4 ms·

From an ethical / fairness perspective, I think that the idea that someone should be prevented from visiting or settling in my country by virtue of their birth

by throwaway22032 5y ago

From an ethical / fairness perspective, I think that the idea that someone should be prevented from visiting or settling in my country by virtue of their birth situation is utterly ridiculous, abhorrent, and awful. From a logistical perspective, I think that if my country accepted anyone from anywhere around the world, I think that the lovely little picket-fence green England I live in would turn into an absolute hellscape of poverty even faster than it already is. I think most people probably hold those two views simultaneously and try to reconcile them. Passport control is kind of just like a larger-scale way of keeping the supermarket checkout worker out of your Michelin-starred restaurant society Facebook group. They'd just fuck it up and make it awkward for everyone. Is it fair? No.

mcv 5y ago
I think borders are stupid and should disappear. But I also know that there are too many reasons it's not that easy in the real world. In a way, passport inequality is a result of economic inequality. Rich countries have no problem opening their borders to each other. And although I have no experience with it, it sounds like it's not that hard to cross borders between some poor countries either. Rich people are welcome everywhere. But allow poor people into rich countries, and everybody is upset. Opening more borders would be easier if there weren't any refugees, economic or otherwise. If everybody was free to settle wherever they liked, I think most people would still prefer to stay near their place of birth if they could afford to. The problem is that extreme poverty in one place and extreme wealth in another, naturally draws people to the rich place. It's always been like that. In the middle ages, people moved from the countryside to the cities (and still do). Now people also want to move from poor countries to rich countries. It's natural, but the rich countries want to protect their rich-people ghettos. So we create ever stricter and stricter borders and visa requirements. To create a more free world, we probably first need to create a more equal world. Freedom and equality need to go hand in hand. But too many established interests prefer the world the way it is.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be extreme poverty to trigger economic migration. How many here relocated to a different country because they were paid a ridiculously high (compared to their home country standard) salary vs. a comfortable salary at home?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
snowgrove 5y ago
mmarq 5y ago
“Lovely little picket-fence green England”, assuming it’s even a thing, won’t be destroyed by foreigners, but it is destroying itself because it hasn’t been governed since the 2008 crisis. It’s probably the only place in Western Europe where salaries haven’t increased since 2008.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  > even faster than it already is. No arguments here!
  - mmarq 5y ago
    > won’t be destroyed by foreigners Should I expand on this? Do I really have to show that countries with a larger foreign born population (such as Sweden or Germany or Switzerland) are doing better than the UK? You have made an exceptional claim, that is immigration will make England poorer. You should come up with some historical examples and maybe a description of how it would happen, because it would the first time it happened in the history of humanity.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      I don't believe that immigration will make England poorer. I think that immigration is generally a good thing. I think that unrestricted immigration would make any country worse off in a number of ways, not only the economic axis but social cohesion, physical space, etc. None of those countries have unrestricted immigration. It seems like you view my opinion as being in opposition to yours, but it's not, we feel the same way, I think. :)
      - mmarq 5y ago
        The point where we disagree is that I don't think passport equality implies unrestricted immigration. Also it seems to me that your comment implies that unrestricted immigration will result in millions of “undesirables” moving to the West. I don’t agree with that.
    - 5y ago
voisin 5y ago
Limit quantities of immigrants but not originations?

mcv 5y ago

I think borders are stupid and should disappear. But I also know that there are too many reasons it's not that easy in the real world. In a way, passport inequality is a result of economic inequality. Rich countries have no problem opening their borders to each other. And although I have no experience with it, it sounds like it's not that hard to cross borders between some poor countries either. Rich people are welcome everywhere. But allow poor people into rich countries, and everybody is upset. Opening more borders would be easier if there weren't any refugees, economic or otherwise. If everybody was free to settle wherever they liked, I think most people would still prefer to stay near their place of birth if they could afford to. The problem is that extreme poverty in one place and extreme wealth in another, naturally draws people to the rich place. It's always been like that. In the middle ages, people moved from the countryside to the cities (and still do). Now people also want to move from poor countries to rich countries. It's natural, but the rich countries want to protect their rich-people ghettos. So we create ever stricter and stricter borders and visa requirements. To create a more free world, we probably first need to create a more equal world. Freedom and equality need to go hand in hand. But too many established interests prefer the world the way it is.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
It doesn't have to be extreme poverty to trigger economic migration. How many here relocated to a different country because they were paid a ridiculously high (compared to their home country standard) salary vs. a comfortable salary at home?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

snowgrove 5y ago

mmarq 5y ago

“Lovely little picket-fence green England”, assuming it’s even a thing, won’t be destroyed by foreigners, but it is destroying itself because it hasn’t been governed since the 2008 crisis. It’s probably the only place in Western Europe where salaries haven’t increased since 2008.

throwaway22032 5y ago
> even faster than it already is. No arguments here!
- mmarq 5y ago
  > won’t be destroyed by foreigners Should I expand on this? Do I really have to show that countries with a larger foreign born population (such as Sweden or Germany or Switzerland) are doing better than the UK? You have made an exceptional claim, that is immigration will make England poorer. You should come up with some historical examples and maybe a description of how it would happen, because it would the first time it happened in the history of humanity.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    I don't believe that immigration will make England poorer. I think that immigration is generally a good thing. I think that unrestricted immigration would make any country worse off in a number of ways, not only the economic axis but social cohesion, physical space, etc. None of those countries have unrestricted immigration. It seems like you view my opinion as being in opposition to yours, but it's not, we feel the same way, I think. :)
    - mmarq 5y ago
      The point where we disagree is that I don't think passport equality implies unrestricted immigration. Also it seems to me that your comment implies that unrestricted immigration will result in millions of “undesirables” moving to the West. I don’t agree with that.
  - 5y ago

voisin 5y ago

Limit quantities of immigrants but not originations?