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

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

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by coldtea » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

>1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture. 3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations.

The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.

First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).

But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.

Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).

First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.

And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).

But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?

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

#63

Post by pimmen89 » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

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.

But you think Channel 4 is better when it comes to academic honesty and not biasing their polls?

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

#64

Post by ciaranm » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

fixxer wrote: post #54

ciaranm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who do you know who's genuinely not political? People have biases all over the place. They're not going to disappear - understand them, acknowledge them, interpret them. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "nah I don't like that". They're not publishing opinion pieces - it's research.

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

#65

Post by CuriouslyC » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:32 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…

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 our government would destroy the very system that created it. If your argument is that they are dicks that only care about creating a tyranny of the majority to "punish" others, I would argue that is only true of a small pathological subset of humans, and that subset would be insufficient to influence a nation. Such a subset might be able to create an Islamic town, but why shouldn't that town be able to live according to its religion? If such dickishness was a widespread attribute we wouldn't have societies at all.

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.

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

#66

Post by classicsnoot » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #45

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…

> 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. We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as…

I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag.

I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew.

Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

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

#67

Post by pimmen89 » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.

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

#68

Post by phy6 » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

exit wrote: post #46

phy6 wrote: post #36

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…

in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't form a consensus with the others there. i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.

We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace, including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.

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

#69

Post by Koshkin » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one's philosophy.

For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a right to immigrate into your home?

If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.

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

#70

Post by fixxer » Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

classicsnoot wrote: post #66

mozumder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as…

I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag. I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew. Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)