Live data from Hacker News

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

spot.colorado.edu

101–110 of 130 posts

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

#101
post #41
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…

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate refle…

I very much agree with you. Spreading western values by taking in immigrants is not a bad idea. Even if it doesn't change everyone in the world, it still shows that it is possible for the values to include everyone.

It does assume integration though. If you take in immigrants, but isolate them and/or treat them badly, might it not be that you actually radicalize them further?

(Of course we shouldn't isolate them, but if that effectively ends up happening it has to be considered.)

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

#102
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is kind of a contrived scenario. For starters, what is the motivation for these Muslims to migrate to America or western Europe if their goal is to create an Islamic state? They already have a much larger majority in the nations where the currently live, migrating to the united states would only dilute their influence. If your argument is that they want access to our economic prosperity, the act of converting ou…

>That is kind of a contrived scenario.

As is the "boundless immigration open for all" scenario to begin with. But given that, what could happen? That's one possible answer.

>For starters, what is the motivation for these Muslims to migrate to America or western Europe if their goal is to create an Islamic state?*

Expanding islam to other places is part of the historical identity of islamism. Might not be on the goals of peaceful laymen, but it's very much a core tenet of more devout believers (not talking about militants either).

But an even more obvious answer, at the layman level, would be they'd migrate to take advantage of the wealth, infrastructure, opportunities etc. The making an islamic state can always come second. After you have those, why not change the laws and customs to your preference too? Especially if you are a large enough subset of the population?

>If your argument is that they want access to our economic prosperity, the act of converting our government would destroy the very system that created it.

That's how you see it. They don't necessarily see it that way, and I don't believe that it is that way in reality either. You can create prosperity under very many systems. I don't believe the US has some unique model for how a wealthy state must be run. We have from far more socialist economies that do quite well (e.g. nordic countries), to light totalitarian states that do great (Singapore), to "communist" single party states that are rising fast (China).

>If your argument is that they are dicks that only care about creating a tyranny of the majority to "punish" others

You call it "punishing" others and "being dicks".

As they see it, it's just putting others on the right track and being moral and just (according to their beliefs). Puritanical western societies have not done less (e.g. with the Inquisition and similar establishments).

>My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.

That's because their small numbers make them humble and appreciative of where they have been received. When there was mass immigration (e.g. when the English and such religious nuts migrated to the US) they very much forced their religion and customs on others (native americans for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schoo... ), but also WASPs as the dominant majority group over Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.

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

#103
post #91
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places Better? Cuba, considering the embargo that fucked them twice over, is better off compared to most of the hell-holes intervention created in Latin America. Even as a dictatorship it's much more benign compared to people like Pinochet that was supported, put in place, and much belove…

I'm not sure we can reach that conclusion. Many of those places were industrializing with light industries before the ussr and Cuba meddled. Another issue is and was demographic growth and transitioning from rural to urban societies which created social issues the user and Cuba tried to leverage in their quest to evangelize their political and economic systems. Also, do we ask something from the UK for embargoing us…

You could, but currently they are hardly better off (the us) to offer much. Unlike others, their embargo was "too little, too late".

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

#104
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's useful to go back to the Enlightenment to gain context about the origins of that meta-level philosophy and try to articulate what's changed and why those laws of nations are no longer valid. It could be the basis of a new Enlightenment.

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

#105
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White nationalism doesn't exist. This is just a label invented to explain why the Democrats have lost influence among middle-class America in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa... The left, however, is a real thing. When I worked with Obama's people, I worked with people that identified as "anarcho-socialists" that openly discussed entitlement expansion as a means to break the system. I could not invent the crap I…

I agree that white nationalism exists, especially with white-nationalists like Bannon in control of our government. They are truly a dangerous group that doesn't represent America's multi-cultural values. We have to make sure that white-nationalism is purged from this country, and an open-borders society is probably the best way to fight-off white-nationalism. We need to make sure a Sharia-law supporting Muslim is ab…

You do a lot of virtue signaling in your commentary and presume to speak for "the masses". It is... amusing.

I get that you have an opinion and it is fairly orthogonal to mine. Your opinion doesn't offend me or make me feel threatened, but the presumption that you speak for anyone beyond yourself is awkward.

I want to understand your side, but your presentation is pitting you against good taste... I feel like I'm talking to that guy at the gym who went off his bipolar meds.

Tone down the preaching of universal truth, perhaps?

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

#106
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. This view is simply ignorant of history. The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is…

I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on the past mistakes and missteps of intervention and sub-optimal appropriation, but blaming the colonials has not really helped anywhere, especially not Africa. I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Nethe…

Former British India and Colonial Indochina¸ along with nations like Egypt have done pretty well economically given their socioeconomic conditions at the end of colonization, and considering the massive drain of wealth and resources to their colonizers undertaken over centuries.

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

#107
post #71
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate refle…

> That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. At the time, yes. But if TFA author's idea ("boundless immigration for everybody") was allowed, that could very well include all areas of UK, no? > that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with. Perhaps because as an white programmer (I suppose, not sure about the former, but…

I don't agree with the notion that if the UK opens its borders it'll be flooded. They said that about the EU, and it didn't exactly pan out like that. Sure, there's immigration, but it's not like we all speak Polish.

And I'm not advocating opening borders immediately - just move in that direction and relax controls a bit.

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

#108
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. At the time, yes. But if TFA author's idea ("boundless immigration for everybody") was allowed, that could very well include all areas of UK, no? > that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with. Perhaps because as an white programmer (I suppose, not sure about the former, but…

I don't agree with the notion that if the UK opens its borders it'll be flooded. They said that about the EU, and it didn't exactly pan out like that. Sure, there's immigration, but it's not like we all speak Polish. And I'm not advocating opening borders immediately - just move in that direction and relax controls a bit.

>They said that about the EU, and it didn't exactly pan out like that.

Well, the EU never really opened its borders.

>Sure, there's immigration, but it's not like we all speak Polish.

That's because Poland has seen significant increase in local opportunities and no instability recently.

Not the same as most parts of the world people want to immigrate to the EU from...

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

#109

I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in. Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.

Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there? There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things re…

Or it's not so awesome
Post reply on HN