4 ms·

Why are people "already in the country" more deserving than those outside? Why is this a meaningful moral distinction rather than "already in the right religion

Why are people "already in the country" more deserving than those outside? Why is this a meaningful moral distinction rather than "already in the right religion" or "already of the right race"? I propose helping the millions by not using violence to prevent them from performing labor for willing employers (an action which makes both them and the employer better off). That's all. Sure. Let's open the doors so we have more harassment of women, homosexuals and increased Anti-semitism. If we have adequate law enforcement, isn't this a problem that will rapidly solve itself? The solution is simple: immigrant assaults a homosexual, has his possessions confiscated, goes do jail and is then permanently deported on exit. The ones who don't commit crimes can continue to peacefully trade with locals. If you want to impose collective punishment over statistical disparities in crime, should we also collectively punish Black Americans due to their high crime rate?

raverbashing 10y ago
> Why are people "already in the country" more deserving than those outside? In average, they aren't. But life isn't fair. You might as well ask why those that came are deserving of help and not others, and your ability to help before it gets detrimental to the collective. > I propose helping the millions by not using violence to prevent them from performing labor for willing employers (an action which makes both them and the employer better off). I don't disagree with this, and I'm sure several do that under the table already. But it seems some have a "rosier" idea of what you'll get http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Exakt/Falsche-Versprechen-locken-Fl%C3%BCchtlinge-a/MDR-Fernsehen/Video?bcastId=7545124&documentId=35277952 http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Exakt/Falsche-Versprechen-lock... > If we have adequate law enforcement, isn't this a problem that will rapidly solve itself? The solution is simple: immigrant assaults a homosexual, has his possessions confiscated, goes do jail and is then permanently deported on exit. If it worked like this I would be satisfied. But it's usually not so effective.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you support unfair collective punishment and protectionism, why limit it to nationality-based groups? Why not restrict work opportunities for Black Americans also? And to protect "us" from the high rate of crime committed by Blacks, why not force them to live on the other side of town where they are less likely to harm "us"? (I put "us" in quotes, since I don't consider "us" to refer to any morally meaningful group.)
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Good. I suggest you go to your local animal shelter and adopt a cat. But then you'll be favouring one over the other. Even better, adopt all the cats they have there, lest you support unfair collective punishment.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      A better analogy would be that I adopt a cat and threaten people with violence for adopting the other cats. I didn't say an employer must hire all (or any) anyone. I just said that if a Canadian is willing to pay a Tamil to cook her food, we shouldn't threaten these people with violence to prevent them from engaging in this peaceful trade. In any case, taking as a given your previous premises (that unfair protectionism is ok based on statistical properties), you seem to have no rational problem with bringing back racial segregation?
      - raverbashing 10y ago
        I think it's so funny that you're implying I'm racist, but I guess that's what happens when they are firmly rooted in their biased convictions I'll just add that as a note, Canadians are the worse case of "I'm not racist, but" that I've ever seen. Canadian immigration process is severely biased towards things like education level, criminal background and language knowledge. So unfair, right?!
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm not implying your racist. I suspect you aren't. I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to have a rational reason not to be - your reasoning supports racism just as well as nationalism. This simply means your position is unreasoned - merely a collection of arbitrary views held together by emotion, tribalism, mood affiliation and similar things. That's all. If you dispute this diagnosis, can you state a principled reason to oppose violence against blacks economically competing with whites, but support violence against Indians economically competing with Americans?

raverbashing 10y ago

> Why are people "already in the country" more deserving than those outside? In average, they aren't. But life isn't fair. You might as well ask why those that came are deserving of help and not others, and your ability to help before it gets detrimental to the collective. > I propose helping the millions by not using violence to prevent them from performing labor for willing employers (an action which makes both them and the employer better off). I don't disagree with this, and I'm sure several do that under the table already. But it seems some have a "rosier" idea of what you'll get http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Exakt/Falsche-Versprechen-locken-Fl%C3%BCchtlinge-a/MDR-Fernsehen/Video?bcastId=7545124&documentId=35277952 http://www.ardmediathek.de/tv/Exakt/Falsche-Versprechen-lock... > If we have adequate law enforcement, isn't this a problem that will rapidly solve itself? The solution is simple: immigrant assaults a homosexual, has his possessions confiscated, goes do jail and is then permanently deported on exit. If it worked like this I would be satisfied. But it's usually not so effective.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If you support unfair collective punishment and protectionism, why limit it to nationality-based groups? Why not restrict work opportunities for Black Americans also? And to protect "us" from the high rate of crime committed by Blacks, why not force them to live on the other side of town where they are less likely to harm "us"? (I put "us" in quotes, since I don't consider "us" to refer to any morally meaningful group.)
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Good. I suggest you go to your local animal shelter and adopt a cat. But then you'll be favouring one over the other. Even better, adopt all the cats they have there, lest you support unfair collective punishment.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    A better analogy would be that I adopt a cat and threaten people with violence for adopting the other cats. I didn't say an employer must hire all (or any) anyone. I just said that if a Canadian is willing to pay a Tamil to cook her food, we shouldn't threaten these people with violence to prevent them from engaging in this peaceful trade. In any case, taking as a given your previous premises (that unfair protectionism is ok based on statistical properties), you seem to have no rational problem with bringing back racial segregation?
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      I think it's so funny that you're implying I'm racist, but I guess that's what happens when they are firmly rooted in their biased convictions I'll just add that as a note, Canadians are the worse case of "I'm not racist, but" that I've ever seen. Canadian immigration process is severely biased towards things like education level, criminal background and language knowledge. So unfair, right?!
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm not implying your racist. I suspect you aren't. I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to have a rational reason not to be - your reasoning supports racism just as well as nationalism. This simply means your position is unreasoned - merely a collection of arbitrary views held together by emotion, tribalism, mood affiliation and similar things. That's all. If you dispute this diagnosis, can you state a principled reason to oppose violence against blacks economically competing with whites, but support violence against Indians economically competing with Americans?