Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

spot.colorado.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#21

Post by coldtea »

jerkstate wrote: post #11
coldtea wrote: post #6

Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs. Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one. Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there? And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the que…

The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other natural and national laws.)

Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now.

On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#22

Post by WillyOnWheels »

whorleater wrote: post #18
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #14

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?

That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#23

Post by MichaelGG »

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #14

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#24

Post by fleitz »

75dvtwin wrote: post #19

The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here "... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...." Fallacy on…

The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible to make that happen

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#25

Post by wayn3 »

jerkstate wrote: post #4

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them?

Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle.

Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#27

Post by fleitz »

coldtea wrote: post #15
CuriouslyC wrote: post #2

The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.

This doesn't make any sense. "A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone. So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (an…

Yeah people seem to definitely think US troops don't have the right of 'immigration'

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#28

Post by fixxer »

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer

Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl...

I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.

Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?

I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!).

In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#29

Post by woofyman »

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #22
whorleater wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?

That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.

How long should the statue of limitations be? The European colonial powers fucked around South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#30

Post by wayn3 »

whorleater wrote: post #18
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #14

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

Does Japan have the moral responsibility to accept Chinese immigrants after the atrocities committed in WW2?

Let's talk about the ethnic Koreans living in Japan first. They feel like second class citizens. Heavily discriminated against.
Post reply on HN