4 ms·

Immigration is not a human right. Countries have a right to restrict legal immigration too.

0dayz 5mo ago
You also have a right to become homeless, doesn't suddenly mean you're prospering. On top of this, do you think legal migrants are equal to your fellow country men? Why else the need for this non sequitur?
- ETH_start 5mo ago
  I didn't say it's a good policy. I just said it's not some moral failing to not allow immigration. The implication of all these criticisms of the Republican administration's policy on immigration is that if they oppose immigration, they're racist. I find this to be a very manipulative form of emotional blackmail that abuses the racism allegation.
  - khansh 5mo ago
    It is a moral failing when many times the immigrants coming to the US are coming from countries destabilized by our direct or indirect involvement. Reaping the benefits of our colonization while washing our hands of any of the consequences is morally wrong.
    - ETH_start 5mo ago
      I don't know how you would possibly quantify the U.S. impact on the stability of other countries. The historical default has been extreme instability. It's only in the last 200 years or so that nation-states as we know them have existed in most of the world. Before that, a lot of the world was ruled by warlords, petty kings, and empires fighting over territory. So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances. You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
  - taravangian_ 5mo ago
    The current Republican regime’s only pro-immigration policy is white South Africans. Your knee jerk defense to a point no one made is inconsistent with the facts
    - ImJamal 5mo ago
      Trump also supports immigrants who work in the hospitality industry since he wants to pay them less than Americans.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    I'd have more sympathy for that view if it were straightforward regulations being passed that placed strict and objective limits on the process. However what we have in practice appears to be a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty via underhanded regulations while feigning ignorance.
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    Are you a libertarian? Do you support the right to travel or should you always need a travelling license to travel?
    - ETH_start 5mo ago
      I'm not sure that immigration policy is relevant to libertarianism because a nation in some sense is like private property. So one could argue that the people of a country have a collective right to restrict who enters their borders. Transversing a nation's airspace would be a different story. I think if a nation blocked other nations from using its airspace for transversal it would be a violation of other people's rights, by abusing, essentially, private property exclusivity.
      - tardedmeme 5mo ago
        That's just a way to rationalize policies that are obviously anti-liberty. Is the Texas/Mexico border my property? Really? All of it? And isn't abuse of private property anti-liberty anyway? You literally just said it is. Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
        ETH_start 5mo ago
        Preventing people from encroaching on your nation is fundamentally no different than preventing people from trespassing on your property. It's not anti-liberty, since we don't have an inherent right to any land on earth. That right to occupy a piece of land, to the extent that it exists, emerges through homesteading and the principle of First Possession. As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
        tardedmeme 5mo ago
        Through what right do countries exist and have rights and those rights transfer to their citizens? What causes me to have a right to control the Texas/Mexico border?
  - eptcyka 5mo ago
    Choosing the suboptimal economic policy due to feels is a moral failure.
qurren 5mo ago
"Rights" is not the point. You're correct that a country doesn't have to welcome you. However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live. I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.
- remarkEon 5mo ago
  This is not true. It’s a pernicious lie that the United States has always been doors open, and this falsity makes discussing this topic increasingly impossible because it’s like there’s two different realities that aren’t reconcilable. The US became the economic powerhouse and world power it did during the most restrictive period of its immigration history. The amount of immigration over the last 30 years, and especially over the last decade, is completely unusual and unprecedented. I can go to neighborhoods in the city I grew up in where I played baseball as a kid and it is quite literally completely foreign. A lot of people, and you seem to be one of them, think that America’s immigration system is a cosmic vacuum cleaner that scoops up would-be Einsteins from around the planet and plops them in US cities where they churn out unicorns between writing an opera and running a 10k. This isn’t the case.
  - donkyrf 5mo ago
    The percent of the US population that is foreign-born is about the same as it was before 1920. To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars. (and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births). Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.

0dayz 5mo ago

You also have a right to become homeless, doesn't suddenly mean you're prospering. On top of this, do you think legal migrants are equal to your fellow country men? Why else the need for this non sequitur?

ETH_start 5mo ago
I didn't say it's a good policy. I just said it's not some moral failing to not allow immigration. The implication of all these criticisms of the Republican administration's policy on immigration is that if they oppose immigration, they're racist. I find this to be a very manipulative form of emotional blackmail that abuses the racism allegation.
- khansh 5mo ago
  It is a moral failing when many times the immigrants coming to the US are coming from countries destabilized by our direct or indirect involvement. Reaping the benefits of our colonization while washing our hands of any of the consequences is morally wrong.
  - ETH_start 5mo ago
    I don't know how you would possibly quantify the U.S. impact on the stability of other countries. The historical default has been extreme instability. It's only in the last 200 years or so that nation-states as we know them have existed in most of the world. Before that, a lot of the world was ruled by warlords, petty kings, and empires fighting over territory. So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances. You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
- taravangian_ 5mo ago
  The current Republican regime’s only pro-immigration policy is white South Africans. Your knee jerk defense to a point no one made is inconsistent with the facts
  - ImJamal 5mo ago
    Trump also supports immigrants who work in the hospitality industry since he wants to pay them less than Americans.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  I'd have more sympathy for that view if it were straightforward regulations being passed that placed strict and objective limits on the process. However what we have in practice appears to be a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty via underhanded regulations while feigning ignorance.
- tardedmeme 5mo ago
  Are you a libertarian? Do you support the right to travel or should you always need a travelling license to travel?
  - ETH_start 5mo ago
    I'm not sure that immigration policy is relevant to libertarianism because a nation in some sense is like private property. So one could argue that the people of a country have a collective right to restrict who enters their borders. Transversing a nation's airspace would be a different story. I think if a nation blocked other nations from using its airspace for transversal it would be a violation of other people's rights, by abusing, essentially, private property exclusivity.
    - tardedmeme 5mo ago
      That's just a way to rationalize policies that are obviously anti-liberty. Is the Texas/Mexico border my property? Really? All of it? And isn't abuse of private property anti-liberty anyway? You literally just said it is. Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
      - ETH_start 5mo ago
        Preventing people from encroaching on your nation is fundamentally no different than preventing people from trespassing on your property. It's not anti-liberty, since we don't have an inherent right to any land on earth. That right to occupy a piece of land, to the extent that it exists, emerges through homesteading and the principle of First Possession. As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
        tardedmeme 5mo ago
        Through what right do countries exist and have rights and those rights transfer to their citizens? What causes me to have a right to control the Texas/Mexico border?
- eptcyka 5mo ago
  Choosing the suboptimal economic policy due to feels is a moral failure.

qurren 5mo ago

"Rights" is not the point. You're correct that a country doesn't have to welcome you. However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live. I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.

remarkEon 5mo ago
This is not true. It’s a pernicious lie that the United States has always been doors open, and this falsity makes discussing this topic increasingly impossible because it’s like there’s two different realities that aren’t reconcilable. The US became the economic powerhouse and world power it did during the most restrictive period of its immigration history. The amount of immigration over the last 30 years, and especially over the last decade, is completely unusual and unprecedented. I can go to neighborhoods in the city I grew up in where I played baseball as a kid and it is quite literally completely foreign. A lot of people, and you seem to be one of them, think that America’s immigration system is a cosmic vacuum cleaner that scoops up would-be Einsteins from around the planet and plops them in US cities where they churn out unicorns between writing an opera and running a 10k. This isn’t the case.
- donkyrf 5mo ago
  The percent of the US population that is foreign-born is about the same as it was before 1920. To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars. (and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births). Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.