3 ms·

In particular, your suggestion that nations have rights to control immigration suggests it would be OK if nations had explicitly racist immigration policies; in

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.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I was with you until those last two sentences ;)
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You shouldn't mindlessly sacrifice the buoyancy of your lifeboat because of human rights -- if there are already 19 souls aboard and taking one more will sink it. Those aboard get priority.

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.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I was with you until those last two sentences ;)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You shouldn't mindlessly sacrifice the buoyancy of your lifeboat because of human rights -- if there are already 19 souls aboard and taking one more will sink it. Those aboard get priority.