4 ms·

> overwhelming justification we require for other restrictions on rights (free-speech, taking of property, etc.) I'll bite: national security, economic wellne

by 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.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    > The reason why such things aren't discussed in the US, They aren't seriously discussed in almost any non-tiny developed country.
    - ng12 8y ago
      Wouldn't you think there's a reason why?
- rayiner 8y ago
  You’re presupposing that “freedom of movement across national borders” is something that exists, like freedom of speech. It does not—it has never been recognized by any society. Nor does it make any sense. Borders demarcate territory controlled by groups of people. Nobody has a “right” to trespass across those borders. What you’re positing is that groups of people don’t have the right to control and govern physical pieces of territory. That’s facially wrong.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I don't know how the existence of moral rights could be facially anything. It's like...two thousand years of philosophy.

by ng12 8y ago

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.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > The reason why such things aren't discussed in the US, They aren't seriously discussed in almost any non-tiny developed country.
  - ng12 8y ago
    Wouldn't you think there's a reason why?
rayiner 8y ago
You’re presupposing that “freedom of movement across national borders” is something that exists, like freedom of speech. It does not—it has never been recognized by any society. Nor does it make any sense. Borders demarcate territory controlled by groups of people. Nobody has a “right” to trespass across those borders. What you’re positing is that groups of people don’t have the right to control and govern physical pieces of territory. That’s facially wrong.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I don't know how the existence of moral rights could be facially anything. It's like...two thousand years of philosophy.