Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010) • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #10

Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.

Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.

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

#32

Post by WillyOnWheels » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

woofyman wrote: post #29

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I also would give immigrants from Central America a break here in the US because we benefit so much from selling them goods, and the labor they provide for the agriculture industry. I'm just pulling this out of my butt but I don't think the US exports much to other countries besides weapons and food.

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

#33

Post by nyrulez » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #28

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 univers…

I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.

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

#34

Post by MichaelGG » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:06 PM UTC

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…

This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the "right wing" groups because it seems so obvious.

Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off.

So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin?

Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?

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

#35

Post by BeetleB » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:08 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #28

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 univers…

>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.

Based on this:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings...

The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries.

Likely a larger percentage of local non-Muslim Americans want to ban homosexuality than do immigrants to the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if in the US, immigrants are more open to homosexuality than US citizens.

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

#36

Post by phy6 » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:08 PM UTC

Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town.

Edited because I was distracted by children.

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

#37

Post by microcolonel » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:09 PM UTC

>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified.

This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights.

With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.

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

#38

Post by Kequc » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #20

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.

That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question. It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.

How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?

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

#39

Post by fixxer » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:12 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #35

fixxer wrote: post #28

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 univers…

>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. Based on this: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings... The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries. Likely a larger percentage o…

I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.

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

#40

Post by gonmf » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:13 PM UTC

There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.