It’s not really about “what would be the best way”. The best way is freedom of movement. There’s no ethical or just reason someone should be able to travel freely between freely between Ankara and Istanbul, but not between Budapest and Istanbul.
I guess originally it was about customs. Everyone got searched at the border, so that all your goods could be taxed. Important people could get a passport to be exempt.
Nowadays, it’s more about tracking people. For example if the CIA wants to kidnap Glenn greenwald, they know where to find him. He can’t just flee to a different part of the world. They have other means or tracking people now, but this was one of the earliest.
Or is there any more fundamental reason for states to control migration?
I don’t think it’s about mass movement of workers disrupting the economy. Then they would put the borders within countries.
Redding your article, passports don’t sound like an effective disease control measure. Sounds like the disease was used to justify a measure that was coming anyway.
Much like the tracking, surveillance being extended today, and like putting more personal data into passports and extending the places passports will be used.
These measures have been being pushed for a long time, but they can be moved along faster now.
States like to control migration to maintain stability/the status quo.
This can be economic stability (e.g. many people move to a country to work can increase unemployment). Often states will only let people in that have skills that are in demand.
It can be cultural/social stability. Often there is a rise in xenophobia/racism when a country has a large amount of immigration (you could see this in many places in Europe). Increased xenophobia is great for the anti-immigrant and the not-so-covertly racist political parties.
It’s not really about “what would be the best way”. The best way is freedom of movement. There’s no ethical or just reason someone should be able to travel freely between freely between Ankara and Istanbul, but not between Budapest and Istanbul.
I guess originally it was about customs. Everyone got searched at the border, so that all your goods could be taxed. Important people could get a passport to be exempt.
Nowadays, it’s more about tracking people. For example if the CIA wants to kidnap Glenn greenwald, they know where to find him. He can’t just flee to a different part of the world. They have other means or tracking people now, but this was one of the earliest.
Or is there any more fundamental reason for states to control migration?
I don’t think it’s about mass movement of workers disrupting the economy. Then they would put the borders within countries.
deleted by creator
I did not know that.
Redding your article, passports don’t sound like an effective disease control measure. Sounds like the disease was used to justify a measure that was coming anyway.
Much like the tracking, surveillance being extended today, and like putting more personal data into passports and extending the places passports will be used.
These measures have been being pushed for a long time, but they can be moved along faster now.
States like to control migration to maintain stability/the status quo.
This can be economic stability (e.g. many people move to a country to work can increase unemployment). Often states will only let people in that have skills that are in demand.
It can be cultural/social stability. Often there is a rise in xenophobia/racism when a country has a large amount of immigration (you could see this in many places in Europe). Increased xenophobia is great for the anti-immigrant and the not-so-covertly racist political parties.