7 ms·

Less than 100 years ago it was considered NORMAL to segregate black people and prevent access to certain locations in the US. Now it's illegal and considered to

Less than 100 years ago it was considered NORMAL to segregate black people and prevent access to certain locations in the US. Now it's illegal and considered totally unacceptable. Is it possible that in the future it will be considered as unacceptable and illegal to discriminate based on your country of origin? I mean why should a black person from the US have access to different locations than a black person from Nigeria? Or why should a white person from France have access to different locations than a white person from Ukraine?

jmnicolas 11y ago
Because a white person from Ukraine will work for cheaper than me, a white person from France. How long before it's impossible to work for a decent salary (which are already not that decent in France). And there's the problem of welfare, look at what's happening in Calais. All the illegal immigrants from Africa are trying to reach England from this French Port since they believe England is the best welfare state. So yeah I agree we're all brothers, but I'd rather see French in France and Ukrainians in Ukraine.
- ignoramous 11y ago
  As a matter of national security, some things may never come to pass. But as the world progresses towards a better future, the boundaries will vanish, if they haven't already. Who would have thought the EU was possible just 60 years back? The European countries have a long history of wars and hostile relationships stretching from the medivial ages up to 1945. The case of cheap labour isn't a valid argument anymore. If the value-add is significant, then certain things will happen, thanks to the capitalistic nature of businesses in the West.
- realusername 11y ago
  I agree, people are always saying they want to abolish borders but in reality, there are hard consequences to that, you need to have some border for countries to improve. Otherwise everyone is just going to move somewhere else with a better quality of life and this is providing a race to the bottom with giant slums in those places whereas some countries would be almost empty because everyone would move.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Studies show that increased immigration is actually good for the economy. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/bernie-sanders-open-borders-economy http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/bernie-... has a bunch of sources for that. Besides, if extremely large numbers of immigrants would be harmful, you can open up borders gradually.
    - realusername 11y ago
      I don't doubt that, it's just I don't believe in opening borders in one go, it would be too brutal and it would do more harm than good but indeed if we open the borders slowly little by little and improve the conditions in other countries in the mean time (to reduce inequality between countries) it could be much better. Otherwise you are going to have 15M Chinese and Indians moving into the same city in just a few months, it would be way too brutal. So maybe one day it will work but for now, there is way too much inequality for this to work.
    - Nursie 11y ago
      >> Studies show that increased immigration is actually good for the economy. Yes, but I believe the jury is still out on whether it actually benefits the ordinary workers in that economy, or if just benefits business by providing a cheaper workforce.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        One study I saw suggested that 90% of workers saw improvements. Edit: see https://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf
        Nursie 11y ago
        Well, that's certainly interesting. It does say there seemed to be a small negative effect on the least educated, who are presumably competing for jobs at the low end.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  > How long before it's impossible to work for a decent salary (which are already not that decent in France). So, it is already impossible for the person in Ukraine to work for what you consider a decent salary. The people above you on this scale are using politics to make sure your salary and opportunities stay low as well. You get a monopoly type of advantage here, but you can't compete fairly in other countries and in other situations, when you are a consumer. This is a power structure that should not be something you seek to maintain. I doubt closed borders benefit you, except on a very short-term scale.
- jotm 11y ago
  On the one hand, I support open borders and immigration, but on the other hand, it's human nature to go where it's easier to live instead of trying to better your current place of residence. Without borders, people will just flock from one place to another, destabilizing and draining the cities of resources until other places become more desirable, and when that happens, they'll just move to other, better places. It's very much like all the nomadic tribes of old (incl. North American Indians), and the gypsies today, only the world is overcrowded and we can't maintain a progressing, stable civilization with that kind of lifestyle. I believe education plays a key factor, people need to change their worldviews and culture to live together on Earth, and that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Maybe if the rich would invest in infrastructure all over the world, to better everyone at the same time. Too many times I've seen millionaires living in huge mansions while the neighborhoods around them crumble. But they won't invest in their local community because there's no ROI (They really need $24 million in their bank accounts, 1 million less would be catastrophic, right? /s), and they can always move somewhere better. This mentality is destructive...
