6 ms·

Because the pickiness is a stereotype and a form of discrimination. EDIT - removed the "arbitrary", which I could argue for but for the purposes of the discuss

Because the pickiness is a stereotype and a form of discrimination. EDIT - removed the "arbitrary", which I could argue for but for the purposes of the discussion concede. I stand by the rest of the claim despite the downvotes :)

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Is a company discriminating against you because they don't want to hire you because you don't have the skillset they are looking for?
Karunamon 9y ago
I see a lot more negatives with allowing unchecked open borders than putting standards in place. Most of the negatives boil down to people not being able to live in whatever arbitrary place they want. I don't think personal preference should carry a whole lot of weight in the context of setting policy on who gets to cross your borders. Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.
- uw_rob 9y ago
  > Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth. Why do you think this? I personally believe the opposite and think world wide semi-open borders would be for the best. (By semi-open I mean that you still need to pass background checks etc). You could also disqualify people from accepting welfare if they have recently moved into the county.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    >would be for the best The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm not saying all immigrants are net-consumers, I'm specifically asking about the subset of immigrants that are net-consumers.)
  - shados 9y ago
    What you end up then is "pushy" cultures become the norm, and "more open" (from a lack of better term, I know that's not really accurate) get phased out. Essentially, everything will be China given long enough (I'm obviously exaggerating). There might be a few people of middle eastern descent too. Maybe.
eekthecat 9y ago
If their economy needs you, they let you in. If they don't, you don't. Simple as that. Unless we abolish the concept of countries and all live in a global government of sorts, that's how it works _everywhere_.
- collyw 9y ago
  Europe doesn't need a ton of refugees / migrants but they have been flooding in recently.
vetinari 9y ago
You don't have an inherent right to enter a random country. People living there have to decide, who they allow to enter and who not. Usually, they set up a set of rules to decide, and it is up to them how these rules reflect their values.
- throwaway29292 9y ago
  Makes me wonder if this comment will age well, after around 50-100 years.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    Don't worry about that. Neither of us will see that, and it would take something very drastic to change how the humans behaved for millennia.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. So it's not at all a given that the current system with tightly regulated borders, visas, conditions of residence etc will still be in place in 100 years.
      - sedachv 9y ago
        > Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. The great land border lockdown between the United States and Canada or Mexico really started after September 11, 2001. The current border controls are extremely excessive by comparison, and the current US president's proposals are completely insane by 20th century standards. Many people born in the 1990s do not realize just how unusual the current border lock-down situation is. To add an anecdote, the most unusual Canada/US immigration story I know is an acquaintance, US citizen by birth, who had illegally immigrated to Canada and was an undocumented under-the-table cash worker for almost a decade by the time I met him in 2010. One of his American grandparents originally came from Canada by literally swimming across a lake in the 1930s to immigrate to the United States.
jimmyk 9y ago
It's pretty much the exact opposite of arbitrary.
ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
>>"arbitrary stereotype" the selection criteria it's not arbitrary and is based on the factors Canada considers important. It's like saying asking for a job applicant to have a certain skillset is "discrimination based on arbitrary stereotype".
UweSchmidt 9y ago
With immigration you will definitively focus on highly educated people, people who have skills needed in the respective industries and who are likely to fit in well culturally. How would you regulate immigration?
- binarymax 9y ago
  I'd open up all the borders without restriction. It would be a madhouse for the first decade but then the world would be much better off in the long run. It would be the first step in a united planet rather than the pettiness we suffer now with individual competing states.
  - UweSchmidt 9y ago
    I agree on the 'madhouse' part.
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    LOL
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
  - legolas2412 9y ago
    I think that would only come to pass if you set up a global planet-wide government at the same time.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Uhh, how about instead, we let Europe do that. And then us in America and Canada can see how that works out for them. The beauty of countries is that different countries can try vastly different things, and then we can look at the results afterwords and see which countries made good decisions and which made bad decisions.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Is a company discriminating against you because they don't want to hire you because you don't have the skillset they are looking for?

Karunamon 9y ago

I see a lot more negatives with allowing unchecked open borders than putting standards in place. Most of the negatives boil down to people not being able to live in whatever arbitrary place they want. I don't think personal preference should carry a whole lot of weight in the context of setting policy on who gets to cross your borders. Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.

uw_rob 9y ago
> Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth. Why do you think this? I personally believe the opposite and think world wide semi-open borders would be for the best. (By semi-open I mean that you still need to pass background checks etc). You could also disqualify people from accepting welfare if they have recently moved into the county.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >would be for the best The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm not saying all immigrants are net-consumers, I'm specifically asking about the subset of immigrants that are net-consumers.)
- shados 9y ago
  What you end up then is "pushy" cultures become the norm, and "more open" (from a lack of better term, I know that's not really accurate) get phased out. Essentially, everything will be China given long enough (I'm obviously exaggerating). There might be a few people of middle eastern descent too. Maybe.

eekthecat 9y ago

If their economy needs you, they let you in. If they don't, you don't. Simple as that. Unless we abolish the concept of countries and all live in a global government of sorts, that's how it works _everywhere_.

collyw 9y ago
Europe doesn't need a ton of refugees / migrants but they have been flooding in recently.

vetinari 9y ago

You don't have an inherent right to enter a random country. People living there have to decide, who they allow to enter and who not. Usually, they set up a set of rules to decide, and it is up to them how these rules reflect their values.

throwaway29292 9y ago
Makes me wonder if this comment will age well, after around 50-100 years.
- vetinari 9y ago
  Don't worry about that. Neither of us will see that, and it would take something very drastic to change how the humans behaved for millennia.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. So it's not at all a given that the current system with tightly regulated borders, visas, conditions of residence etc will still be in place in 100 years.
    - sedachv 9y ago
      > Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. The great land border lockdown between the United States and Canada or Mexico really started after September 11, 2001. The current border controls are extremely excessive by comparison, and the current US president's proposals are completely insane by 20th century standards. Many people born in the 1990s do not realize just how unusual the current border lock-down situation is. To add an anecdote, the most unusual Canada/US immigration story I know is an acquaintance, US citizen by birth, who had illegally immigrated to Canada and was an undocumented under-the-table cash worker for almost a decade by the time I met him in 2010. One of his American grandparents originally came from Canada by literally swimming across a lake in the 1930s to immigrate to the United States.

jimmyk 9y ago

It's pretty much the exact opposite of arbitrary.

ChemicalWarfare 9y ago

>>"arbitrary stereotype" the selection criteria it's not arbitrary and is based on the factors Canada considers important. It's like saying asking for a job applicant to have a certain skillset is "discrimination based on arbitrary stereotype".

UweSchmidt 9y ago

With immigration you will definitively focus on highly educated people, people who have skills needed in the respective industries and who are likely to fit in well culturally. How would you regulate immigration?

binarymax 9y ago
I'd open up all the borders without restriction. It would be a madhouse for the first decade but then the world would be much better off in the long run. It would be the first step in a united planet rather than the pettiness we suffer now with individual competing states.
- UweSchmidt 9y ago
  I agree on the 'madhouse' part.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  LOL
- jimmyk 9y ago
  The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
- legolas2412 9y ago
  I think that would only come to pass if you set up a global planet-wide government at the same time.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Uhh, how about instead, we let Europe do that. And then us in America and Canada can see how that works out for them. The beauty of countries is that different countries can try vastly different things, and then we can look at the results afterwords and see which countries made good decisions and which made bad decisions.