3 ms·

I'm concerned about potentially blocking US persons from exiting with a wall, but without legal changes it wouldn't be a problem. Even with legal changes, you'

by rdl 10y ago

I'm concerned about potentially blocking US persons from exiting with a wall, but without legal changes it wouldn't be a problem. Even with legal changes, you'd need to restrict a LOT of technology on the US side to keep people from forcibly exiting, and I'd feel morally OK with using force to escape a country.

jacquesm 10y ago
> I'd feel morally OK with using force to escape a country. Illegal immigration is fine with you if it is to escape a country, but not if it is to enter a country? Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. A lot of your Southern neighbors feel just like you. They use force to escape their economic situation, a prison whose walls are roughly as effective a one built out of stones. America building 'that wall' is essentially simply making the wall a formal arrangement rather than a social construct that is already there. I'm not sure why I should be ok with you using force to escape your country but why I should frown upon Mexicans using force to enter yours.
- rdl 10y ago
  Yes: Illegal emigration is always fine with me. Just not illegal immigration.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Because you apparently base your moral viewpoint around illigal immigration (rather than the other way round), why does the fact that it's illegal change whether it's right or not?
- hueving 10y ago
  >Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. Sure, that's fine as long as you aren't illegally immigrating into another.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. If's not OK to do so if they haven't. However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? >Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. This is wrong. You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. This is a baseless assumption.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. > In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. Good. > If's not OK to do so if they haven't. Yes, because that suits you well. Because you only recognize those kinds of hardship that you yourself would want to escape from and ignore those that are actually in play. > However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. No, it isn't. There are some points in common but that's not slavery. > IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? Good question. Ask those who want to build a wall. You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? > You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. I'm not aware of any of my friends who 'made it' having received prior permission to enter the country they fled to. In fact, without exception they ended up in 'internment camps' after which they were allowed to apply to a number of countries around the world who might want to accept them. Effectively they were in no-mans land. > This is a baseless assumption. No, in fact this is the way it goes. Given that I've actually lived on both sides of such a wall for a while I figure my assumptions are anything but baseless.

by rdl 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

> I'd feel morally OK with using force to escape a country. Illegal immigration is fine with you if it is to escape a country, but not if it is to enter a country? Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. A lot of your Southern neighbors feel just like you. They use force to escape their economic situation, a prison whose walls are roughly as effective a one built out of stones. America building 'that wall' is essentially simply making the wall a formal arrangement rather than a social construct that is already there. I'm not sure why I should be ok with you using force to escape your country but why I should frown upon Mexicans using force to enter yours.

rdl 10y ago
Yes: Illegal emigration is always fine with me. Just not illegal immigration.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Because you apparently base your moral viewpoint around illigal immigration (rather than the other way round), why does the fact that it's illegal change whether it's right or not?
hueving 10y ago
>Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. Sure, that's fine as long as you aren't illegally immigrating into another.
Arizhel 10y ago
That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. If's not OK to do so if they haven't. However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? >Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. This is wrong. You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. This is a baseless assumption.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. > In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. Good. > If's not OK to do so if they haven't. Yes, because that suits you well. Because you only recognize those kinds of hardship that you yourself would want to escape from and ignore those that are actually in play. > However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. No, it isn't. There are some points in common but that's not slavery. > IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? Good question. Ask those who want to build a wall. You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? > You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. I'm not aware of any of my friends who 'made it' having received prior permission to enter the country they fled to. In fact, without exception they ended up in 'internment camps' after which they were allowed to apply to a number of countries around the world who might want to accept them. Effectively they were in no-mans land. > This is a baseless assumption. No, in fact this is the way it goes. Given that I've actually lived on both sides of such a wall for a while I figure my assumptions are anything but baseless.