7 ms·

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

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
      >Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). When prior to industrialization would mass migration (especially of another ethnic group) have been seen by the current inhabitants as anything other than an invasion? >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 immigration restrictions of the late 19th/early 20th century were a reaction to immigration numbers having risen beyond the point that the current inhabitants were comfortable with. Yes, controls were lax before then but that was a reflection of 1) the relatively low degree of conflict over resources (a result of industrialization), 2) the similarity of ethnicity/culture between the current inhabitants and the immigrants (they were predominantly Christians of European ancestry -- Chinese immigration was not viewed so favorably), and 3) comparatively low numbers of immigrants before ~1870, and especially before 1850.
winter_blue 9y ago
And you absolutely don't have the right to threaten me with violence and harm with the aim of blocking me from inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today. Simply because you belong to a majority (or minority) of the citizens of my country, does not give you the right to dictate who I can hire, who I can invite into my home, etc. For libertarian arguments underpinning this fundamentally moral and human rights issue, see https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >And you absolutely don't have the right That's true according to some moral systems and not true according to others. What's more important is that we have the power to do so, and we think it's in our interest to do so, so we do it. If you want to convince us not to restrict immigration, you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so. Saying we're immoral according to your chosen moral system will persuade some, and it will be easily rebuked some others, but most will say "It doesn't feel wrong" and ignore you and your whole moral system. >inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today. That's not really the important status quo of today, though. The problem isn't that people are inviting their non-citizen friends into their homes. It's that some non-citizens are coming here and consuming limited resources that would otherwise be consumed by citizens, especially services funded by taxpayers, and are not providing enough services to the people here to make up for what they're consuming. Many citizens, especially those who are in most direct economic competition with immigrants, are made worse off by the presence of even those who do provide more resources than they consume. The gains they provide are not distributed evenly throughout the population, and neither are the costs they impose.
  - winter_blue 9y ago
    This is a debate about morality, but one with real world consequences. I strongly believe some moral systems are superior to others. In the moral system of the mid-19th century U.S. South, it was moral and right to have slaves. Human beings could be property. Similarly, in the communist and some socialist moral systems, it is evil and immoral for me to, say, start a company, and make millions of dollars of wealth. I have to share the fruit of my labor with other citizens of my country who did not work hard, and who might have spent the time I was toiling on my startup, playing video games and watching Netflix. > you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so Absolutely not. As long as your self-interest doesn't violate the rights of others, I fully respect. But the moment you want to oppress my freedom, for the sake of your self-interest, I say fuck you self-interest. I don't need to convince you of anything. Why? * Your same repugnant self-interest argument was used by slave owners. It wasn't in their self-interest to lose their free labor. It was economic disaster to relinquish slave labor. To quote, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession, it was "the greatest material interest of the world", c.f. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp * You have no right to dictate to me that I can only associate with you (i.e. whether in employment, friendship, marriage etc). I should be free to hire any one from any country as I see fit. Immigration restrictions are oppressive and immoral, c.f. https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/ * If I started a company, and made large amounts of money, and you decided to play video games and watch Netflix all day long while I toiled day and night, then you have no fucking moral right to live on money stolen by taxing the income of hard-working people like myself. Frankly, I am under no obligation to convince you that you should not oppress my freedom, and threaten me with violence, to further your self-interest. I believe in absolute objective morality. I don't think there are multiple "fair/just" moral frameworks. I reject the moral framework that upholds slavery. I think communist (and some socialist) moral systems are evil and wrong. Similarly, I think the immigration laws of most countries in the world are objectively immoral, evil, and wrong. Try to live without violating the rights and freedoms of the others. Thanks.

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
    >Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). When prior to industrialization would mass migration (especially of another ethnic group) have been seen by the current inhabitants as anything other than an invasion? >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 immigration restrictions of the late 19th/early 20th century were a reaction to immigration numbers having risen beyond the point that the current inhabitants were comfortable with. Yes, controls were lax before then but that was a reflection of 1) the relatively low degree of conflict over resources (a result of industrialization), 2) the similarity of ethnicity/culture between the current inhabitants and the immigrants (they were predominantly Christians of European ancestry -- Chinese immigration was not viewed so favorably), and 3) comparatively low numbers of immigrants before ~1870, and especially before 1850.

winter_blue 9y ago

And you absolutely don't have the right to threaten me with violence and harm with the aim of blocking me from inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today. Simply because you belong to a majority (or minority) of the citizens of my country, does not give you the right to dictate who I can hire, who I can invite into my home, etc. For libertarian arguments underpinning this fundamentally moral and human rights issue, see https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/

jimmyk 9y ago
>And you absolutely don't have the right That's true according to some moral systems and not true according to others. What's more important is that we have the power to do so, and we think it's in our interest to do so, so we do it. If you want to convince us not to restrict immigration, you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so. Saying we're immoral according to your chosen moral system will persuade some, and it will be easily rebuked some others, but most will say "It doesn't feel wrong" and ignore you and your whole moral system. >inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today. That's not really the important status quo of today, though. The problem isn't that people are inviting their non-citizen friends into their homes. It's that some non-citizens are coming here and consuming limited resources that would otherwise be consumed by citizens, especially services funded by taxpayers, and are not providing enough services to the people here to make up for what they're consuming. Many citizens, especially those who are in most direct economic competition with immigrants, are made worse off by the presence of even those who do provide more resources than they consume. The gains they provide are not distributed evenly throughout the population, and neither are the costs they impose.
- winter_blue 9y ago
  This is a debate about morality, but one with real world consequences. I strongly believe some moral systems are superior to others. In the moral system of the mid-19th century U.S. South, it was moral and right to have slaves. Human beings could be property. Similarly, in the communist and some socialist moral systems, it is evil and immoral for me to, say, start a company, and make millions of dollars of wealth. I have to share the fruit of my labor with other citizens of my country who did not work hard, and who might have spent the time I was toiling on my startup, playing video games and watching Netflix. > you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so Absolutely not. As long as your self-interest doesn't violate the rights of others, I fully respect. But the moment you want to oppress my freedom, for the sake of your self-interest, I say fuck you self-interest. I don't need to convince you of anything. Why? * Your same repugnant self-interest argument was used by slave owners. It wasn't in their self-interest to lose their free labor. It was economic disaster to relinquish slave labor. To quote, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession, it was "the greatest material interest of the world", c.f. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp * You have no right to dictate to me that I can only associate with you (i.e. whether in employment, friendship, marriage etc). I should be free to hire any one from any country as I see fit. Immigration restrictions are oppressive and immoral, c.f. https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/ * If I started a company, and made large amounts of money, and you decided to play video games and watch Netflix all day long while I toiled day and night, then you have no fucking moral right to live on money stolen by taxing the income of hard-working people like myself. Frankly, I am under no obligation to convince you that you should not oppress my freedom, and threaten me with violence, to further your self-interest. I believe in absolute objective morality. I don't think there are multiple "fair/just" moral frameworks. I reject the moral framework that upholds slavery. I think communist (and some socialist) moral systems are evil and wrong. Similarly, I think the immigration laws of most countries in the world are objectively immoral, evil, and wrong. Try to live without violating the rights and freedoms of the others. Thanks.