Author Reece Jones’ book ‘Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move” argues that by removing borders, people have more access to human rights. On one hand, this certainly can make sense: Without borders, people can travel freely and escape from living under governments they are scared of. On the other hand, borders can help preserve cultures and societies.
Consider the United States: within the US are 50 states each within their own borders. The country has a set of laws that apply to all citizens at all times. Each state then has it’s own set of laws that may be different from the state next-door to it. Those state laws reflect the residents’ values while the country’ s laws reflect broader values of the citizens of the nation.
Jones’ claim that less borders increases access to human rights is an interesting one that is sure to spark differing opinions. This is… well, it’s an interesting idea! It’s also sure to stir debate – possibly even in your classroom!
————————–
Questions:
1) Without borders, where would one state’s laws end and another begin?
2) How would you even know what state you are in?
3) What are your feelings about Jones’ idea? Why do you think it would or would not work? What effects do you imagine it would have?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
