Are border control agencies necessary?

[Usenko]

This is something I've been thinking about. Obviously the context is the rampant abuses by ICE in the USA, but I think there's a bigger picture here.

For at least the last 20 years (and probably longer than that, but that's how long I've been aware of it), our governments (of all political stripes) have consistently been cracking down on "Illegal immigrants."

The idea is that the "floods" of "illegal immigrants" are going to OVERWHELM Australia if we don't do something about it; so our government has set up the Border Patrol to ensure that our borders are kept safe. But my experience of the Border Patrol hasn't quite been as positive as the government makes it sound.

I have known four people to fall foul of the Border Patrol, and all four were ultimately deported. What was striking for me is that whilst all were technically "illegal immigrants," none of them had deliberately broken any laws. To whit:
* One had overstayed his visa by a few days, and had forgotten to renew it.
* Two had made errors on their forms entering the country, and discovered this when they went to the Immigration Department to set up the paperwork for their children to enter the country(!).
* One had not read the fine print of his visa that restricted his movement somewhat, and had returned to the USA to visit his granddaughter for her birthday.

As I say, there was NO malice here, nor was there a particular level of irresponsibility (beyond "read the details").

Deporting these four people didn't make Australia smarter, richer, stronger or more compassionate. It did nothing for us. In fact it did me, an Australian born citizen, significant harm, because the guy who went to his granddaughter's birthday was actually my Masters supervisor, and his deportation set back my Masters by about a year and a half.

Now, against that I know that there are genuine reasons we want to control who comes into the country. Biosecurity is a big one; we want to avoid exotic diseases (of humans, plants and animals) from entering the country, as much as it is possible. And we really do have a vested interest in ensuring immigrants who genuinely have malicious intent don't enter the country (e.g. people who falsify their identity[1], who deliberately enter for nefarious purposes etc). But the question I ask is whether an entire agency is necessary for this. I can't help thinking that given the small number of people who are actually a problem for our country, the existing police force are more than adequate to manage the problem.

Now, obviously I'm writing in an Australian context, but all the countries I have ever visited have the same problem, and whilst I accept there may well be some that don't, I'm also aware that kicking immigrants in the nads is a good way to secure the votes of a certain nasty demographic which I have to think would exist in every democracy. So I think this is something that is, if not universal, at least very common. So here we go - Are border control agencies necessary at all, and if so, what do they actually do that can benefit a country?

[1] Even this gets complex - what if they falsify their identity because of, say, persecution in their home country?

[Chips]

So much to unpack and so little to work with Do you mean border control as in sat at the desk checking passports and visas as people enter the country? Or do you specifically mean those rounding up those who shouldn't be in the country? Are these not the same thing?

At the end of the day, they're only enforcing the rules set out by the Govt in charge; those rules are who is allowed in the country and under what circumstances. They may decide that based upon many factors - but key is what's best for the country and it's people.
Unless it's America... then it's also an opportunity to fantasize about your military dreams (this is actually from June 2025 and is insane - especially the first few mins of explosives and armored cars -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ws1r6CaSXs )

For the visa expiration - the visa is valid for a certain period. If it is no longer valid, whether by 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month - it's not a valid visa. You don't get let in with an invalid visa, so why would they be allowed to stay? After that, what would be the cut off point? 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, 10 days... and if it's 3, why not 4? Consistency.

If you're making errors on the form, then it's really a case of "and what are permissible errors?". At what point (again) do you draw a line... as to just how much inaccuracy, or lying, is permissible? Who decides that? As soon as there's grey areas, there's potential for accusations of unfairness, inconsistency, potentially discrimination and so on. Whose responsibility is it now to chase after those who made mistakes to sort it out and re-check? It surely means "try it on, if you get busted, you can correct it".

Do I believe border controls are required? Yes. Are you saying you believe there should be no visa's, nothing, people should be allowed in/out of any country at any time as they like? No border checks, no visas, no passport scanning etc? Or do you mean only in the sense of rounding up overstaying visas?

As for Police, they keep the order, protect people, prevent or deal with crime etc. If they're also supposed to man the gates at airports, then that's another set of training. On top, in the event something happens, what's the priority? Do they abandon the desk to check out a report of a stolen car? Or shoplifter. What's the priority importance? Generally if you believe in the country controlling who they let in, then you need a constant presence at the border entry points. But does rounding up folks fall to Police then? I think they do already... but they have a *lot* of responsibilities already and if it falls down the priority, the chances are it'd just not remotely be done. Then you're at the point of "there's no negative to all the things listed prior".

