4 ms·

I don't believe this was the point I was addressing in response to the grandparent. If two candidates appear where one has a much better skillset, it makes sen

I don't believe this was the point I was addressing in response to the grandparent. If two candidates appear where one has a much better skillset, it makes sense (in most frames) to accept the better candidate, I agree. What I was responding to was how there may be no responsibility for the American to renounce his privilege such that the Syrian has an easier time becoming a possible candidate (Both in skill set as well as logistically). Additionally, it may even be irrational for the American to do so if we consider them as adversarial actors (In competition, unlike when recruiting co-workers). Please understand my commentary here is simply in response to the equally extreme logic applied by the grandparent (A world of no nations/borders being optimal) and by no means constitutes my complete opinions on immigration, visas, and the like. We can hopefully elevate the discussion above, allowing immigrants only out of charity, to more rigorous reasons.

Curious42 10y ago
Help me understand why you see the idea of a borderless planet as an 'extreme' logic? I was merely proposing we work towards formulating legalities, economics, security, and other logistics involved such that it benefits the planet — rather than just nations — and consequently makes immigration easier. I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  My apologies, I used the word extreme because it is one end of a spectrum, which is to change everything. I did not mean "extreme" as a value judgement as the word is often implicitly used as. My logic was also extreme in that it argued that nothing should be changed. In regards to your second paragraph, I know you didn't and I hopefully didn't insinuate that you did. I'll try to clarify: Moving from the current system would be done by the American (Person of privilege) helping the Syrian compete for his job, which the American logically may not be interested in, given that it threatens his or her stability. My apologies, again, if you believe my comment was convoluted. I can rephrase if you direct me to what specifically was difficult.

Curious42 10y ago

Help me understand why you see the idea of a borderless planet as an 'extreme' logic? I was merely proposing we work towards formulating legalities, economics, security, and other logistics involved such that it benefits the planet — rather than just nations — and consequently makes immigration easier. I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.

alextheparrot 10y ago
My apologies, I used the word extreme because it is one end of a spectrum, which is to change everything. I did not mean "extreme" as a value judgement as the word is often implicitly used as. My logic was also extreme in that it argued that nothing should be changed. In regards to your second paragraph, I know you didn't and I hopefully didn't insinuate that you did. I'll try to clarify: Moving from the current system would be done by the American (Person of privilege) helping the Syrian compete for his job, which the American logically may not be interested in, given that it threatens his or her stability. My apologies, again, if you believe my comment was convoluted. I can rephrase if you direct me to what specifically was difficult.