>For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly s

>For what it's worth I consider Peter Singer (the philosopher) to be a man of strong reasoning who builds a tower of logic on top of a questionable and highly subjective statement of morality. I rather agree. What I'm wondering is: if you're not trolling, why swallow Singer's premises, swallow his extrapolations, and then call it all questionable? Because this is the position you're taking: that the United States has a moral obligation to invest its finite resources into immigration or outsourcing of jobs for skilled foreign workers over and above training and education for its native-born workers. >I believe that these have come with a real, undeniable cost to American citizens and residents, and thus believe that an individual can justifiably be for or against such normalization of economic well being on a global scale. I don't think a clear-thinking individual can really be for such a blatant violation of basic democracy. If we want America to be accountable to the Indian and Chinese masses, we should give them passports and voting rights -- then see what they want for themselves. Likewise, if we're going to invest American resources in improving the well-being of India and China, why not demand an EU-style relationship of open borders, common standards for human well-being, and residency-based voting rights? I don't think one can really have humanitarianism without solidarity, coexistence, and shared community. To do well by someone just is to expand each-other's (legal, economic, etc) communities to include each-other. A charity/tithe of 10% or something is both traditional and good, but I think it's wrong to expand charity to the point where you give to outsiders at the cost of community ties (both within your existing community and between your community and outsiders).