5 ms·

I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. We all agree that the fact that a legal restriction was democratically approved absolutely does not mak

I agree with your second paragraph, but not your first. We all agree that the fact that a legal restriction was democratically approved absolutely does not make it moral (e.g., slavery). A nation doesn't have collective rights to do anything; the individual citizens have rights. And if a minority of citizens wants to welcome and employ immigrants in their home or town, there is a burden on the majority provide the same kind of overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) In particular, your suggestion that nations have rights to control immigration suggests it would be OK if nations had explicitly racist immigration policies; indeed we allow individual citizens to have racist policies for who they let into their home on account of that citizen's individual rights (even though we may strongly disapprove of those individuals). https://openborders.info/ https://openborders.info/

ng12 8y ago
> overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) I'll bite: national security, economic wellness, and social services. A nation exists for the benefit of it's citizens and there are very credible arguments that borders are important for the well-being of the populace.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  This is too big a topic to get into a full argument here, but let me make one point: a key idea in American jurisprudence, which I suspect is reflected elsewhere and which in any case is right, is that laws that infringe on rights based on justification X must be narrowly tailored to achieve that end. So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends, and people don't even talk about them. (E.g., if you're worried about security, make each immigrant pay a fee or bond that, in expectation, covers the costs imposed by the tiny minority of immigrants who commit crimes.) The fact that these aren't seriously considered makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders.
  - ng12 8y ago
    > The fact that these aren't seriously considered makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders. Because these are rights guaranteed to American citizens, not universal rights. The UK doesn't have freedom of speech and whether or not I like it that's totally their prerogative. There are also many cities in the world that are not free to move to (Mecca and Pyongyang come to mind). I don't think there's any precedent for the rights granted via American jurisprudence to be globally, generally applicable.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends In theory. > makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders I can certainly agree with you on that, I am an extremely strong supporter of free speech, and I not only don't respect free movement across borders, I'm very strongly opposed to it. It sounds like you are working from a master list of universal human rights that I'm not aware of?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. Why the asymmetry? Why shouldn't we apply the same standard to the rights and freedoms of the residents? There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends, and people don't even talk about them. (E.g., if you're worried about security, make each immigrant pay a fee or bond that, in expectation, covers the costs imposed by the tiny minority of immigrants who commit crimes.) That sounds great to me. The reason why such things aren't discussed in the US, is that proponents of such measures are tarred as "racist." no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech Because freedom of speech is essential to free societies. The false "freedom of movement across national borders" could well degrade a society. Why isn't there a freedom to move into your house? No government's resources are infinite. Illegal border-crossing only infringes in a less obvious and more indirect way, as compared to someone moving into your living room.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
detcader 8y ago
I don't even understand the need for this political science language gymnastics of 'rights'. Everyone considers Harriet Tubman heroic in the context of her nation, because of her anti-oppressive defiance of power. Even though all the things she did was very illegal. Leaders of countries can be heroic in the context of the human race as a whole, by acting against the incentives and wishes of Capital and Whiteness, allowing immigration and helping people. Building public transportation for example.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Harriet Tubman wasn't fighting against borders. She was standing up to slavery. Slave masters had to compromise borders and sovereignty in the interest of retrieving slaves.
  - detcader 8y ago
    Did I say borders are equivalent to slavery? Why stop there with this interpretation? Maybe I was saying all world leaders should rename themselves Harriet Tubman? Borders cause suffering when people are trapped in war, violence, poverty. World leaders can ease crossing of borders to give immigrants better opportunities to live. The only reason they don't is because they need to be reelected and have careers after office, at best, and maybe they aspire to favor of the rich and white.
stcredzero 8y ago
In particular, your suggestion that nations have rights to control immigration suggests it would be OK if nations had explicitly racist immigration policies; indeed we allow individual citizens to have racist policies for who they let into their home on account of that citizen's individual rights (even though we may strongly disapprove of those individuals). Sorry, but that doesn't follow. That would be tantamount to saying dating preferences ratify racism because society says it's OK that someone has never slept with an Asian woman. Just as someone might have preferences that contextually caused them to not sleep with people of a particular race, nothing precludes a country having genuinely meritocratic policies which happen to favor certain demographics at certain times. Implicit in this argument is the notion that racism is defined only by outcomes. That is illogical and destructive, because it precludes the existence of meritocratic reasons. Again, this is just the intellectually dishonest use of "racism" as an emotional bludgeon to push an illogical political agenda.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  You've misinterpreted me. I'm not saying that having immigration restrictions with disparate racial impact necessarily mean the policies are racist (or otherwise immoral). I'm saying that if we thought nations had rights the way individuals had rights, we wouldn't be so accepting of individuals having racist preferences and so against nations having them.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Only individual humans have human rights. Sovereign powers have rights which are capabilities, allowing the machinery of international law to function and maintain relative peace among sovereign powers. Where the two meet, there is often nastiness. The most dramatic example of this is war. Borders are like cell membranes which protect the internal workings of civilized life, commerce, and the rule of law. Applying human morality to sovereign powers makes as much sense as applying human morality to cells or galaxies. A sovereign power should protect the individual human rights of its citizens first. This is what makes sense.
    - 8y ago
mistermann 8y ago
> A nation doesn't have collective rights to do anything; the individual citizens have rights. And if a minority of citizens wants to welcome and employ immigrants in their home or town, there is a burden on the majority provide the same kind of overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) This statement seems rather odd to me, I wonder if I am misunderstanding, or my perception of reality is wrong (and has been for basically me entire adult life). To loosely paraphrase, it kind of sounds like you're stating that borders are (not just should be, but are) open by default, and any restrictions on that must meet a very strict level of justification. If this a just yet another theory of "how things should be" well that's fine (and I beg to vigorously differ, as I suspect many others would), but it sounds like you think this is the way it is now.
rayiner 8y ago
> A nation doesn't have collective rights to do anything; the individual citizens have rights. That’s facially untrue. For example, the right to self determination. It makes no sense to say that an individual has the right to, e.g. have a democratic government. Groups of people have the collective right to form democratic societies.
- always_good 8y ago
  You've used the adjective "facially" multiple times now, but I'm not sure what that clarifies. Are you saying they are superficially wrong, but actually right once you dig beneath the face/surface?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Facially wrong means that it’s an assertion that’s wrong in its face. You don’t have to dig into it to realize it’s wrong.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  That sentence of mine was intended as normative (and disputed), not empirical. So I am indeed criticizing the right to self-determination as confused.

