8 ms·

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 i

by 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.

by 34679 5y ago

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.