[Falcrack]

I would think that a country like Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, would welcome immigrants. Actually, it baffles me why so many countries are hostile to immigration when immigration into your country is a sign you are doing something right, and the extra population arguably would make the country stronger in the long run.

Now, I believe that when there are laws on the books, they ought to be enforced. How strictly they ought to be enforced, and the penalties, should be spelled out by law. Do we throw people in prison for life for going 5 mph over the speed limit? If they did, that would result in the imprisonment of the entire adult population of my state. The punishment should fit the crime. But it gratifies me when I see someone who was recklessly driving 30 mph over the limit or thereabouts get pulled over.

If I were to be made king and ultimate ruler of America, I would adjust the immigration laws to make it easier for those who want to come to my country for the purposes of work or to be with family would be able to come, and increase opportunities for them to ultimately become US citizens. I would want there to be a requirement to have English proficiency, so that all citizens of my country could at least speak a common language and are capable of understanding each other, even if they choose to speak a different language at home or around others.

But there needs to be a line drawn somewhere in terms of standards of who is allowed in. Not everyone would agree with me on where that line is. There would be a need for law enforcement to make sure the laws on the books are kept. A separate branch of law enforcement specifically for immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) is not bad in principle. The problem is when it is used to enact these mass changes in society, shutting down and intimidating entire communities in an effort to zealously throw out anyone who has any sort of minor infraction.

Those who are in my country illegally or have problems with their visas ought to be allowed a legal opportunity to make it right, and stay in the country if they desire. But too often, trying to go through the legal process to stay merely makes you easier to identify and throw out. People should be incentivized to keep the law. The current approach of ICE completely disincentivizes people to go through the legal process by such tactics as arresting people when they go to immigration hearings.

If you want to come to my country, and the front door is shut fast against you, but you are desperate to get out of the bad situation in your country, you will go through the back door if necessary. I feel that we as a people ought to be far more compassionate and welcoming to those who want to come to my country to try to find better economic opportunities, or to escape oppression in their own countries. I feel we were at our best when we were welcoming to people from all parts of the world, causing America to be a melting pot of different people from all over. Yes there is friction when people from the old world conflicted with the customs and habits of the new world. But people can work out their differences, and those immigrants eventually became good American citizens of today. Who are now intent on shutting the door on people who were not much different from their own ancestors.

[decifer]

I was going to write a lot of stuff, but chips put it better than I could have.

So short version:

• If you have rules, you need an executive body to enforce them. Otherwise your rules are worthless.
• If you have separation of power, that executive body can only act within the boundaries of those rules without exceptions, no matter how small or big. That's a good thing, even if annyoing for the affected. We can see with our own eyes what happens, if executive bodies have no boundaries or bend the rules at will.
• If you have borders, you need rules for them, otherwise the borders have no meaning.
• If you want to be a sovereign country you need borders, as those define the limits of your and foreign jurisdiction. Laws are worthless if you can't define where they begin and where the rules of other countries end.

So yes, if you want to be a sovereign country you need borders with rules and a body to enforce them.
How those rules should look like and how strict they should be, that's highly subjective. Kim Jong-un probably has a different opinion about that than the lorry driver taking goods from one country to another on a daily basis.

All that nonsense of immigrant floods etc. has nothing to do with border protection. It's political scapegoating and I guess as old as people can hate. And a militarized immigration police is just the next step of administrative overreach. I mean, there are still some people alive who have seen all of that happening before.

Btw., I just learned not long ago that wars and hate against "different" people is actually a pretty recent invention. Early humans were apparently mostly multicultural and egalitarian for millenia - basically humping each other instead of fighting.

[Usenko]

I was going to write a lot of stuff, but chips put it better than I could have.

So short version:

• If you have rules, you need an executive body to enforce them. Otherwise your rules are worthless.
• If you have separation of power, that executive body can only act within the boundaries of those rules without exceptions, no matter how small or big. That's a good thing, even if annyoing for the affected. We can see with our own eyes what happens, if executive bodies have no boundaries or bend the rules at will.
• If you have borders, you need rules for them, otherwise the borders have no meaning.
• If you want to be a sovereign country you need borders, as those define the limits of your and foreign jurisdiction. Laws are worthless if you can't define where they begin and where the rules of other countries end.

So yes, if you want to be a sovereign country you need borders with rules and a body to enforce them.
How those rules should look like and how strict they should be, that's highly subjective. Kim Jong-un probably has a different opinion about that than the lorry driver taking goods from one country to another on a daily basis.

