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

121–130 of 130 posts

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

#121

Post by fixxer »

scarface74 wrote: post #120
fixxer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, they'll push it back to the states to decide. I put zero probability of a Federal ban on marriage equality. My friends on the left always push for universal, top down rulings on social issues. In reality, there are really good reasons historically for why groups move and congregate within the United States - they get better treatment and opportunity in different places. States rights is a safety net agai…

There is absolutely no defensible reason to not allow gay marriage. Who cares if some people have a religious reason for not approving of gay marriage? If they don't approve of it, don't do it. But freedom of religion should also be freedom from religion.

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

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

#122

Post by scarface74 »

fixxer wrote: post #121
scarface74 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no defensible reason to not allow gay marriage. Who cares if some people have a religious reason for not approving of gay marriage? If they don't approve of it, don't do it. But freedom of religion should also be freedom from religion.

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

Immigration law is a matter of non citizens rights in the US. The federal government has the responsibility to protect citizens constitutional rights. Any law that discriminates against one person because of another persons religous beliefs is prima facie unconstitutional.

Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right when it came to Jim Crow laws?

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

#124

Post by fixxer »

scarface74 wrote: post #122
fixxer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

Immigration law is a matter of non citizens rights in the US. The federal government has the responsibility to protect citizens constitutional rights. Any law that discriminates against one person because of another persons religous beliefs is prima facie unconstitutional. Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right…

Maybe? I wouldn't want to live in those states and I think that would be pervasive. Ultimately, economics would drive progress.

All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.

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

#125

Post by Hydraulix989 »

arcticbull wrote: post #119
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.

Sorry for the confusion I mean movement within the EU as an EU national, and in turn, I was referring to the hypothetical open border between the US and Canada for their own nationals.

Right, and if you can't see how the assertion is true, then you don't understand basic economics -- specifically, the concept of paucity.

Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing arrow next to his.

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

#126

Post by Doxin »

lngnmn wrote: post #3

There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.

IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or at the very least an okay life.

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

#127

Post by classicsnoot »

wz1000 wrote: post #106
classicsnoot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...

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

#128

Post by wz1000 »

classicsnoot wrote: post #127
wz1000 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...

No nation can exist in a vacuum. Your "criteria" excludes pretty much every country in the world.

Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in.

India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.

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

#129

Post by classicsnoot »

scarface74 wrote: post #122
fixxer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

Immigration law is a matter of non citizens rights in the US. The federal government has the responsibility to protect citizens constitutional rights. Any law that discriminates against one person because of another persons religous beliefs is prima facie unconstitutional. Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right…

To buttress what @fixxer stated: i do think it should be allowed for states to have horrible rules and laws (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay, anti-white, etc). People have, and will continue, to vote with their feet. More poignantly, companies will vote with their foot print. If a majority of people in Arkansas want to establish the state as a White Majority Zone, democracy dictates that it must be so. Ditto for any other region or color.

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

#130

Post by unlmtd »

coldtea wrote: post #17
unlmtd wrote: post #8

The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.

First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners. You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land. So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast. Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a seri…

No. Ownership of a good is acquired through homesteading.
Post reply on HN