Every year, thousands of people die because of borders. They die due to persecution or extreme poverty beyond them, or they die trying to cross them. These are people who have children, they are trying to give a better life, to protect them from bombs, people who are not allowed to express their sexual orientation in their home countries, people who are persecuted due to a lack of freedom of speech, people who are fleeing.

Most of us think of borders as something tangible and easy to define. They are considered to be boundaries between nation states and tangible in the form of fences, security gates, and airports. But on closer inspection, it becomes clear that it is not nation states that define their borders – rather, it is borders that create the nation states. An example of this can be seen in the borders of Africa and the Middle East, which were drawn up by colonial powers across ethnic groups. In some cases, borders split ethnic groups and communities, and in others, nation states consist of many different ethnic groups, communities, cultures, and religions.

Borders can be defined differently by different groups of people. Many Westerners see borders as something that is easy to cross by waving a passport and passing through a metal detector. For others, borders mean danger to life, lack of freedom, poverty, and death.

In the same way, the abolition of borders means different things. For those of us who have grown up with the privileges of Western societies, the abolition of borders means passport-free travel and is therefore primarily a luxury. For many others, the abolition of borders means being able to settle wherever they want in the world, whether or not that involves some paperwork. Many Icelanders, for example, do not realize how difficult it is for someone from outside the EEA to get permission to live in Iceland. The abolition of borders could, for instance, mean that anyone could settle here and that the discrimination based on origin that currently exists would end.

Aside from the ideal of abolishing borders and racism, there is little that connects the groups that operate under the name No Borders. Many questions arise when we talk about a world without borders. As nation states are defined by their geographical boundaries, wouldn’t a borderless world mean the end of the nation state? Would there still be a legislature after the abolition of borders, and if so, over what territory and what people would its authority extend? No agreement has been reached on the answers to these questions. Even though the abolition of borders is a radical and revolutionary idea, not all No Borders activists are followers of anarchism. In fact, much of No Borders' work is about ensuring that laws and rules are followed, or about reviewing them. Many of the activists who work with the movement primarily fight for states to respect human rights as they are defined by international agreements. Many focus entirely on legal aid. While other No Borders activists may disagree with the method of negotiating with the state and allowing it the power to define what human rights are and what are not, international No Borders movements agree not to obstruct one another and welcome any attempt to help the victims of border control.

Would a world without borders lead to the unification of humanity, or would social tension increase if millions of people moved across the globe? What about illegal drugs? What about human trafficking? What about crime? Should we allow these to flow freely across the earth? Many problems await us, and most of them we have no solution to. We do not deny that the abolition of all borders in one day would cause all kinds of problems, but it cannot be overlooked that borders themselves have created many of the social conditions that cause crime, poverty, drug abuse, etc. While capital flows freely in and out of the “third world,” the same cannot be said of the people who live there. While travel, business, and freedom can only be obtained with a passport, a vast part of humanity lives with the reality that a legal passport is just a distant dream. That is why borders are one of the tools that make imperialism, exploitation, and inequality possible. They oppress the poor and war-torn while the rich and powerful profit from these factors.

Would a borderless world lead to the end of the world as we know it? – Yes, without a doubt. A world torn apart by technologically advanced warfare, nationalism, and economic tyranny would hardly be possible without borders. No Borders recognises the problems that could arise due to cultural clashes. The movement does not have an overly simplistic approach when it comes to refugees or asylum seekers. It does not necessarily aim for better living conditions for the “good,” “innocent,” or law-abiding. The ideology is simple and clear: we simply define the right to move as a fundamental human right that everyone should be able to take for granted, and therefore, we see borders as a form of violence and oppression.

As long as borders exist, separation exists. We want to end this separation and are willing to face the consequences. How we go about this is for each individual to figure out, just like with any other problem in life.

The movement is widespread, diverse, and loosely connected. There are no common decisions on how it works toward its goals. Its methods around the world range from throwing bricks to more common methods such as participation in public debate, protests, direct action, and legal aid. Fundraising usually takes place through concerts and other events, and the cause is promoted at gatherings, protests, court cases, in publications, and online.

How a No Borders group works is up to the group itself to decide and take responsibility for. All methods are usable as long as they do not harm the cause, and collaboration is common with other organisations. No Borders often works with other groups, such as anarchists or squatters, and therefore No Borders groups often use the decision-making methods of these groups, where participatory democracy is practised and efforts are made to prevent hierarchies within the movement. However, it is always up to each group how its organisation and methods are.

One of the characteristics of the movement is the emphasis on solidarity rather than leadership, and therefore, the groups often support other groups that are organised by immigrants or refugees themselves.

What hurts the most is that although individual refugees have benefited from the work of No Borders, the movement has not succeeded in achieving any fundamental changes in law or improvements in how the authorities handle the affairs of asylum seekers and immigrants. Refugees are still kept in Keflavík like goods waiting to be exported, while the Icelandic Coast Guard guards borders in southern Europe for Frontex, where almost every refugee who applies for asylum here is arrested and imprisoned, and those responsible for this sit comfortably in good positions and are not held accountable for their decisions.

On the other hand, activism like that practised by No Borders has only existed in Iceland for 17 years, and there are not many who have lifted a finger to help asylum seekers and fight for the rights of foreigners. We hope this is just the beginning and that more will see themselves able to work for this cause, form more groups, and create better methods to abolish borders, real and imagined. No Borders aims for a multicultural society, total freedom of movement, and the end of nationalism and racism. At some point, it has to start – and why not now?

We will continue to fight until borders are gone and authority collapses under its own greed.

For all those who fight against oppression, here and elsewhere!

For all those who believe that no human being is illegal!

For all those who know that the fight against racism today is the fight against racism of the past and future!

No more deportations!

Freedom of movement and settlement for all!

Long live the struggle of the wild and free!