ng12 8y ago

> overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) I'll bite: national security, economic wellness, and social services. A nation exists for the benefit of it's citizens and there are very credible arguments that borders are important for the well-being of the populace.

jessriedel 8y ago
This is too big a topic to get into a full argument here, but let me make one point: a key idea in American jurisprudence, which I suspect is reflected elsewhere and which in any case is right, is that laws that infringe on rights based on justification X must be narrowly tailored to achieve that end. So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends, and people don't even talk about them. (E.g., if you're worried about security, make each immigrant pay a fee or bond that, in expectation, covers the costs imposed by the tiny minority of immigrants who commit crimes.) The fact that these aren't seriously considered makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders.
- ng12 8y ago
  > The fact that these aren't seriously considered makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders. Because these are rights guaranteed to American citizens, not universal rights. The UK doesn't have freedom of speech and whether or not I like it that's totally their prerogative. There are also many cities in the world that are not free to move to (Mecca and Pyongyang come to mind). I don't think there's any precedent for the rights granted via American jurisprudence to be globally, generally applicable.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mistermann 8y ago
  > There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends In theory. > makes it very clear that no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech of freedom of movement across city borders I can certainly agree with you on that, I am an extremely strong supporter of free speech, and I not only don't respect free movement across borders, I'm very strongly opposed to it. It sounds like you are working from a master list of universal human rights that I'm not aware of?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. Why the asymmetry? Why shouldn't we apply the same standard to the rights and freedoms of the residents? There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends, and people don't even talk about them. (E.g., if you're worried about security, make each immigrant pay a fee or bond that, in expectation, covers the costs imposed by the tiny minority of immigrants who commit crimes.) That sounds great to me. The reason why such things aren't discussed in the US, is that proponents of such measures are tarred as "racist." no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech Because freedom of speech is essential to free societies. The false "freedom of movement across national borders" could well degrade a society. Why isn't there a freedom to move into your house? No government's resources are infinite. Illegal border-crossing only infringes in a less obvious and more indirect way, as compared to someone moving into your living room.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

detcader 8y ago

I don't even understand the need for this political science language gymnastics of 'rights'. Everyone considers Harriet Tubman heroic in the context of her nation, because of her anti-oppressive defiance of power. Even though all the things she did was very illegal. Leaders of countries can be heroic in the context of the human race as a whole, by acting against the incentives and wishes of Capital and Whiteness, allowing immigration and helping people. Building public transportation for example.

