5 ms·

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 peo

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?
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    In my travels in third world countries, I've observed that the people are often tremendously proud of their national identity, and strongly connected with their culture. Emigrating is not a step people take lightly. Of course, if you take someone who's sick and starving and offer them a free lunch and medical care they're going to jump at the opportunity, but I am willing to bet that if in most cases they would prefer to get those things in the context of their own country rather than having to relocate. It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
    - masonic 10y ago
      It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately. No, it hasn't. The only study that even claimed that misinterpreted the two studies that produced the raw numbers. The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored all children and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants. The outbound figures counted everybody, including children and infants. There was a net increase overall.
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.

_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?
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  In my travels in third world countries, I've observed that the people are often tremendously proud of their national identity, and strongly connected with their culture. Emigrating is not a step people take lightly. Of course, if you take someone who's sick and starving and offer them a free lunch and medical care they're going to jump at the opportunity, but I am willing to bet that if in most cases they would prefer to get those things in the context of their own country rather than having to relocate. It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
  - masonic 10y ago
    It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately. No, it hasn't. The only study that even claimed that misinterpreted the two studies that produced the raw numbers. The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored all children and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants. The outbound figures counted everybody, including children and infants. There was a net increase overall.

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.