Until we can control that destructive export – the drug trade – we cannot hope to control or open our borders. John Hunt
It would put people traffickers out of business, for a start. Creating legal and accessible means for applications by asylum seekers would also do that, and seems almost as unlikely. LMCollis
Erm, the UK would empty overnight? Brexit seems to have been designed to keep Britons from escaping – what with the UK government’s request to be treated as a third country, the 90/180 rule for staying in the EU etc – while simultaneously eroding our rights, and subjecting us to rivers and beaches filled with effluent and declining living standards. Pingpongpolitics
Freedom of movement would mean authoritarian governments either leave or adapt. It could create better compassion and make it easier for people to help nations struggling from disasters due to climate change. When my community was flooded, a group of people from Muslim and Sikh communities travelled hundreds of miles to help us. Complete strangers, but they brought their energy and caring. Quite amazing to behold. We never asked; they just stood above the call of duty.
Also, the international medical agencies who cover war, famines, disasters and poor countries would have an easier time. Regarding climate change, some big policies are going to be needed to support the nomadic movement of people seeking sanctuary. At the moment, the UK government is reactive, rather than progressive. q321gg8cla
There was something on BBC Radio 4 several years ago, saying that if passports had not been introduced and enforced 100 years ago, the world would be twice as wealthy. (The world, not necessarily individuals.) Also, Jeremy Hardy once said on The News Quiz that we should go back to the 19th century, where you could live and work where you wanted, but there was no social support. I think he gave the development of the US as an example. Burniston123
John Lennon’s dream come true. Interestingly, for all they bang on about free trade, what they usually mean is the free movement of capital – what they don’t mean is the free movement of labour. Nevertheless, Adam Smith argued that there could be no real free trade without free movement of labour. However, this does not suit those who subscribe to the “vile maxims”. Who’d have thought we’d still need to be discussing this 250 years later? Moreover, it seems like we’re going backwards. EuropaKelt
People’s right to move should at least be equal to that of capital. As it is now, capital moves freely to areas where human freedom and economic power is lowest. Colingoodfellow
It’s unimaginable. It could change the world as much as AI. For a start, a huge surge in carbon emissions from the travel. Massive immigration issues in wealthy nations for a while, followed by civil unrest. An exodus from overheated and oppressive regimes with consequent descent into turmoil. Soon, the policy would be reversed and the rebound reaction would be the heavy-handed re-establishment of state borders and, probably, war. There is too much inequality for this to be allowed. The Earth cannot sustain us all in western, middle-class lifestyles. berto
People would sort culturally, ideologically and personality-wise on a global scale. We’ve already seen this within the US; cosmopolitan social liberals mostly prefer life in dense cities near other people and a diversity of cultural life.
Traditionalists prefer to be out in the exurbs and rural areas, surrounded by (a few) others just like them. Complete freedom of movement would weaken the nation state, but in its place we’d have the city-states-versus-the-hinterlands dynamic worldwide. Irene Colthurst