My argument is that local police are absolutely adequate to deal with the small number of genuine violations of the law (as opposed to irregularities).

I have no problem with laws, I have a LOT of problem with the use of said laws for political point scoring. To whit . . .

All that nonsense of immigrant floods etc. has nothing to do with border protection. It's political scapegoating and I guess as old as people can hate. And a militarized immigration police is just the next step of administrative overreach. I mean, there are still some people alive who have seen all of that happening before.

Absolutely, total agreement.

Btw., I just learned not long ago that wars and hate against "different" people is actually a pretty recent invention. Early humans were apparently mostly multicultural and egalitarian for millenia - basically humping each other instead of fighting.

Heh, as a historian, I think I'd suggest that's a bit rosy.

ORGANISED hatred on the scale we see today, that's pretty new. But then, so is organised anything. If you think about it, it's really only been the last 2000 years or so (a blink of the eye in human history terms) that we've been able to reliably transport ideas from one tribe to another. Until the Roman empire, it was difficult to get a message (even a short and simple one) farther than a horse could run in a night.

Early humans were OFTEN multicultural and egalitarian. They were also often violent and hierarchical. Which they were depended on a wide range of factors, probably the most important being the availability of resources; if resources were plentiful, human tribes tended to cope reasonably well with each other, and swap equipment and ideas. If resources were scarce, conflict was more common (They worship the wrong gods! They're following the wrong leader! They have offensive haircuts! They have stuff we want!).

Of course, if one person offended another, all bets were off.

[decifer]

My argument is that local police are absolutely adequate to deal with the small number of genuine violations of the law (as opposed to irregularities).

Well, here in Germany it's mostly because we are a federal republic. Police is under state authority while border protection is a federal agency.
But I guess it's also a separation of power thing, as the executive branch under the ministry of finance is also involved in border policy when it comes to tariffs and import/export regulations. That's nothing a normal cop is trained in.
And of course, specialization helps to have better trained personnel where you need them instead of just a shallow educated mob of gunmen everywhere.

But we also use police on the borders right now, as the current government used fearmongering for the last election and now needs to follow through with that. And of course, we have our right wing nuts who want to build our own ICE right now. It's disgusting.

Heh, as a historian, I think I'd suggest that's a bit rosy.

ORGANISED hatred on the scale we see today, that's pretty new. But then, so is organised anything. If you think about it, it's really only been the last 2000 years or so (a blink of the eye in human history terms) that we've been able to reliably transport ideas from one tribe to another. Until the Roman empire, it was difficult to get a message (even a short and simple one) farther than a horse could run in a night.

Early humans were OFTEN multicultural and egalitarian. They were also often violent and hierarchical. Which they were depended on a wide range of factors, probably the most important being the availability of resources; if resources were plentiful, human tribes tended to cope reasonably well with each other, and swap equipment and ideas. If resources were scarce, conflict was more common (They worship the wrong gods! They're following the wrong leader! They have offensive haircuts! They have stuff we want!).

Of course, if one person offended another, all bets were off.

Yeah, seems plausible. I admit, I reduced it to the fancy sounding part I like the most.

[Usenko]

A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand. The Maori people there have a tradition that when a group came to visit, the chief of a tribe would come out and offer the visitor's chief a silver fern.

If the visitor picked up the fern, the two tribes would trade.

If the visitor STEPPED on the fern, well . . . it was also clear what would happen.

This particular ceremony was shown in a cultural village we visited; a tourist was randomly selected as the recipient of the fern, and was carefully coached through his duties.

Afterwards I asked one of the maori whether they had ever had a smart-arse step on the fern. He said "Yeah, it happens now and again."

I asked what they did.

"Well, TECHNICALLY the law allows us to kill him. But that's not great for the tourist dollars. So usually a smack over the back of the head will do the trick, as well as getting the other tourists laughing at the idiot."

[decifer]

A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit New Zealand. The Maori people there have a tradition that when a group came to visit, the chief of a tribe would come out and offer the visitor's chief a silver fern.

If the visitor picked up the fern, the two tribes would trade.

If the visitor STEPPED on the fern, well . . . it was also clear what would happen.

This particular ceremony was shown in a cultural village we visited; a tourist was randomly selected as the recipient of the fern, and was carefully coached through his duties.

Afterwards I asked one of the maori whether they had ever had a smart-arse step on the fern. He said "Yeah, it happens now and again."

I asked what they did.

"Well, TECHNICALLY the law allows us to kill him. But that's not great for the tourist dollars. So usually a smack over the back of the head will do the trick, as well as getting the other tourists laughing at the idiot."

