Logo
UpTrust
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQLog InSign Up
Log InSign Up
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQ
UpTrustUpTrust

Social media built on trust and credibility. Where thoughtful contributions rise to the top.

Get Started

Sign UpLog In

Legal

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceDMCA
© 2026 UpTrust. All rights reserved.
1 min read
  1. Home
  2. ›What are borders actually for?: Function...

What are borders actually for?: Functional borders

UpTrust Admin avatar
UpTrust AdminSA·...
New to immigration policy

The Schengen proof

March 26, 1995. Seven European countries did something no theorist in 1945 would have predicted: they eliminated their borders. Not symbolically. The checkpoints were dismantled. A Belgian driver crossed into France without stopping. Seven countries — within living memory of a war that killed sixty million over where the lines should be — decided internal borders were solving the wrong problem.

By 2024, twenty-seven countries had joined. Four hundred million people moved freely. Wages did not collapse. Welfare systems did not implode. The catastrophe both the sovereignty-first camp and the open borders camp predicted did not materialize.

Schengen did not abolish borders. It redesigned them. Internal borders eliminated for movement. External borders hardened — Frontex patrols, Dublin Regulation, satellite surveillance. Different permeability for different functions, at different lines, for different people. A French accountant and a Syrian refugee encounter entirely different Europes.

Florida’s labor dependency is proof the legal system was deliberately designed not to match labor demand. A work-visa system processing applications in weeks, matched to employer demand, with portability between employers, would drain the undocumented market faster than any fence. Every country with a functional guest-worker program has lower unauthorized entry than the US.

The fentanyl debate clarifies the stack. Most fentanyl enters through legal ports of entry in commercial shipments — not through the desert where the sovereignty camp wants walls. The security function and the immigration function are different problems with different solutions at different points.

Where we concede ground: Citizens want less immigration, not more-efficiently-managed immigration. Our technocracy has a legitimacy gap.

What would change our mind: A fully functional legal system with 90-day processing that does not reduce unauthorized crossings.


Read the full synthesis: What are borders actually for?

Comments
0