  - ux-app 11y ago
    > "Without borders, people will just flock from one place to another, destabilizing and draining the cities of resources..." I'm not sure about that. After all, even within countries there are huge disparities between regions and we don't see this effect take place.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      Where are there larger disparities inside of a country than from a large emigrating country? The reason people from Mississippi don't all pack up and move to California is they are per capita richer than the UK, even though in the US that state is considered the poorest.
      - ux-app 11y ago
        Off the top of my head I don't know of any one country that has a huge disparity (though I'm sure examples exist), but the EU is a good case study. Legal Economic migration within the EU is definitely an issue, however it hasn't resulted in "destabilizing and draining the cities of resources". E.g. Estonia's GDP is 99.07% smaller than the UK's[1], and Estonia is not empty. Edit - as pointed out below a per-capita comparison makes much more sense... oops [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=estonia+gdp+vs+uk+ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=estonia+gdp+vs+uk+ Edit: I know that GDP is not a measure of standard of living, but they are correlated and it servers as a reasonable proxy
chipsy 11y ago
There are many arguments made to support the case of global open borders. The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down; however, the megacities of the developing world are a case study in what actually happens in such a situation, and although it presents major challenges, it's not all bad. Cities and economies benefit when they get bigger, even as extreme dysfunctions creep in. However, it's ultimately moot as long as leaders look towards questions of immigration, nationality, and origin as useful wedge issues.
- sillygeese 11y ago
  It's interesting how we normal people discuss and debate the merits and justifications for various policies that we have no say in. We automatically assume that our Dear Leaders are doing the same, weighing the pros and cons of whatever decisions they're making, and trying to choose wisely. But in reality, they're just pursuing their personal gain at our expense. For example, a free trade agreement is really simple: just "agree" to let people trade freely. Can you guess if people would like that? But politicians want their bribes and various business conglomerates want obstacles to competing with them. Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? See how this works? Does it look like our hallowed leaders are working in our interest? Do you think they have a reason to? I mean, if they just get out of the way and let people produce wealth and trade freely, what's in it for them?
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? I'm sorry but this ignores the converse side of this. Our system of laws and protections has been built up over many years and if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place. That reason may be buried in layers of legal cruft. It may be obscured entirely. It may not even be relevant any more. Perhaps that means that laws should be reviewed more often, but it doesn't mean throwing out the rulebook in its entirety and then going on to repeat the same mistakes that lead us to have the rules in the first place. >> Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.
antillean 11y ago
> I mean why should a black person from the US have access to different locations than a black person from Nigeria? Or why should a white person from France have access to different locations than a white person from Ukraine? Because "the US" and "Nigeria" and "France" and "Ukraine" are political communities that have set up rules about membership in those communities and access to the territory and property of those communities, and while some of those rules are no doubt unjust -- the strong British and French preference for their wealthy, mostly white European neighbours over their poor, mostly non-white former colonial subjects being two examples -- justice probably allows these communities quite a lot of this kind of space in making these rules.
Asbostos 11y ago
This is what's bizarre about self-professed high-morals people. They say gays should be treated equally, blacks too, and even people with all kinds of diseases. There's even a human right called "freedom of movement". But somehow all concept of morals and treating people fairly goes out the window when it comes to the wrong kind of outsiders - foreigners. Imagine if civil rights activists had said "equal treatment of blacks and whites is important! But let's not do it too quickly because the flood of blacks into the former white-only areas will create too much disruption. It might wreck our polite society. Let's gradually give blacks more and more freedoms as long as the civilized people can retain their comfortable positions."

