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

51–60 of 130 posts

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

#51

Post by mc32 »

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.

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, it's not as though we don't have people fleeing post-USSR countries like Cuba, Georgia and Russia and Ukraine, etc.

And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities?

I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider Singapore. What would happen if they just opened the doors and let anyone who wanted to go in, go in (IN, ID, PH, MY, BD, as well as Pan-EU)?

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

fleitz wrote: post #24
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

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by fiatjaf »

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…

> 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.

You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?

In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?

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

#54

Post by fixxer »

ciaranm wrote: post #47
fixxer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone has political motivations. You're going to entirely discount a group that studies migration from the most esteemed university in the UK because you don't like what someone puts on their twitter feed?

Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data.

This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.

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

#55

Post by maxerickson »

Kequc wrote: post #38
maxerickson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.

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

#56

Post by wz1000 »

MichaelGG wrote: post #23
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.

>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 stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.

This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

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

#57

Post by aomurphy »

fixxer wrote: post #39
BeetleB wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

These figures are similar from 2009: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fpt.2009.5 from Population Trends March 2009, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 20–28 by Amy Ellis Office for National Statistics.

What figures do you believe are accurate?

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

#58

Post by fiatjaf »

jerkstate wrote: post #13
unlmtd wrote: post #8

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

For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.

Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now.

The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.

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

#59

Post by arcticbull »

booleandilemma wrote: post #43

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 reach equilibrium.

One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.

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

#60

Post by pimmen89 »

nyrulez wrote: post #33
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 sen…

The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into?

Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).

Post reply on HN