Nice

[Alan Phipps]

A good response might be "You broke it, you bought it". (ie: Should have taken it to see the price tag underneath it.)

[Chips]

I would think that a country like Australia, with a population less than a tenth of the US, would welcome immigrants. Actually, it baffles me why so many countries are hostile to immigration when immigration into your country is a sign you are doing something right, and the extra population arguably would make the country stronger in the long run.

Quick query, what makes you think countries are hostile to immigration? Or is it the media and social media that is conflating a countries stance vs a loud vocal minorities stance? Also... there are various types of migration.

Countries who grant VISA's absolutely can limit immigration visa if they're hostile and so wish... but they don't appear to be doing so - as far as I know (no-where near enough research, so... flimsy statement). So

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/peopl ... st-release
Australia

In the year ending 30 June 2025, overseas migration contributed a net gain of 306,000 people to Australia's population. This was a decrease from the net gain of 429,000 people the previous year, and below the financial year record of 538,000 people in 2022-23.

Historically, more people migrate to Australia than migrate away each year, meaning overseas migration has been a significant source of population gain for Australia rather than loss. This trend temporarily reversed when many potential migrants didn't come to Australia in 2020 and 2021 because of border closures and other COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

United Kingdom
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ngjune2025

The provisional estimate for total long-term immigration for the most recent period is 898,000, a decrease of 401,000 from the updated YE June 2024 estimate of 1,299,000. This continues a downward trend from the peak of 1,469,000 in YE March 2023.

(note this is not *NET* migration, but immigration without the -ve of emigration. However, the query was about countries being "hostile to immigrants", so the granted immigrants to the country seems very relevant rather than the net! The actual net is approx 205k and a year before was 650k net.

USA
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metr ... -migration

U.S. net migration for 2024 was 1,286,132, a 2.76% decline from 2023.
U.S. net migration for 2023 was 1,322,668, a 0.28% increase from 2022.
U.S. net migration for 2022 was 1,319,009, a 95.47% increase from 2021.
U.S. net migration for 2021 was 674,787, a 104.62% increase from 2020.

Numbers can be found for countries, though whether they're highly accurate remains to be seen. So do you mean they shouldn't limit visa's and to control immigration via a visa system is being "hostile"? Or is it the perception based on media and public vocalisation of opposition to certain types, or overall?

What countries cannot control is the media narrative and conflation of various types of migration; that indeed gives a perception of "hostile to immigration". That also suffers from the "they who shout loudest..." So illegal immigration is the obvious loud issue; for the UK that's those crossing in small boats to claim asylum (if caught, otherwise they melt away unless caught later, at which point they claim asylum). There's some validity in those aggravations - not least that the UN Refugee charter is specific that asylum is claimed in the first safe country. Transiting through a multiple "safe" countries to reach a "but I want this one" is not genuine asylum per se. But that'll stray into a highly charged topic. I can definitely see why it angers people here though; the cost mainly of keeping them in hotels that get to exploit the situation for profit!

So *that* in the UK is absolutely why it would appear we're "hostile to immigration". The reality is the country isn't; but bad reporting and huge paint brush tarring means the perception is that we are (and indeed, segments of the population may absolutely go from asylum to overall immigration, or just flat out be anti immigration full stop).

If it weren't for immigrants... well, I think the stat is something like 40% of our doctors are immigrants. So immigration is absolutely vital for our own wellbeing.

[humility925]

It's would help keep foreign crime down or not let foreign crime do crime in homeland like mexican crime flow into USA, like murder/thief/cause all kind of issues when mexican failed to handle crime, Idk. It's necessary when crime go up because of foreign, that is where border control agencies come in. If all foreign friendly and nice, border control agencies might not need, but again, lot of crime from foreign like mexican flow into usa, is why USA increase support for border control agencies.

[Vertigo 7]

wrong. republicans took extreme measures for border control because of racism, like the BS you just spouted. Just because someone is Mexican, that doesn't make them a murderer or a thief or any sort of other criminal. The US has plenty of home grown murderers and thiefs and so forth, far more than come from any foreign country. But because people from central and south america don't have lilly white skin, they're treated as something less.

[clakclak]

Few edits:

There is a hardline pro refugee movement that I think is mostly popular in central Europe called "No one is Illegal". I only know about the German part of it and here it is mostly used more like a slogan/sentiment especially by anti-nationalist movements (anti-nationalist in the sense that they reject the idea of having nation states to begin with and would like to overcome our nationalist world order and instead [insert flavour of leftist post national ideology here]).

