10 ms·

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

39 points by monort 10y ago

CuriouslyC 10y ago
The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  Doesn't unrestricted immigration also eliminate the choice of some (those whose government enacts different policies with the new voters)? I don't think "choice" is how you decide these arguments. Either your choice to make noise limits my choice to sleep or vice versa. There is not always a way to limit the choice of none.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    If people choose to emigrate to places based on their agreement with current policy (which you would expect if we can achieve some parity in terms of opportunity) then no. In regards to the condition of conflicting interests, all you really have is mutual agreement among all involved parties. In this case, you agree to make less noise late at night in exchange for my agreement not to turn the neighborhood against you by telling everyone what a dick you are. Unfortunately given the dissolution of community reputation isn't the effective check it once was, and as a result we end up being both alienated and mired in bureaucracy.
- skylan_q 10y ago
  >and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package. Is this trolling? I really can't comprehend any point you have here. That people from outside a nation have the right to immigrate to a nation or else the nation is at risk of... what, exactly?
- coldtea 10y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. "A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone. So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether. Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people. You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living. It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions. Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.
  - fleitz 10y ago
    Yeah people seem to definitely think US troops don't have the right of 'immigration'
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the "right wing" groups because it seems so obvious. Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off. So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin? Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Do you mean immigration, or emigration? A person can choose to leave, if at least one of the 180-someodd other countries in the world will take them. Or they can go to unoccupied land, which is admittedly in very short supply (Antarctica, Bir Tawil). I believe you can also go to Svalbard if you do so without passing through another nation on the way which would restrict your passage.
lngnmn 10y ago
There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.
- Doxin 10y ago
  IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or at the very least an okay life.
jerkstate 10y ago
No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question. It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.
  - Kequc 10y ago
    How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.
- wayn3 10y ago
  Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them? Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle. Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history. This is an interesting claim to make. For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration. And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.
coldtea 10y ago
Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs. Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one. Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there? And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question. P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no further immigration to our parts" -- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical. P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.
- jerkstate 10y ago
  The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other natural and national laws.)
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now. On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.
    - jerkstate 10y ago
      It's useful to go back to the Enlightenment to gain context about the origins of that meta-level philosophy and try to articulate what's changed and why those laws of nations are no longer valid. It could be the basis of a new Enlightenment.
venomsnake 10y ago
No
unlmtd 10y ago
The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  The right of ownership is granted by the state. If there is no state you own nothing
- jerkstate 10y ago
  For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.
    - jerkstate 10y ago
      >If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. [citation needed]
- coldtea 10y ago
  First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners. You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land. So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast. Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land). Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises. So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.
Hydraulix989 10y ago
Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.
- arcticbull 10y ago
  Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.
    - arcticbull 10y ago
      Sorry for the confusion I mean movement within the EU as an EU national, and in turn, I was referring to the hypothetical open border between the US and Canada for their own nationals.
      - Hydraulix989 10y ago
        Right, and if you can't see how the assertion is true, then you don't understand basic economics -- specifically, the concept of paucity. Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing arrow next to his.
WillyOnWheels 10y ago
The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.
- whorleater 10y ago
  Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?
  - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
    That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.
    - woofyman 10y ago
      How long should the statue of limitations be? The European colonial powers fucked around South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
      - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
        I also would give immigrants from Central America a break here in the US because we benefit so much from selling them goods, and the labor they provide for the agriculture industry. I'm just pulling this out of my butt but I don't think the US exports much to other countries besides weapons and food.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        There should not be a statue of limitations. Americans act as is 20 years even is ancient history. Even after 100 or 150 years, a huge damage can still resonate to a country.
  - wayn3 10y ago
    Let's talk about the ethnic Koreans living in Japan first. They feel like second class citizens. Heavily discriminated against.
75dvtwin 10y ago
The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here "... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...." Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing. Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies. First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy. Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".
- fleitz 10y ago
  The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible to make that happen
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
return0 10y ago
Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?
- classicsnoot 10y ago
  To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions. Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure. The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  Because it makes it easier to dismiss the concerns of those who disagree or bring up actual problems with the issue at hand.
- cttet 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_State...
fixxer 10y ago
The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism. Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit? I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!). In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.
- nyrulez 10y ago
  I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.
  - pimmen89 10y ago
    The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into? Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
phy6 10y ago
Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town. Edited because I was distracted by children.
- exit 10y ago
  in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't form a consensus with the others there. i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.
  - phy6 10y ago
    We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace, including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.
microcolonel 10y ago
>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified. This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights. With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.
gonmf 10y ago
There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.
exit 10y ago
the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the passport regime has destroyed that. nationality is segregation.
- Banthum 10y ago
  No, nationality is property rights. Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).
  - thescribe 10y ago
    I hadn't though of nationality as property rights, but it makes a ton of sense. Thank you.
booleandilemma 10y ago
I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in. Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.
- arcticbull 10y ago
  Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there? There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium. One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.
  - ap3 10y ago
    Or it's not so awesome
coldtea 10y ago
>1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture. 3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations. The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is. First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so). But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea. Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to). First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration. And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for). But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?
Koshkin 10y ago
It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one's philosophy. For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a right to immigrate into your home? If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.
wz1000 10y ago
An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis. Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.
Mikeb85 10y ago
First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited. The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world. The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population. So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world. Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses. And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page: "In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores! I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information." And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight
yellowapple 10y ago
Is there a right for a person to move into my house? Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even "my" house in the first place?
ap3 10y ago
My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?

