8 ms·

Well you should otherwise you don't really have the right to leave. I live in a dictatorship that actively suppresses passport requests by its citizens. You ha

by cptaj 5y ago

Well you should otherwise you don't really have the right to leave. I live in a dictatorship that actively suppresses passport requests by its citizens. You have no idea how much I support this initiative. You have no idea what its like to have military assholes controlling your life and the rest of the world turning a blind eye when you just want to live peacefully. It could've been you instead of me. This is a right worth fighting for.

nmeofthestate 5y ago
This is a bit like saying all houses shouldn't have locks because they can be used to lock people inside against their will.
- zekrioca 5y ago
  Except that houses are not the same as countries.
  - rootsudo 5y ago
    My parents would disagree.
    - zekrioca 5y ago
      So would people living in Palestine.
  - nmeofthestate 5y ago
    Houses are a lot like countries in this analogy.
_hilro 5y ago
> This is a right worth fighting for No it's not. You don't get to control what how the people of countries treat you and others with this mindset. My passport is the result of a society and country my ancestors shaped and fought for. You don't get to turn up with your cultural baggage and demand entry.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Quite a few societies/countries have made the call that accepting refugees from things like dictatorships is a moral obligation they want to take on, though.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    This is subject to prudential judgement and not categorical a priori commitment. First, are the people in question actually refugees? The EU migrant crisis a few years ago wasn't that. It was unrestricted migration. It was a shit show of mind-boggling political stupidity. Second, you must prioritize the good of your country. What is your realistic capacity for taking in refugees before your country is harmed? On what basis and on what terms are they being admitted?
  - _hilro 5y ago
    In most countries, individuals claiming refugee status aren't given free entry to a country. They make an application and are held until application is either denied or approved. Using the refugee argument is diversionary nonsense when discussing at will free-for-all immigration.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > In most countries, individuals claiming refugee status aren't given free entry to a country. The poster asserted a right to leave a country, which I endorse. Refugees are a good example of the need for it.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    Did the citizens vote for that or the govt officials made the decision for them?
- csmpltn 5y ago
  > "ancestors shaped and fought for" Your ancestors fought for a "society" that won't tolerate newcomers or people wishing to join it "from the outside"? What was it that they fought for, exactly? Are you sure the country and society "they fought for" is the same one you live in today?
throwaway210222 5y ago
> Well you should otherwise you don't really have the right to leave. So 300 million people could just decide to move to Switzerland? And the Swiss would have no say in it?

by cptaj 5y ago

nmeofthestate 5y ago

This is a bit like saying all houses shouldn't have locks because they can be used to lock people inside against their will.

zekrioca 5y ago
Except that houses are not the same as countries.
- rootsudo 5y ago
  My parents would disagree.
  - zekrioca 5y ago
    So would people living in Palestine.
- nmeofthestate 5y ago
  Houses are a lot like countries in this analogy.

_hilro 5y ago

> This is a right worth fighting for No it's not. You don't get to control what how the people of countries treat you and others with this mindset. My passport is the result of a society and country my ancestors shaped and fought for. You don't get to turn up with your cultural baggage and demand entry.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Quite a few societies/countries have made the call that accepting refugees from things like dictatorships is a moral obligation they want to take on, though.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  This is subject to prudential judgement and not categorical a priori commitment. First, are the people in question actually refugees? The EU migrant crisis a few years ago wasn't that. It was unrestricted migration. It was a shit show of mind-boggling political stupidity. Second, you must prioritize the good of your country. What is your realistic capacity for taking in refugees before your country is harmed? On what basis and on what terms are they being admitted?
- _hilro 5y ago
  In most countries, individuals claiming refugee status aren't given free entry to a country. They make an application and are held until application is either denied or approved. Using the refugee argument is diversionary nonsense when discussing at will free-for-all immigration.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > In most countries, individuals claiming refugee status aren't given free entry to a country. The poster asserted a right to leave a country, which I endorse. Refugees are a good example of the need for it.
- sumedh 5y ago
  Did the citizens vote for that or the govt officials made the decision for them?
csmpltn 5y ago
> "ancestors shaped and fought for" Your ancestors fought for a "society" that won't tolerate newcomers or people wishing to join it "from the outside"? What was it that they fought for, exactly? Are you sure the country and society "they fought for" is the same one you live in today?

throwaway210222 5y ago

> Well you should otherwise you don't really have the right to leave. So 300 million people could just decide to move to Switzerland? And the Swiss would have no say in it?