You didn't provide any analysis into why things are different now, and offered up a truism. A country is "allowed" to do anything it can get away with. Like declaring war on all of its neighbors. I don't feel like I need to be protected from foreigners. Why do you?
The US existed very prosperously without the current system of asylum requests, immigration judges, Green Cards or Visas, while also enforcing its borders and protecting its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners.
About 2% of the millions who arrived at Ellis Island were turned back.
Norway does not require a visa or residency permit for foreigners to live on Svalbard. "Regardless of citizenship, persons can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely." (Wikipedia.) That said, there are "Regulations relating to rejection and expulsion of persons from Svalbard". They are applied equally to all citizens.
And yes, it is possible for a foreigner to live in Svalbard, without need for a permit, and gain Norwegian citizenship.
I don't think any one country would do this on their own, but a contested region that caused people to cooperate surely would. Like if Antarctica was turned into an international region, a bunch of countries would make it visa free as a matter of treaty.
Okay, but the thesis is: "Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable."
There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.
That one counter-example would seem to put the thesis into dispute.
The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia, since even in the 19-oughts when immigration was one percent of the US population every year, there were still controls, and not everyone was accepted.
> There is part of Norway where anyone is allowed to immigrate to, so long as they follow the same rules which equally apply to Norwegian citizens.
But it isn't really a part of Norway, or wouldn't be a part of Norway if Norway didn't give into Russian demands after WW2 (Russia had a claim on it as well, and it could have gone their way instead). That is a fluke, it isn't something Norway exactly wanted, but it was something they were willing to accept.
You still need a Schengen visa to get there (since you have to transit through Norway proper, Russia doesn't do flights there anymore). They will immediately kick you out if you don't have means to stay (regardless of nationality), so the whole influx of foreigners moving into Svalbard to squat w/o a job is simply not allowed (since you need money for a hotel or apartment or you'll freeze to death/get eaten by polar bears...and there are only a limited number of those available).
> The appeal to 'uncontrolled influx of foreigners' is just strawman xenophobia
While it may still be a strawman, Svalbard doesn't really provide for an effective counter-example as evidence.
If living there can give you Norwegian citizenship then yes, it's really part of Norway.
The Svalbard treaty says outright "The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen". It's part of Norway.
You do not need a Schengen visa if you go directly there by boat or charter plane. That may be very expensive, yes, but a visa is not required.
Yes, you can be kicked out without a job or way to live there. Going back to the US in 1900, https://lost-in-history.com/an-immigrants-ellis-island-fate-... says in 1900 an immigrant to the US at Ellis Island was required to have at least $50, and of course the travel ticket was expensive.
The underlying point is that someone who wants to immigrate to Svalbard, and has enough money for the trip, can try to do so without first seeking permission from the Norwegian government, and without claiming refugee status.
Just like how the US in 1900 accepted immigrants without needing visas.
Neither the US in 1900 nor Norway now can be described as failing to 'enforce its borders and protect its citizens from an uncontrolled influx of foreigners' because in neither case is it uncontrolled, highlighting how blinddriver's answer has no logical relevance to the topic.
