8 ms·

In the grand scheme of things, the Pandora's box Twitter and Facebook might have opened today seems minute next to the Pandora’s box the Bush administration ope

In the grand scheme of things, the Pandora's box Twitter and Facebook might have opened today seems minute next to the Pandora’s box the Bush administration opened after the 9-11 attacks, the homeland security and all. I think after the election we will have completely forgotten about this conduct while we still have to live with the spying on innocent people, non-sense travel restriction, and human-rights violating immigration system for years to come. Making a scene of this decision just seems like stirring a storm inside a teacup, all the while we are experiencing a hurricane from the patriot act.

robertlagrant 6y ago
How does the immigration system violate human rights?
- bipson 6y ago
  not GP, but most immigration systems violate human rights all the time by treating people as if they were people without these rights - or not people at all. Most of the time the legal leeway is based upon them not being citizens (yet). What is the path to immigration in your country? It begins with a legal dilemma: E.g. asylum is a human right, but how to determine who is eligible? In a timely manner that is. Especially if you have thousands of applicants and (almost) no documents. How do you house people in the meantime? What rights do they have?
  - CaoCao 6y ago
    "asylum is a human right" "determine who is eligible" Well, if it's a human right, then everyone. But it's not, which is why you have this twisted logic. There is no right to freely cross borders.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Asylum is a human right, that doesn't mean everyone can successfully claim it! It means everyone has a right to put in a claim to asylum and have it assessed properly by the authorities. > There is no right to freely cross borders. In some circumstances, yes there is. If there's a war in country A, and non-combatants flee to neighbouring country B out of genuine necessity for safety, yes that border crossing is widely regarded as a human right. It derives from the basic right to life. Doesn't mean country B will respect it.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Most countries do, although there is a difference between immigrant and refugee. Immigrant can be you Saudi Prince with billions in the bank. Somehow they never have problems of not being let in anywhere. Immigrant have no right to just live in another country, refugees fleeing war have that right as long as the danger remains.
    - esarbe 6y ago
      Of course there's a right to freely cross borders. Borders are just imaginary lines on a map. Just as any bird has the "right" to go wherever it wants and any other animal hat the right to go wherever it wants, I have the natural right to go wherever I want. I'm a free human. As I'm born on this planet, it's my right to go wherever I want to go on this planet. That governments want to take away that right of mine, that liberty, is just one example of how governments are using the tyranny of power to force people to their will. That governments are just the thugs with the best weapons is just Realpolitik. This still doesn't invalidate my right to freely cross borders. I never signed away these rights. Though I might be stupid to try to exercise it.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Borders are just as real as the governments and societies that give you those rights. If you don't recognize them then you don't have rights either. Remember your rights are my responsibility. They don't work in a vacuum nor can you make up your own rules.
      - jbjohns 6y ago
        But your "right to go wherever I want to on this planet" must already have limits, right? Do you lock the doors on your house/car?
        esarbe 6y ago
        I'm not going to tell you where I live. But... no, I don't actually.
        jbjohns 6y ago
        Then I can guess a few places you don't live. :)
    - bipson 6y ago
      Then there is no twisted logic. Asylum is a human right https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/ https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Article 14
- skrowl 6y ago
  Some people believe that open borders to all countries are a human right.
  - dionian 6y ago
    I wonder what they use to justify this belief. I dont think it has a specific historical precedent
