3 ms·

So that makes it OK when we, as a group, decide that brown people don't deserve to live happy healthy lives because they are taking our jobs.

rayiner 10y ago
It's not a judgment on what people deserve, but on what you are willing to give up to help them. School children in Africa don't deserve to go hungry, but tons of people on HN are still going to buy a shiny new MacBook Pro this year instead of using that money to feed dozens of kids in the developing world for a year.[1] The fact that restricting immigration is a group choice while not donating money is an individual choice changes nothing about the morality. Either way, you're choosing to increase your own standard of living instead of helping someone who is already much worse off than yourself. The cynic in me thinks the real difference is who pays. Educated people living on the coasts bear the same costs as less educated people in border areas when it comes to food donations, but bear a small fraction of the costs when it comes to increased immigration. That makes it easier for them to support the latter in comparison to committing to the former. [1] http://www.uniteforsight.org/hunger/module3 http://www.uniteforsight.org/hunger/module3.
- shuntress 10y ago
  First, thank you for your very reasonable response to my (regrettably) inflammatory post. But both issues are similarly nuanced. In the same way I can't just trust that a donation to any random opaque 'help the children' fund is actually effectively helping starving children, we can't just blindly open all borders and take in every tired, poor, huddled mass. But there is a very, very clear middle ground. I can research aid organizations to find one that I believe will use my donation effectively. We can build systems to establish qualified immigrants with the same basic starting point we agree everyone should have (food stamps/healthcare/temporary unemployment assistance/affordable housing) so they can start a life here.

rayiner 10y ago

It's not a judgment on what people deserve, but on what you are willing to give up to help them. School children in Africa don't deserve to go hungry, but tons of people on HN are still going to buy a shiny new MacBook Pro this year instead of using that money to feed dozens of kids in the developing world for a year.[1] The fact that restricting immigration is a group choice while not donating money is an individual choice changes nothing about the morality. Either way, you're choosing to increase your own standard of living instead of helping someone who is already much worse off than yourself. The cynic in me thinks the real difference is who pays. Educated people living on the coasts bear the same costs as less educated people in border areas when it comes to food donations, but bear a small fraction of the costs when it comes to increased immigration. That makes it easier for them to support the latter in comparison to committing to the former. [1] http://www.uniteforsight.org/hunger/module3 http://www.uniteforsight.org/hunger/module3.

shuntress 10y ago
First, thank you for your very reasonable response to my (regrettably) inflammatory post. But both issues are similarly nuanced. In the same way I can't just trust that a donation to any random opaque 'help the children' fund is actually effectively helping starving children, we can't just blindly open all borders and take in every tired, poor, huddled mass. But there is a very, very clear middle ground. I can research aid organizations to find one that I believe will use my donation effectively. We can build systems to establish qualified immigrants with the same basic starting point we agree everyone should have (food stamps/healthcare/temporary unemployment assistance/affordable housing) so they can start a life here.