5 ms·

In my opinion the US owes it to our Afghan collaborationists and to Ukraine refugees to take them in. Our existence and foreign policy is partly responsible for

• 34679 5y ago
  There is simply no moral justification for prohibiting the movement of any human who has not been accused of a crime. Nobody chooses what country they're born in. The least we can do as a species is allow individuals to seek out countries that align with their values.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • londons_explore 5y ago
    A middle ground on immigration policy is that a country operates a 1 in 1 out policy. Ie. If you want citizenship in country X, you have to find someone else who is willing to give up citizenship. The end result will be a market for citizenships. More desirable countries will be more expensive, just like some cities are more expensive to live in.
    • jimmygrapes 5y ago
      A nice idea but this also requires borders to be entirely controlled on both sides, and for tracking of individuals. I don't know of any country that can or wants to do this.
    • 908B64B197 5y ago
      I think it would be interesting to have a per country quota that factors in environmental emissions (better quota for those making an effort) as well as attractiveness (a balanced flow means a larger quota).
  • gedy 5y ago
    Maybe not "moral", but practical justification is a countries' services would collapse with open borders to populous 3rd world countries. It's no longer the 1800s where migrants come and live of the land.
  • throwawaylinux 5y ago
    What about your house? I know it's reductio ad absurdum but people can have ideas about who they want living with them, and that's not bigoted or wrong. Is their desire less valid than the desire of the person wanting to live wit them? I can't see why it would be. What we can say is that the right to self-determination, that is to have a say in how you are governed, is a fundamental human right. And surely that includes the right to have a country, have borders, and have immigration policies and controls.
    • iudqnolq 5y ago
      Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? I think per your argument I should get to decide you can't come into the state I live in, Colorodo. You have a level of personal ownership of the space you live in that you don't have over the country as a whole. A country is not just a scaled up family.
      • throwawaylinux 5y ago
        > Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? A border is a line that has come to be agreed upon by the people on either side of it. And people on either side of those borders have the right to self-determination. You can't logic your way out of the desires of other people and how they choose to be governed.
        • iudqnolq 5y ago
          Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
          • throwawaylinux 5y ago
            > Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders. > The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination). That's not the main argument for my position. If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though, and many more people would consider it immoral than those who consider self-determination (including borders) to be immoral.
  • _8j50 5y ago
    Can i just move into your house? What nonsense. Can your social services, hospitals , housing , job market, schools handle an unlimited number of people? Let's say they did, do nations and people with conflicting beliefs exist, with violent histories between them? Also, is accusation guilt? Borders exist because of resources. Countries exist based on a society's collective belief and agreement on how a government should work and what rights and responsibilities the governors and governed have which includes management and allocation of resources. You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees? How about house and feed your own homeless people before housing and feeding foreigners? Not a false dichotomy. Explain why homeless people can't be housed the same way refugees are. Most are not due to mental illness or willingness to live as a hobo.
    • 34679 5y ago
      >Can i just move into your house? No, you may not. >Also, is accusation guilt? No, but it is moral justification for restricting movement, so that a trial may be conducted and evidence produced. >You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees? I didn't say anything about taking care of anyone. >Not a false dichotomy Yes, it is.
      • _8j50 5y ago
        My bad. You just wanted them to come to your country and not have the resources for badic survival and dignity and you don't care about how their movement affects others at the destination. I assumed otherwise but of course, if you want freedom without any onligations and responsibility, this would be a false dichotomy. Being in a civilized society however means taking on responsibilities in exchange for freedoms like freedom to move.
        • 34679 5y ago
          >Being in a civilized society however means taking on responsibilities in exchange for freedoms like freedom to move. According to whom? I can support your freedom to travel without being in any way responsible for your welfare. Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
  • akomtu 5y ago
    Have you ever dealt with actually dangerous, wicked people who see others as prey and laws as obstacles on their way? Borders is what protects us from them. Those who want open borders should spend a couple months in the camps with the wannabe immigrants just outside the border, and see for themselves who they want to admit. Also, you should lead by example: it's just more efficient to win support this way. Ask CBP to pick a random small group who's just crossed the border and offer them to live at your place until they find some housing. When picking a group, don't limit your choice to families with kids - that's an unfair bias we want to avoid (borders should be open to everyone, right?)
    • spacemanmatt 5y ago
      I have, and they were white people who were born in the same country as me, and didn't have to work very hard for what they have. I learned not to trust people who don't have any experience with work or hardship.
• paxys 5y ago
  The two situations aren't at all comparable. US foreign policy isn't what caused Russia to invade Ukraine.
  • ndnwkqod 5y ago
  • yucky 5y ago
    Agree or not, but that is exactly the case being made by Russia. Here in the West we're led to believe the Ukrainian coup of 2014 was totally organic and sprung from the magic fairy dust of happiness and democracy. The Russians will tell you that was a CIA coup that installed an anti-Russian regime right on their border. This is why they took Crimea in 2014 and why we did nothing about it.
    • 331c8c71 5y ago
      spot on. russia started the war. this war is a response to steep development of ukraine-nato relations in 2021 and complete disregard of the minsk accord by kiev (suggested or sanctioned by the us).
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Agree or not, but that is exactly the case being made by Russia. It is, in between other cases about historical Russian territory and grievances against past leaders who deprived Russia of that territory. > Here in the West we're led to believe the Ukrainian coup of 2014 was totally organic and sprung from the magic fairy dust of happiness and democracy. Perhaps some tell that tale, whereas Russia’s claim is that there puppet Yanukovych came from the same mythical land. Even if the former were as much of a lie as the latter, it wouldn't excuse, much less cause of necessity, an invasion like the one taking place. > This is why they took Crimea in 2014 and why we did nothing about it. It's not, though obviously it was among the propaganda excuses. We also did not do nothing about it, though, in retrospect, it is clear we didn't do enough about it. The things we did do about it, of course, tend to figure into Russian propaganda for the current invasion, removed from their context as a direct response to the invasion, occupation, and annexation of Crimea and the less overt (than Crimea eventually became, though very similar to the first phase in Crimea) invasion of Donbas, Luhansk, and other parts of Eastern Ukraine.
• 908B64B197 5y ago
  What’s interesting is the contrast between the demographics of Afghan refugees and Ukrainian ones. At the Polish border the people crossing in were overwhelmingly elderly or women with children. It’s a sharp contrast to the majority of able-bodied young men who were trying to storm the airport in Kabul. In any case, if they are already in Mexico then they are out of harm’s way and are in a safe country where they can claim asylum as refugees. They can then apply for regular immigration for the US if they wish to do so as economic migrants.
  • unmole 5y ago
    Ukraine imposed martial law prohibiting fighting age men from leaving. Without that, the demographics would probably look very different.
• throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Surely it's the ruling class and the war profiteers who owe that. The common person in the US has not wanted war or has been deceived and lied to by the aforementioned in order to get their support. And the common American has suffered as well, the loss of their sons and trillions of dollars. Then they get told again by the very elites who started and profited from those wars in the first place that they are now bad people who have a responsibility to make amends for it! It's really sickening. The idea that the common people "owe" anything for a war that has already stolen immeasurable value from them is class war propaganda. It's the same old privatization of war profits and the socialization of costs.
• _8j50 5y ago
  B.S.! Why ukraine refugees? Did the US cause their problem? Why not all those nice EU countries? Why not mexico if they are there already? Take care of your own people before worrying about refugees you did not not cause in a country an ocean and a sea away!
  • kyriakos 5y ago
    Nice eu countries already taking them.
    • _8j50 5y ago
      Yes, so unless they ran out of room.. even then plenty non-eu poorer neighbors.