The less dogmatic crowd often comes at it from a more humanist perspective, simply arguing that human worth and right to live shouldn't be dependent on their refugee status.

It isn't only a leftist thing though, but also a sentiment shared by some people and groups out of religious convictions rather than political ones. In fact German churches (of both dominant denominations Catholic and Lutheran) somewhat regularly grant "Church Asylum" to people meant to be deported as a means of deterring authorities from actually effecting a deportation, while the request for asylum gets processed again.

[Usenko]

It's would help keep foreign crime down or not let foreign crime do crime in homeland like mexican crime flow into USA, like murder/thief/cause all kind of issues when mexican failed to handle crime, Idk. It's necessary when crime go up because of foreign, that is where border control agencies come in. If all foreign friendly and nice, border control agencies might not need, but again, lot of crime from foreign like mexican flow into usa, is why USA increase support for border control agencies.

Rather than respond by just saying "You're wrong, LOL" (which, believe me, was a temptation), I thought it was important to show you WHY this is wrong.

Unfortunately it is getting more difficult to find actual factual information regarding this from the USA (the facts don't fit the government narrative, so the government has tried to limit access to the facts). However, I WAS able to find documents from the Department of Justice that demonstrate the fallacy of the idea that crime comes from immigrants.

According to this document (see especially pages 2 and 3), not only are immigrants into the USA less likely to commit crimes, they are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants are less likely than documented immigrants to commit crimes. When we focus in on violent crime as opposed to crime in general, the difference increases in its scale. Not only are immigrants less likely to commit crimes, they're EVEN LESS likely to commit violent crimes.

The entire basis of the harshness with which the USA approaches immigrants[1] is flawed, and is based on an idea that is the opposite of the truth.

[1] And let's not pretend other countries are hugely better. We may not have a private army terrorising the community as they enforce immigration law, but we're still pretty draconian about it.

[humility925]

wrong. republicans took extreme measures for border control because of racism, like the BS you just spouted. Just because someone is Mexican, that doesn't make them a murderer or a thief or any sort of other criminal. The US has plenty of home grown murderers and thiefs and so forth, far more than come from any foreign country. But because people from central and south america don't have lilly white skin, they're treated as something less.

what I was try said, it's come down to number from government point of view, local police was support force on handle it local crime, while border control force on foreign crime, not to overwork/overflow on local police, or local police don't know what to do with foreign crime, it's whole system they create for specialist role for speciality issues/problem that not overwork for other department, basic they let fire station force on fire problem, health care force on people health issues (of course people had to paid money, it's not free like some other world), police force on local crime (where home grown murderer, thief, so easy for them to track down due system and computer information network connect, but foreign is sneaking easy and are not in information in their system, so they use other department take care of that issues or problem is where border control agencies come in, similar to animal control agencies where they are specialist and trained (supposely) handle any wild animal or animal or pet with no owner. that is how realistic done in real life.

But real problem is people whatever they are part of goverment or immigrants or citizen that abuse it or cruel. I think they create border control agenices because they can't track or not able to get information, so it's too much work for police to handle too many problem/issues, so police handle with local crime, but foreign crime? that is where border control agencies come in and take ton of problem off from police's work, whatever drug running, or that cause endless crime due drug/money.

They can't use military, they can't use police, so they create this type of agencies for specific problem/issues, that is how done in USA system. I don't know how other world system done. Some other country might kill or shoot foreign while USA just sent person back where belong to (although few or some corrupt would kill or shoot, but other country is much worse, and will go for kill or sent someone to worse (bad place or cruel jail than death, I suppose.) I meant, if police can't find information of foreign background, they might send Border control agencies to deal with it (supportly, it's depend on who police are as not all police are same) it's just government's strategy to handle specific problem/issues in order other department efficient performance.

yes, I do understand some don't like more government control but it's was done due when problem come up, government create agencies or team to deal with specific issues or problem they had, whatever can be use for good or evil. Of course sometime government create problem to gave solution to look good in public, I suppose.

oh, sometime culture/law is not same as everywhere, sometime you might think you don't do anything wrong when visit foreign place, and people that live in foreign or rather government/whoever are in power, be military or police or agencies see you as bad guy and are crime, even you don't do murder/thief, you broken law by being foreign, something like that, I guess that what USA government see that like it even common people don't see anything wrong, while government see wrong, same for other side, people see something wrong and government don't see anything wrong, from mindset point of view. Law/Culture can be use for good or evil. Not every law are good and justice. It's like cruel bad evil king create bad evil law to harm common people.