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Isn't every human right without historical precedent at first, until it becomes established? Doesn't that always happen step by step, with "early adopters" arguing on grounds of morality and other arguments, until eventually enough people start to believe something has a high moral value and should be raised to the level of a human right, enshrined in law? Those who would argue for open borders as a human right are like "early adopters" of that idea.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        There would be consequences for that. For example you would need a universal world wide social safety net. We would all fit easily on Iceland, but most would die of dehydration or starve in a short amount of time. I could be an early adopter of "cheese for everyone", but I would need to get a lot of cheese first to make that happen.
        jlokier 6y ago
        World wide safety net: Open borders isn't the same thing as everyone having the same safety net in whichever destination they travel to. Though related, they are distinct issues that can exist independently. That said a world wide safety net would be a good thing to advocate for on moral grounds, no? The EU has open borders for all EU citizens, and for the most part it's faring ok. There has not been a Europe-wide social safety net crisis as a result of this freedom, and crucially for this argument: there isn't an EU wide social safety net. It has freedom of movement without a universal safety net. The USA's states are effectively countries. All USA citizens have open borders to travel between states in the USA. For the most part, it's faring ok and there has not been a USA-wide social safety net crisis caused by this freedom either. Iceland and cheese for everyone: That sounds like what's called the slippery slope fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- jlokier 6y ago
  We can't discuss human rights in absolute worldwide terms while looking at immigration systems, because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss, as far as I know. But we can discuss violations of what it is widely regarded should be universal human rights. Here's a list of some that I consider should be universal human rights, which are often violated by immigration systems: - The right of young children to be with their parents - The right of spouses to be together and start a family - The right to get married - The right to legal due process, including appeals and representation - The right to work for essentials for survival such as food, shelter and medicine - The right to enter private transactions for things like shelter - The right to access the prevailing currency system (basic banking in the modern world) - The right to leave an abusive job, without enduring serious harm caused by the state if you do - The right to leave an abusive relationship, without enduring serious harm caused by the state if you do - The right to stay in the country where you were born, raised and have never known anywhere else - The right to vote in the country where you were born and raised - The right to protection and safety when talking to the police about a crime where you are a victim or witness
  - carierx1 6y ago
    Universally recognized human right? You must be 12 years old.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    > because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss This statement might be technically true in legal terms (I am not a lawyer so I don’t know), but there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], ratified by all 193 members of the United Nations. That is a good place to start. Additionally the UN has more in depth declarations (e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child[2]; which my native country of Iceland came within 5 minutes of breaking a month ago but the children were safely hid from the authorities who were going to unjustly deport them). 1: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind... 2: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx --- PS. I truly encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Human Rights[1] in their native language. It is such a beautiful read and gives you a sense of shared humanity. It is not that long, and has over 500 translations. In my native language the translation is really clear and easy to follow.

