Without any border controls people would be forced to assume that anyone from outside their country was a thief or con-man looking to find some quick victims and head home.
I don't really assume people from other states are thieves or con men. I assume the same thing goes for countries in the EU with no border control between their countries.
But you don't really live in a country without borders. Within the EU doesn't count.
In a case of genuine open borders criminals can leave the state quickly to avoid punishment. Then move on to a new target country.
This doesn't happen only because no country signs an open border agreement without also setting up a legal framework to punish criminals who would try to exploit borders to escape punishment.
The reality is that there are bad actors out there and if you aren't stopping them at borders then you'll have to start watching out for them closer to home.
High trust nations are like unpatched machines. You need a firewall.
Why doesn't within the EU count? There are dramatic differences in trust and economic levels between didn't states in the EU, as well as dramatic language differences. Seems like it would be a perfect case study for a region crossing sovereign states without passports.
I'll go with Michael Savage's definition. A country is defined by language, borders, culture.
Presumably, if one demonstrates mastery of language(1) and cultural knowledge(2), he can be assumed to be a countryman.
1) This practice dates back to biblical times.
"Shibboleth": mid 17th cent.: from Hebrew šibbōleṯ ‘ear of corn,’ used as a test of nationality by its difficult pronunciation (Judg. 12:6).
2) Common example: During WW2, if a suspected spy were encountered, mastery of language and accent may not be enough to assess his status. Cultural questions were asked: Where does the NY Mets play? What's Mickey Mouse's girlfriend's name? Questions could also be about celebrities, movie stars, music, novels, etc.
Maybe it's nitpicking but the shibboleth was used to differentiate between members of different tribes of the same people involved in what amounted to a civil war. It is useless for distinguishing between speakers of different languages.
No, that's a good point. My intention was to use it as an example of distinguishing regional dialects, accents, etc. but also native speakers from second-language speakers.
That wouldn't be pleasant for either side.