39 points by monort 10y ago

The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.

_yosefk 10y ago
Doesn't unrestricted immigration also eliminate the choice of some (those whose government enacts different policies with the new voters)? I don't think "choice" is how you decide these arguments. Either your choice to make noise limits my choice to sleep or vice versa. There is not always a way to limit the choice of none.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  If people choose to emigrate to places based on their agreement with current policy (which you would expect if we can achieve some parity in terms of opportunity) then no. In regards to the condition of conflicting interests, all you really have is mutual agreement among all involved parties. In this case, you agree to make less noise late at night in exchange for my agreement not to turn the neighborhood against you by telling everyone what a dick you are. Unfortunately given the dissolution of community reputation isn't the effective check it once was, and as a result we end up being both alienated and mired in bureaucracy.
skylan_q 10y ago
>and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package. Is this trolling? I really can't comprehend any point you have here. That people from outside a nation have the right to immigrate to a nation or else the nation is at risk of... what, exactly?
coldtea 10y ago
This doesn't make any sense. "A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone. So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether. Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people. You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living. It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions. Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.
- fleitz 10y ago
  Yeah people seem to definitely think US troops don't have the right of 'immigration'
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the "right wing" groups because it seems so obvious. Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off. So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin? Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?
CalRobert 10y ago
Do you mean immigration, or emigration? A person can choose to leave, if at least one of the 180-someodd other countries in the world will take them. Or they can go to unoccupied land, which is admittedly in very short supply (Antarctica, Bir Tawil). I believe you can also go to Svalbard if you do so without passing through another nation on the way which would restrict your passage.

lngnmn 10y ago

There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.

Doxin 10y ago
IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or at the very least an okay life.

jerkstate 10y ago

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

maxerickson 10y ago
That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question. It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.
- Kequc 10y ago
  How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.
wayn3 10y ago
Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them? Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle. Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.
ubernostrum 10y ago
This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history. This is an interesting claim to make. For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration. And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.

coldtea 10y ago

Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs. Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one. Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there? And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question. P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no further immigration to our parts" -- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical. P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.

jerkstate 10y ago
The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other natural and national laws.)
- coldtea 10y ago
  Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now. On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.
  - jerkstate 10y ago
    It's useful to go back to the Enlightenment to gain context about the origins of that meta-level philosophy and try to articulate what's changed and why those laws of nations are no longer valid. It could be the basis of a new Enlightenment.

venomsnake 10y ago

unlmtd 10y ago

The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.

venomsnake 10y ago
The right of ownership is granted by the state. If there is no state you own nothing
jerkstate 10y ago
For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.
  - jerkstate 10y ago
    >If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. [citation needed]
coldtea 10y ago
First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners. You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land. So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast. Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land). Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises. So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.

Hydraulix989 10y ago

Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.

arcticbull 10y ago
Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    Sorry for the confusion I mean movement within the EU as an EU national, and in turn, I was referring to the hypothetical open border between the US and Canada for their own nationals.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Right, and if you can't see how the assertion is true, then you don't understand basic economics -- specifically, the concept of paucity. Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing arrow next to his.

WillyOnWheels 10y ago

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

whorleater 10y ago
Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?
- WillyOnWheels 10y ago
  That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    How long should the statue of limitations be? The European colonial powers fucked around South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
    - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
      I also would give immigrants from Central America a break here in the US because we benefit so much from selling them goods, and the labor they provide for the agriculture industry. I'm just pulling this out of my butt but I don't think the US exports much to other countries besides weapons and food.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      There should not be a statue of limitations. Americans act as is 20 years even is ancient history. Even after 100 or 150 years, a huge damage can still resonate to a country.
- wayn3 10y ago
  Let's talk about the ethnic Koreans living in Japan first. They feel like second class citizens. Heavily discriminated against.

75dvtwin 10y ago

The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here "... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...." Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing. Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies. First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy. Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".

fleitz 10y ago
The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible to make that happen
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

return0 10y ago

Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?

classicsnoot 10y ago
To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions. Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure. The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"
Mikeb85 10y ago
Because it makes it easier to dismiss the concerns of those who disagree or bring up actual problems with the issue at hand.
cttet 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_State...

fixxer 10y ago

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism. Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit? I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!). In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.

nyrulez 10y ago
I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.
- pimmen89 10y ago
  The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into? Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).

phy6 10y ago

Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town. Edited because I was distracted by children.

exit 10y ago
in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't form a consensus with the others there. i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.
- phy6 10y ago
  We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace, including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.

microcolonel 10y ago

>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified. This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights. With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.

gonmf 10y ago

There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.

exit 10y ago

the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the passport regime has destroyed that. nationality is segregation.

Banthum 10y ago
No, nationality is property rights. Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).
- thescribe 10y ago
  I hadn't though of nationality as property rights, but it makes a ton of sense. Thank you.

booleandilemma 10y ago

I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in. Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.

arcticbull 10y ago
Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there? There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium. One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.
- ap3 10y ago
  Or it's not so awesome

coldtea 10y ago

>1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture. 3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations. The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is. First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so). But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea. Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to). First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration. And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for). But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?

Koshkin 10y ago

It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one's philosophy. For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a right to immigrate into your home? If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.

wz1000 10y ago

An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis. Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.

Mikeb85 10y ago

First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited. The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world. The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population. So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world. Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses. And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page: "In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores! I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information." And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight

yellowapple 10y ago

Is there a right for a person to move into my house? Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even "my" house in the first place?

ap3 10y ago

My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?