jmnicolas 11y ago

Because a white person from Ukraine will work for cheaper than me, a white person from France. How long before it's impossible to work for a decent salary (which are already not that decent in France). And there's the problem of welfare, look at what's happening in Calais. All the illegal immigrants from Africa are trying to reach England from this French Port since they believe England is the best welfare state. So yeah I agree we're all brothers, but I'd rather see French in France and Ukrainians in Ukraine.

ignoramous 11y ago
As a matter of national security, some things may never come to pass. But as the world progresses towards a better future, the boundaries will vanish, if they haven't already. Who would have thought the EU was possible just 60 years back? The European countries have a long history of wars and hostile relationships stretching from the medivial ages up to 1945. The case of cheap labour isn't a valid argument anymore. If the value-add is significant, then certain things will happen, thanks to the capitalistic nature of businesses in the West.
realusername 11y ago
I agree, people are always saying they want to abolish borders but in reality, there are hard consequences to that, you need to have some border for countries to improve. Otherwise everyone is just going to move somewhere else with a better quality of life and this is providing a race to the bottom with giant slums in those places whereas some countries would be almost empty because everyone would move.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Studies show that increased immigration is actually good for the economy. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/bernie-sanders-open-borders-economy http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/bernie-... has a bunch of sources for that. Besides, if extremely large numbers of immigrants would be harmful, you can open up borders gradually.
  - realusername 11y ago
    I don't doubt that, it's just I don't believe in opening borders in one go, it would be too brutal and it would do more harm than good but indeed if we open the borders slowly little by little and improve the conditions in other countries in the mean time (to reduce inequality between countries) it could be much better. Otherwise you are going to have 15M Chinese and Indians moving into the same city in just a few months, it would be way too brutal. So maybe one day it will work but for now, there is way too much inequality for this to work.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> Studies show that increased immigration is actually good for the economy. Yes, but I believe the jury is still out on whether it actually benefits the ordinary workers in that economy, or if just benefits business by providing a cheaper workforce.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      One study I saw suggested that 90% of workers saw improvements. Edit: see https://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w12497.pdf
      - Nursie 11y ago
        Well, that's certainly interesting. It does say there seemed to be a small negative effect on the least educated, who are presumably competing for jobs at the low end.
learnstats2 11y ago
> How long before it's impossible to work for a decent salary (which are already not that decent in France). So, it is already impossible for the person in Ukraine to work for what you consider a decent salary. The people above you on this scale are using politics to make sure your salary and opportunities stay low as well. You get a monopoly type of advantage here, but you can't compete fairly in other countries and in other situations, when you are a consumer. This is a power structure that should not be something you seek to maintain. I doubt closed borders benefit you, except on a very short-term scale.
jotm 11y ago
On the one hand, I support open borders and immigration, but on the other hand, it's human nature to go where it's easier to live instead of trying to better your current place of residence. Without borders, people will just flock from one place to another, destabilizing and draining the cities of resources until other places become more desirable, and when that happens, they'll just move to other, better places. It's very much like all the nomadic tribes of old (incl. North American Indians), and the gypsies today, only the world is overcrowded and we can't maintain a progressing, stable civilization with that kind of lifestyle. I believe education plays a key factor, people need to change their worldviews and culture to live together on Earth, and that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Maybe if the rich would invest in infrastructure all over the world, to better everyone at the same time. Too many times I've seen millionaires living in huge mansions while the neighborhoods around them crumble. But they won't invest in their local community because there's no ROI (They really need $24 million in their bank accounts, 1 million less would be catastrophic, right? /s), and they can always move somewhere better. This mentality is destructive...
- ux-app 11y ago
  > "Without borders, people will just flock from one place to another, destabilizing and draining the cities of resources..." I'm not sure about that. After all, even within countries there are huge disparities between regions and we don't see this effect take place.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    Where are there larger disparities inside of a country than from a large emigrating country? The reason people from Mississippi don't all pack up and move to California is they are per capita richer than the UK, even though in the US that state is considered the poorest.
    - ux-app 11y ago
      Off the top of my head I don't know of any one country that has a huge disparity (though I'm sure examples exist), but the EU is a good case study. Legal Economic migration within the EU is definitely an issue, however it hasn't resulted in "destabilizing and draining the cities of resources". E.g. Estonia's GDP is 99.07% smaller than the UK's[1], and Estonia is not empty. Edit - as pointed out below a per-capita comparison makes much more sense... oops [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=estonia+gdp+vs+uk+ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=estonia+gdp+vs+uk+ Edit: I know that GDP is not a measure of standard of living, but they are correlated and it servers as a reasonable proxy

chipsy 11y ago

There are many arguments made to support the case of global open borders. The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down; however, the megacities of the developing world are a case study in what actually happens in such a situation, and although it presents major challenges, it's not all bad. Cities and economies benefit when they get bigger, even as extreme dysfunctions creep in. However, it's ultimately moot as long as leaders look towards questions of immigration, nationality, and origin as useful wedge issues.

sillygeese 11y ago
It's interesting how we normal people discuss and debate the merits and justifications for various policies that we have no say in. We automatically assume that our Dear Leaders are doing the same, weighing the pros and cons of whatever decisions they're making, and trying to choose wisely. But in reality, they're just pursuing their personal gain at our expense. For example, a free trade agreement is really simple: just "agree" to let people trade freely. Can you guess if people would like that? But politicians want their bribes and various business conglomerates want obstacles to competing with them. Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? See how this works? Does it look like our hallowed leaders are working in our interest? Do you think they have a reason to? I mean, if they just get out of the way and let people produce wealth and trade freely, what's in it for them?
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? I'm sorry but this ignores the converse side of this. Our system of laws and protections has been built up over many years and if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place. That reason may be buried in layers of legal cruft. It may be obscured entirely. It may not even be relevant any more. Perhaps that means that laws should be reviewed more often, but it doesn't mean throwing out the rulebook in its entirety and then going on to repeat the same mistakes that lead us to have the rules in the first place. >> Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.

antillean 11y ago

> I mean why should a black person from the US have access to different locations than a black person from Nigeria? Or why should a white person from France have access to different locations than a white person from Ukraine? Because "the US" and "Nigeria" and "France" and "Ukraine" are political communities that have set up rules about membership in those communities and access to the territory and property of those communities, and while some of those rules are no doubt unjust -- the strong British and French preference for their wealthy, mostly white European neighbours over their poor, mostly non-white former colonial subjects being two examples -- justice probably allows these communities quite a lot of this kind of space in making these rules.

Asbostos 11y ago

This is what's bizarre about self-professed high-morals people. They say gays should be treated equally, blacks too, and even people with all kinds of diseases. There's even a human right called "freedom of movement". But somehow all concept of morals and treating people fairly goes out the window when it comes to the wrong kind of outsiders - foreigners. Imagine if civil rights activists had said "equal treatment of blacks and whites is important! But let's not do it too quickly because the flood of blacks into the former white-only areas will create too much disruption. It might wreck our polite society. Let's gradually give blacks more and more freedoms as long as the civilized people can retain their comfortable positions."