5 ms·
It's an extension of property rights. I have the right to the security of my house, my yard, my estate, etc, up to my country that I've agreed with my fellow ci
by version_five 5y ago
It's an extension of property rights. I have the right to the security of my house, my yard, my estate, etc, up to my country that I've agreed with my fellow citizens to have represent my interests. You can agree or disagree, but fundamentally, letting anyone (in the sense of not enforcing agreed entry requirements) into a country infringes on the collective property rights of that country's citizens.
- Avtomatk 5y agoWhy do you assume that all foreigners are criminals? Criminals should be punished regardless of their country of origin, I agree that mass migration can be dangerous and migration should be a slow and safe process with investigation behind it.
- version_five 5y agoYou asked for a philosophical argument. Why do you think I assume all foreigners are criminals. Can I come sleep at your house indefinitely?
- Avtomatk 5y agoWhy would the income of immigrants affect your safety or property? Because are you assuming that foreigners are a danger, when a person is dangerous? when he is delinquent or for many other reasons, but that went the first reason that goes to my mind.
- version_five 5y agoI don't understand. You asked about the rationale behind immigration, and I explained that it's an extension of property rights. I'm not making the decisions, or justifying them. I'm just saying that a "country" is really a political structure that represents the views of its inhabitants, and that most of the citizens of these countries have collectively decided that they want a say in who they share their property with.
- _skzr 5y agoI don’t see anything in the posters comment that implies they think “all foreigners are criminals.” @dang is this a troll?
- PaulHoule 5y agoPeople in developed country have a great deal of fear, mostly unjustified, that immigrants are going to bleed resources from the welfare state. The opposite is true, if only because most countries (not Israel) are highly selective of who they let in. Far right parties thrive because people in countries like the US struggle to comprehend what the "value" of their citizenship is (e.g. paying taxes, military service and such are real costs of citizenship) Mostly we've had the welfare state shrunk on the argument that we can't afford it, which leaves people asking questions like "Why should I be proud to be an American?" and one way people can sell it to themselves is believe that the nation is threatened by all the people who want to come in from the Mexican border. People in developed countries have numerous reasons to be resentful. For instance students in the US often take on terrible debt to get educated, if people could come in from India without restriction it would unfair to Americans that we can import people who don't suffer from our cost disease. (I picture some world where the top 5% of US citizens can afford to educate their kids in the US, the bottom 95% take only blue collar jobs, and most of the jobs that require an education are filled by immigrants. Maybe I oughta shut up before Jordan Peterson tries test marketing this kind of thinking to his followers...) Look at how Silicon Valley has an unbalanced economy in which few people could afford to raise kids. It doesn't have to raise kids because it can import them and it's probably not so bad for a region of a country to not be raising kids but if a country as a whole is not raising kids it won't be reproducing it's culture.