3 ms·

> I don’t support deporting citizens Why not? If they are substandard, why keep them there? What's the difference between them and the people you would like to

by mrtksn 3y ago

> I don’t support deporting citizens Why not? If they are substandard, why keep them there? What's the difference between them and the people you would like to keep out? I'm not calling you anything. I'm trying to understand you.

sokoloff 3y ago
Citizens have, by definition, a right to enter and reside in their country of citizenship. I see a difference in kind between denying someone a right and failing to grant someone else a privilege. (You are the only one calling them sub-standard, by the way.)
- mrtksn 3y ago
  We can rewrite definitions, don't worry too much about. I guess your motivation of keeping substandard immigrants out but substandard locals in doesn't come only from your desire to stick to the definitions, am I right? Because if that's your worry, it's very easy to resolve it by changing the definition through a legislative process.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    The policies don’t emerge from the definitions, but rather the definitions emerge from the policies. Changing the definitions and expecting the policies (which are the expressed will of the people in democracies or of the leaders in autocracies) to change is folly.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      So, why do you want to keep the substandard immigrants out and substandard citizens in, if it's not about satisfying the definitions?
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        It’s a policy choice. I believe that people born in a country have a 100% right to live in that country while someone not born there does not have that same right. We happen to call the former group “citizens” and there are other paths to citizenship in most countries, but that word is merely a shorthand for “a person with a non-revocable right to live in a country”. If you change citizen to mean something else or change non-citizen to mean that, new words will emerge to mean specifically the difference in that right and we’ll switch to using that word. Separately, the decision of whom to extend the privilege of entry or working to non-citizens is based on whom the population (in democracies) thinks will make the country better. If you’re picking your team to compete on a global stage, why wouldn’t you allow the brightest and most educated to come join your team? You appear to disagree on my initial premise that people born somewhere have more rights to be there than others who weren’t. I respect your right to hold your opinion. I also reserve my right to hold my opinion.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        This is yet another "it is the way it is because it is the way it is" argument. I will leave it here.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        It is the way it is because it is the way the citizens of countries want it to be. That’s unsurprising that that would be stable over long periods of time.

by mrtksn 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

Citizens have, by definition, a right to enter and reside in their country of citizenship. I see a difference in kind between denying someone a right and failing to grant someone else a privilege. (You are the only one calling them sub-standard, by the way.)

mrtksn 3y ago
We can rewrite definitions, don't worry too much about. I guess your motivation of keeping substandard immigrants out but substandard locals in doesn't come only from your desire to stick to the definitions, am I right? Because if that's your worry, it's very easy to resolve it by changing the definition through a legislative process.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  The policies don’t emerge from the definitions, but rather the definitions emerge from the policies. Changing the definitions and expecting the policies (which are the expressed will of the people in democracies or of the leaders in autocracies) to change is folly.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    So, why do you want to keep the substandard immigrants out and substandard citizens in, if it's not about satisfying the definitions?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      It’s a policy choice. I believe that people born in a country have a 100% right to live in that country while someone not born there does not have that same right. We happen to call the former group “citizens” and there are other paths to citizenship in most countries, but that word is merely a shorthand for “a person with a non-revocable right to live in a country”. If you change citizen to mean something else or change non-citizen to mean that, new words will emerge to mean specifically the difference in that right and we’ll switch to using that word. Separately, the decision of whom to extend the privilege of entry or working to non-citizens is based on whom the population (in democracies) thinks will make the country better. If you’re picking your team to compete on a global stage, why wouldn’t you allow the brightest and most educated to come join your team? You appear to disagree on my initial premise that people born somewhere have more rights to be there than others who weren’t. I respect your right to hold your opinion. I also reserve my right to hold my opinion.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        This is yet another "it is the way it is because it is the way it is" argument. I will leave it here.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        It is the way it is because it is the way the citizens of countries want it to be. That’s unsurprising that that would be stable over long periods of time.