Adelman and Aron suggest that the establishing of fixed borders created a time in which “property rights, citizenship, and population movements” were domain of governments [1]. Fixed borders are a relatively new concept in North America, considering that indigenous groups have inhabited the land for thousands of years. Habits do not change overnight, and the implementation of borders did not immediately change the way that people acted in regards to borders. Older dynamics were still in play even after fixed borders were enforced by national governments; yet, as time went on, different groups began to use these newly implemented borders to their advantage. There are practices such as using passport systems, that were used even before the implementation of fixed national borders. The concept of maps changed with the implementation of fixed borders, since the European settlers and indigenous populations had different attitudes surrounding the way territories existed. Upon the enforcement of fixed borders, nomadic groups such as the Comanche and Métis were forced to abandon their nomadic ways and become sedentary. Slaves used the fixed borders as an opportunity to escape from the …show more content…
The morality of expatriation is irrelevant-- what is relevant is the fact that the creation of fixed borders ushered in an era where the concept of expatriation began to be discussed. Without borders, the ethical implications of expatriation would not need to be debated, since everyone would be able to move freely throughout the land as they so desired[8]. As Adelman and Aron argue, the creation of fixed borders takes away mobility, opportunities, and freedom, and brings about restraints and oppression. The creation of the borders that are known today took away the freedom of mobility, and gave power to state authorities to implement