robertlagrant 6y ago

How does the immigration system violate human rights?

bipson 6y ago
not GP, but most immigration systems violate human rights all the time by treating people as if they were people without these rights - or not people at all. Most of the time the legal leeway is based upon them not being citizens (yet). What is the path to immigration in your country? It begins with a legal dilemma: E.g. asylum is a human right, but how to determine who is eligible? In a timely manner that is. Especially if you have thousands of applicants and (almost) no documents. How do you house people in the meantime? What rights do they have?
- CaoCao 6y ago
  "asylum is a human right" "determine who is eligible" Well, if it's a human right, then everyone. But it's not, which is why you have this twisted logic. There is no right to freely cross borders.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Asylum is a human right, that doesn't mean everyone can successfully claim it! It means everyone has a right to put in a claim to asylum and have it assessed properly by the authorities. > There is no right to freely cross borders. In some circumstances, yes there is. If there's a war in country A, and non-combatants flee to neighbouring country B out of genuine necessity for safety, yes that border crossing is widely regarded as a human right. It derives from the basic right to life. Doesn't mean country B will respect it.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Most countries do, although there is a difference between immigrant and refugee. Immigrant can be you Saudi Prince with billions in the bank. Somehow they never have problems of not being let in anywhere. Immigrant have no right to just live in another country, refugees fleeing war have that right as long as the danger remains.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    Of course there's a right to freely cross borders. Borders are just imaginary lines on a map. Just as any bird has the "right" to go wherever it wants and any other animal hat the right to go wherever it wants, I have the natural right to go wherever I want. I'm a free human. As I'm born on this planet, it's my right to go wherever I want to go on this planet. That governments want to take away that right of mine, that liberty, is just one example of how governments are using the tyranny of power to force people to their will. That governments are just the thugs with the best weapons is just Realpolitik. This still doesn't invalidate my right to freely cross borders. I never signed away these rights. Though I might be stupid to try to exercise it.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Borders are just as real as the governments and societies that give you those rights. If you don't recognize them then you don't have rights either. Remember your rights are my responsibility. They don't work in a vacuum nor can you make up your own rules.
    - jbjohns 6y ago
      But your "right to go wherever I want to on this planet" must already have limits, right? Do you lock the doors on your house/car?
      - esarbe 6y ago
        I'm not going to tell you where I live. But... no, I don't actually.
        jbjohns 6y ago
        Then I can guess a few places you don't live. :)
  - bipson 6y ago
    Then there is no twisted logic. Asylum is a human right https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/ https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Article 14
skrowl 6y ago
Some people believe that open borders to all countries are a human right.
- dionian 6y ago
  I wonder what they use to justify this belief. I dont think it has a specific historical precedent
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Isn't every human right without historical precedent at first, until it becomes established? Doesn't that always happen step by step, with "early adopters" arguing on grounds of morality and other arguments, until eventually enough people start to believe something has a high moral value and should be raised to the level of a human right, enshrined in law? Those who would argue for open borders as a human right are like "early adopters" of that idea.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      There would be consequences for that. For example you would need a universal world wide social safety net. We would all fit easily on Iceland, but most would die of dehydration or starve in a short amount of time. I could be an early adopter of "cheese for everyone", but I would need to get a lot of cheese first to make that happen.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        World wide safety net: Open borders isn't the same thing as everyone having the same safety net in whichever destination they travel to. Though related, they are distinct issues that can exist independently. That said a world wide safety net would be a good thing to advocate for on moral grounds, no? The EU has open borders for all EU citizens, and for the most part it's faring ok. There has not been a Europe-wide social safety net crisis as a result of this freedom, and crucially for this argument: there isn't an EU wide social safety net. It has freedom of movement without a universal safety net. The USA's states are effectively countries. All USA citizens have open borders to travel between states in the USA. For the most part, it's faring ok and there has not been a USA-wide social safety net crisis caused by this freedom either. Iceland and cheese for everyone: That sounds like what's called the slippery slope fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
jlokier 6y ago
We can't discuss human rights in absolute worldwide terms while looking at immigration systems, because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss, as far as I know. But we can discuss violations of what it is widely regarded should be universal human rights. Here's a list of some that I consider should be universal human rights, which are often violated by immigration systems: - The right of young children to be with their parents - The right of spouses to be together and start a family - The right to get married - The right to legal due process, including appeals and representation - The right to work for essentials for survival such as food, shelter and medicine - The right to enter private transactions for things like shelter - The right to access the prevailing currency system (basic banking in the modern world) - The right to leave an abusive job, without enduring serious harm caused by the state if you do - The right to leave an abusive relationship, without enduring serious harm caused by the state if you do - The right to stay in the country where you were born, raised and have never known anywhere else - The right to vote in the country where you were born and raised - The right to protection and safety when talking to the police about a crime where you are a victim or witness
- carierx1 6y ago
  Universally recognized human right? You must be 12 years old.
- runarberg 6y ago
  > because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss This statement might be technically true in legal terms (I am not a lawyer so I don’t know), but there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], ratified by all 193 members of the United Nations. That is a good place to start. Additionally the UN has more in depth declarations (e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child[2]; which my native country of Iceland came within 5 minutes of breaking a month ago but the children were safely hid from the authorities who were going to unjustly deport them). 1: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind... 2: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx --- PS. I truly encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Human Rights[1] in their native language. It is such a beautiful read and gives you a sense of shared humanity. It is not that long, and has over 500 translations. In my native language the translation is really clear and easy to follow.