stcredzero 8y ago
Harriet Tubman wasn't fighting against borders. She was standing up to slavery. Slave masters had to compromise borders and sovereignty in the interest of retrieving slaves.
- detcader 8y ago
  Did I say borders are equivalent to slavery? Why stop there with this interpretation? Maybe I was saying all world leaders should rename themselves Harriet Tubman? Borders cause suffering when people are trapped in war, violence, poverty. World leaders can ease crossing of borders to give immigrants better opportunities to live. The only reason they don't is because they need to be reelected and have careers after office, at best, and maybe they aspire to favor of the rich and white.

stcredzero 8y ago

In particular, your suggestion that nations have rights to control immigration suggests it would be OK if nations had explicitly racist immigration policies; indeed we allow individual citizens to have racist policies for who they let into their home on account of that citizen's individual rights (even though we may strongly disapprove of those individuals). Sorry, but that doesn't follow. That would be tantamount to saying dating preferences ratify racism because society says it's OK that someone has never slept with an Asian woman. Just as someone might have preferences that contextually caused them to not sleep with people of a particular race, nothing precludes a country having genuinely meritocratic policies which happen to favor certain demographics at certain times. Implicit in this argument is the notion that racism is defined only by outcomes. That is illogical and destructive, because it precludes the existence of meritocratic reasons. Again, this is just the intellectually dishonest use of "racism" as an emotional bludgeon to push an illogical political agenda.

jessriedel 8y ago
You've misinterpreted me. I'm not saying that having immigration restrictions with disparate racial impact necessarily mean the policies are racist (or otherwise immoral). I'm saying that if we thought nations had rights the way individuals had rights, we wouldn't be so accepting of individuals having racist preferences and so against nations having them.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Only individual humans have human rights. Sovereign powers have rights which are capabilities, allowing the machinery of international law to function and maintain relative peace among sovereign powers. Where the two meet, there is often nastiness. The most dramatic example of this is war. Borders are like cell membranes which protect the internal workings of civilized life, commerce, and the rule of law. Applying human morality to sovereign powers makes as much sense as applying human morality to cells or galaxies. A sovereign power should protect the individual human rights of its citizens first. This is what makes sense.
  - 8y ago

mistermann 8y ago

> A nation doesn't have collective rights to do anything; the individual citizens have rights. And if a minority of citizens wants to welcome and employ immigrants in their home or town, there is a burden on the majority provide the same kind of overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) This statement seems rather odd to me, I wonder if I am misunderstanding, or my perception of reality is wrong (and has been for basically me entire adult life). To loosely paraphrase, it kind of sounds like you're stating that borders are (not just should be, but are) open by default, and any restrictions on that must meet a very strict level of justification. If this a just yet another theory of "how things should be" well that's fine (and I beg to vigorously differ, as I suspect many others would), but it sounds like you think this is the way it is now.

rayiner 8y ago

> A nation doesn't have collective rights to do anything; the individual citizens have rights. That’s facially untrue. For example, the right to self determination. It makes no sense to say that an individual has the right to, e.g. have a democratic government. Groups of people have the collective right to form democratic societies.

always_good 8y ago
You've used the adjective "facially" multiple times now, but I'm not sure what that clarifies. Are you saying they are superficially wrong, but actually right once you dig beneath the face/surface?
- rayiner 8y ago
  Facially wrong means that it’s an assertion that’s wrong in its face. You don’t have to dig into it to realize it’s wrong.
jessriedel 8y ago
That sentence of mine was intended as normative (and disputed), not empirical. So I am indeed criticizing the right to self-determination as confused.