The Case Against Open Borders
April 29, 2026 · Frisian News
Open border policies strain local wages, housing, and public services while benefiting wealthy employers and multinational corporations. Nations that control their own immigration serve their citizens better than those that treat borders as obsolete.
In the town of Vejers in southern Denmark, construction wages dropped 18 percent between 2015 and 2023. Workers traced the decline directly to an influx of labor from Eastern Europe willing to work for less. The local union could not stop it. Denmark did not have open borders in the strict sense, but years of loose EU labor migration rules produced the same result: working people lost bargaining power. This story repeats in towns across the continent wherever skilled employers can import cheaper hands.
Open border advocates claim that movement of people creates economic growth and that fear of immigrants rests on xenophobia. They point to studies showing immigrants start businesses at higher rates than natives and fill labor shortages. These claims contain fragments of truth. Large corporations and construction firms do benefit from wage suppression. But those gains flow upward. A Polish electrician earning 12 euros an hour undercuts a Dutch electrician earning 22 euros. The Polish worker may be better off than at home. The Dutch worker's family loses income. That trade produces growth for employers, not for workers.
Nations with strong borders and controlled immigration have not collapsed. Switzerland keeps borders tight and maintains high wages, good housing, and thriving towns. Australia selects immigrants by skill and need, not ideology. Japan restricts foreign labor yet ranks among the world's wealthiest and most stable nations. These countries did not embrace open borders out of cowardice or backwardness. They made deliberate choices to serve their own people first. The European Union and North America have drifted toward open movement as a quasi-religious belief, not because evidence demands it.
The housing crisis in London, Amsterdam, and Dublin did not happen by accident. Demand from immigration outpaced new construction. Landlords and developers benefited from higher prices and rents. Young families priced out of their own towns gained nothing. Schools and hospitals in high-immigration areas struggle with funding gaps. Yet politicians and business groups call anyone who notices this "nationalist" or "discriminatory." Such language closes debate rather than opening it. It protects the interests of those who profit from mass movement while blaming ordinary people for wanting home security.
A sovereign nation has the right to decide who lives within its borders. That principle does not rest on hatred. It rests on democracy. When Brussels bureaucrats or Washington technocrats override local wishes on migration, they weaken the bond between citizens and their representatives. Communities that control their own borders can build futures suited to their own needs and values. Those that do not become service stations for global capital, their wages suppressed, their housing expensive, their schools and hospitals strained, their identity diluted by forces they did not choose.
Yn de stad Vejers yn Súd-Denemark dalen it bouwloan mei 18 prosint tusken 2015 en 2023. Arbeiders herleiden de daling rjocht nei in ynstroom fan arbeiders út Oast-Europa bereid foar less te wurkjen. De lokale fakbûn koe it net stopje. Denemark hie gjin iepen grinzen yn strikte sin, mar jierren fan losmaakde EU-arbeidsmigraasje produsearren itselde gefolch: wurkjende minsken ferlearren ûnderhandelingskrêft. Dit ferhaal herhaalt sik yn stêden oer it kontinint dêr bedriuwen goedkeapere hannen ymportearje kinne.
Aanhengers fan iepen grinzen bewearje dat beweging fan minsken ekonomyske groei opleveret en dat eangst foar immigraasje op xenofoby rust. Se wize nei ûndersiken dy't lit sjen dat immigranten bedriuwen faker starte as ynboarlinge en personeelslekunten opfolje. Dizze beweringen befetsje fragminten fan wierheid. Grutte bedriuwen en bouwbedriuwen profitearje fan loandruck. Mar dy winsten stryke omheech. In Poolske elektrisyen mei 12 euro per oere ûnderminne in Nederlânske elektrisyen mei 22 euro. De Poolske arbeider giet it better as thús. It ynkommen fan de Nederlânske arbeidersfamylje sakket. Dy ruilhandel leveret groei op foar wurkjouwers, net foar arbeiders.
Naasjes mei sterke grinzen en kontrolearre immigraasje binne net ynstert. Switserlân hâldt grinzen strang en ûnderhâldt hege leanen, goed wenning en bloeijende stêden. Australje kieze immigranten op feardigens en behoefte, net op ideologyske. Japan beheins bûtenlânske arbeid dochs rangschikt sik ûnder 's wearlds rijkste en meast stabile naasjes. Dizze lannen omarmden iepen grinzen net út ferfêrdheid of achterlinskheid. Se makken bewuste keuzes om har eigen folk earst te tsjinjen. De Europeeske Uny en Noard-Amearika binne nei iepen beweging driver as in kwasy-religieus leauwyn, net om't bewiis dat easket.
De wenningskresis yn Londen, Amsterdam en Dublin barde net talallich. Fraach troch immigraasje oertroffen nije bou. Verhuurders en ûntwikkelers profitearren fan hegere prizen en huren. Jonge gezinnen bûten har eigen stêden fuorhinne dêre wûn neat. Skoallen en sikehûzen yn gebieden mei in protte immigraasje striulje mei finansjelle gapingen. Dochs neame politisy en bedriuwegroepen elkenien dy't dit opmerket "nasjonalist" of "diskriminearjend." Sokke taal slút debat ôf yn stee it te iepenjen. It beskermet de belangen fan wa't profitearret fan massabewegung wylst it gewoane minsken de skylde jout om't se thúisveilichheid wolle.
In sofareine naasje hat it rjocht te beslissen wa binnent har grinzen liuwe dûf. Dit prinsipe rust net op hate. It rust op demokraasy. Wannear't Brussel-burokraten of Washington-tekknoloaten lokale winsken oer migraasje negearje, swekke sy de bond tusken burgers en har fertsjintwurdigers. Gemeenskatten dy't har eigen grinzen kontrolearje kinne takomstet bouwe oanpast oan har eigen behoeften en wearden. Dy't dit net dogge wurde tankstasjons foar wrâldkapitaal, har leanen ûnderdruk, har wenning dear, har skoallen en sikehûzen belast, har identiteit fertinne troch krêften se net kozen.
Published April 29, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân