NATION

PASSWORD

Open borders in USA: ethically required?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Free South Califas
Senator
 
Posts: 4213
Founded: May 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Open borders in USA: ethically required?

Postby Free South Califas » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:51 pm

Michael Huemer - Is There a Right to Immigrate?
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/Immigration.pdf

Huemer sets up a number of thought experiments and proves that the US actually has a moral duty to open its borders. He argues that, at most, the US may be ethically entitled to open its borders somewhat slowly - over 5 years, perhaps - so that the move may be canceled if it is found that open immigration has caused some unforeseen harm. He demonstrates that closing the border is a violent act. While he does not argue that it would be good or moral to do so (and strongly implies with other examples that it would not be), he says that even if it were true that immigrants caused undue strain on social services and paid less tax than necessary to cover the cost; since it is possible for the federal government to recoup such losses with less coercive means, the government may not ethically exclude immigrants from joining the society as legal residents.

Having established this, Huemer points out that current restrictions are akin to the racist and sexist policies of old: motivated by an unjust desire for relatively privileged people to avoid minor economic discomfort at the expense of other people's basic rights. Though I don't want to do the argument an injustice through inadequate paraphrasing, I will note that Huemer hypothesizes a hungry man, Marvin, who is walking toward a marketplace where there are at least some vendors who have food they are willing to exchange for something he owns, who share enough common linguistic background to conduct the transaction, and/or who have the right to extend an invitation to Marvin at their own pleasure. He then hypothesizes a third party who physically restrains Marvin from entering the marketplace, and asks just what kind of potential harm would justify limiting Marvin's otherwise-accepted right to move freely.

What say you, NSG? I have not included a poll, because the argument in the Huemer piece above is somewhat unique among American arguments in favor of open immigration policy, and I would prefer that people respond to that argument. The piece is just over 30 pages excluding bibliography, but for a philosophical proof, it is a very easy read; if you do not want to devote that much of your attention to his argument, feel free to pick one of the many thought experiments that take less than a page to resolve, and debate one of those.

Of course, there is no thread ownership in NSG, so I cannot stop you from expressing an opinion on the ethics of immigration restrictions in the USA or in applicable scenarios, even if it does not fit my expressed desires above.

Penny for your thoughts?
Last edited by Free South Califas on Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FSC Government
Senate: Saul Califas; First Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Senior Whip, Communist Party (Meiderup)

WA: Califan WA Detachment (CWAD).
Justice
On Autism/"R-word"
(Lir. apologized, so ignore that part.)
Anarchy Works/Open Borders
Flag
.
.
.
I'm autistic and (proud, but) thus not a "social detective", so be warned: I might misread or accidentally offend you.
'Obvious' implications, tones, cues etc. may also be missed.
SELF MANAGEMENT ✯ DIRECT ACTION ✯ WORKER SOLIDARITY
Libertarian Communist

.
COMINTERN/Stonewall/TRC

User avatar
Keron
Envoy
 
Posts: 325
Founded: Oct 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Keron » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:57 pm

Open borders are not only ethically required, but also economically sensible.
Keronians has evolved into Keron

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:01 pm

Keron wrote:Open borders are not only ethically required, but also economically sensible.


This.

You want your nice economy and your nice people?

Keep dem borders open.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Earth and the Colonies
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 119
Founded: Dec 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Earth and the Colonies » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:06 pm

Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.
Last edited by Earth and the Colonies on Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My nation DOES NOT reflect my political views. The interplanetary-level Federation government is libertarian only for realism purposes, and functions more like a confederation. Since it has such a large territory to manage, the federal bureaucracy can only provide the bare essentials efficiently, while most other decisions are devolved down to the planetary governments.

If you're reading this, you are an winrar.

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18685
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:15 pm

What does moral duty (which is subjective) have to do with the actual business of running a country again? The US is no more obligated to open its borders than Mexico is, or for that matter any other country. The various national governments of the world have the right to determine their own immigration policies and if some people can't move to wherever they want to easily, that is just too bad. A nation's primary responsibility is for its own citizens.

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:19 pm

Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.

Without having sky-high taxes on almost everyone in order to prop up this welfare state.

User avatar
Socialist EU
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1825
Founded: Aug 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

For freedom of movement

Postby Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:19 pm

Saiwania wrote:What does moral duty (which is subjective) have to do with the actual business of running a country again? The US is no more obligated to open its borders than Mexico is, or for that matter any other country. The various national governments of the world have the right to determine their own immigration policies and if some people can't move to wherever they want to easily, that is just too bad. A nation's primary responsibility is for its own citizens.


That will not advance human freedom.
Egypt:
Spontaneous protests will not produce organisation, it is more likely to lead to an oppressive clampdown! There needs to be a long-term strategy to build the left towards..
-mass parties of the left
-mass trade unions
-mass left-wing publications

Europe
For a United socialist Europe under democratic working class rule.
For the unity of the working class across Europe and eventually* take power.
*'Towards a communist party of the EU'

Britain
For a voluntary federated democratic republic.

Scotland
Abstain on independence referendum, Salmond wants to keep within the union!

User avatar
Keron
Envoy
 
Posts: 325
Founded: Oct 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Keron » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:20 pm

Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.


The reason being?
Keronians has evolved into Keron

User avatar
The Matthew Islands
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6703
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Matthew Islands » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:21 pm

I worry about wages in unskilled jobs such as Hod-carrying (my current job where I'm lucky to earn £60 a day) if immigration was completely open. I also have concerns over how welfare, education and healthcare can be funded in a country that has open borders but doesn't have an infinite supply of jobs.
Tagmatium wrote:Not that I'm saying you look like an uplifted parsnip.

Mallorea and Riva should resign
I suppose I'm NSG's official moron. Credit to Aalnordhaven for spotting it.
Aalnordhavn » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:01 pm
Odds of seeing anyone under 110 on this thread: 0 with one exception
Just sayin'
Souseiseki wrote:as a posting career in the UK Poltics Thread becomes longer, the probability of literally becoming souseiseki approaches 1

User avatar
Socialist EU
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1825
Founded: Aug 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:21 pm

The Republic of Lanos wrote:
Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.

Without having sky-high taxes on almost everyone in order to prop up this welfare state.


You're cynically assuming people will emigrate to the US just for it's welfare. Also, due to the reduction of necessary labour time, work sharing would help alleviate unemployment.
Egypt:
Spontaneous protests will not produce organisation, it is more likely to lead to an oppressive clampdown! There needs to be a long-term strategy to build the left towards..
-mass parties of the left
-mass trade unions
-mass left-wing publications

Europe
For a United socialist Europe under democratic working class rule.
For the unity of the working class across Europe and eventually* take power.
*'Towards a communist party of the EU'

Britain
For a voluntary federated democratic republic.

Scotland
Abstain on independence referendum, Salmond wants to keep within the union!

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:22 pm

Keron wrote:
Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.


The reason being?


Because obviously state welfare and social services would be provided to anyone who asked, not just actual citizens. *nod*
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:23 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Keron wrote:
The reason being?


Because obviously state welfare and social services would be provided to anyone who asked, not just actual citizens. *nod*


Because open borders OBVIOUSLY equals open citizenship, amirite? :rofl:
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
The Nationalist Republic of America
Envoy
 
Posts: 222
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Nationalist Republic of America » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:26 pm

Dear god no! :shock: :eek:


Yes, immigrants are beneficial to the country. However, we can't use have the border completely open and let all sorts of riff raff run in here.

Instead, we should just make immigration easier (while tightening border security) and bring back assimilation programs.
Yes, I'm an American nationalist. But even though I'm an American nationalist, I'm not going to be all in your face about it, and I do not think America is the greatest country in the world. In fact, I don't believe that there even is a greatest country in the world.
I also don't believe that we should go around invading Middle Eastern countries just because "there might be 'WMD's'"

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:27 pm

The Nationalist Republic of America wrote:Dear god no! :shock: :eek:


Yes, immigrants are beneficial to the country. However, we can't use have the border completely open and let all sorts of riff raff run in here.

Instead, we should just make immigration easier (while tightening border security) and bring back assimilation programs.


Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Sondstead
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1036
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sondstead » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:28 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Because obviously state welfare and social services would be provided to anyone who asked, not just actual citizens. *nod*


Because open borders OBVIOUSLY equals open citizenship, amirite? :rofl:


And of course, it is in fact a law of physics that immigrants neither pay taxes nor contribute to the economy in any way. This is referred to in technical terms as the Klux Property.
Maredoratica – A Realistic Modern Tech Roleplaying Region
Fartsniffage wrote:Poor analogy. A better one would be a high school american football team approaching a couple of kids quietly reading/writing during lunch hour, telling them to play with them and then stamping on their books/notepads if they refuse.

All with the teacher watching on from the sidelines nodding in approval.

Visit Sondstead at : IIWiki (related articles) : Embassy Program
Commerce : KMF Automobile : Nörditser Windstrand International Airport

Follow SRR Sondstead World – Your Window on Sondstead

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18685
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:29 pm

Socialist EU wrote:That will not advance human freedom.


That does not make it any less of a reality, if you do not like a particular nation's immigration policies; take it up with that national government. Countries cannot be forced to open their borders when they may have any number of reasons for wanting to regulate their borders. The citizenry of a particular country might even vote to restrict immigration and in that case, I believe it is appropriate for a democratic government to respect their citizens' wishes.
Last edited by Saiwania on Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Myrensis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5028
Founded: Oct 05, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Myrensis » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:32 pm

I'll just stick with the first part for the moment, regarding border control as a prima facie rights violation.

First, the laws are coercive. That is, immigration restrictions are implemented through threats of physical force. Borders are patrolled by armed guards, and armed officers forcibly remove those who are discovered residing in the country illegally.


True, and utterly silly. Any law that the state has the power to enforce is by definition coercive, if they aren't, how exactly are those laws enforced? If I violate any law of the United States 'armed officers' will forcibly detain for some period of time, and I may be 'forced' to appear in court, or pay a fine, or be incarcerated.

Second, the laws are highly restrictive. That is, they significantly interfere with individuals' ability to control their own destinies.


See above. All laws are inherently restrictive, as they define what we can and cannot do in society.

For most of those affected, the choice that is thereby closed off is an extremely important one, one with profound implications for the rest of those individuals' lives. Few decisions are so important as the choice of what society to live in.


So much pap. Lot's of choices that have profound implications for our lives are closed to us. What's so special about the 'choice of what society to live in'? How about how I live in that society? Why should it be illegal for me to rob a bank? I'm not actually stealing any individuals money, it's all insured by the government. The same government that apparently has an 'ethical obligation' to bear the financial burden of caring for any random person who walks across the border. Which frankly, we have issues with poverty, poor medical care and education in this country, correcting that should be a higher 'ethical priority' than demanding we welcome the 6.7 billion or so people who aren't American citizens with open arms.

In addition, immigration laws prevent those already living within the United States from interacting with would-be immigrants in ways that they would otherwise choose-- for instance, from employing the would-be immigrants, renting them apartments, or entering into other business and social relations


Laws allowing for prison sentences prevent me as a free citizen from interacting with inmates in ways that I would otherwise choose. Abolish the prisons. And before anyone starts..that is essentially the crux of this argument, I can't do X with people who face the consequences of violating Y law, so therefore Y law is wrong.

U.S. immigration policy forces millions to live in the Third World who could have better lives in America if only the American government were to step out of the way.


U.S. theft, drug distribution, and fraud policies force me to live in a lower financial status when I could have a better life if only the government were to step out of the way.

Clearly I live in a state of constant rights violations by my government :p

User avatar
Hippostania
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8826
Founded: Nov 23, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Hippostania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:33 pm

Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.

It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.
Factbook - New Embassy Program
Economic Right: 10.00 - Social Authoritarian: 2.87 - Foreign Policy Neoconservative: 9.54 - Cultural Liberal: -1.14
For: market liberalism, capitalism, eurofederalism, neoconservatism, British unionism, atlanticism, LGB rights, abortion rights, Greater Israel, Pan-Western federalism, NATO, USA, EU
Against: communism, socialism, anarchism, eurosceptism, agrarianism, Swiss/Irish/Scottish/Welsh independence, cultural relativism, all things Russian, aboriginal/native American special rights

Hippo's Political Party Rankings (updated 21/7/2013)

User avatar
The Joseon Dynasty
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6015
Founded: Jan 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Joseon Dynasty » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm

What if the vendors at the marketplace did not extend an invitation to Marvin and, by extension, the third party was acting on their behalf? Would that change the conclusion?
  • No, I'm not Korean. I'm British and as white as the Queen's buttocks.
  • Bio: I'm a PhD student in Statistics. Interested in all sorts of things. Currently getting into statistical signal processing for brain imaging. Currently co-authoring a paper on labour market dynamics, hopefully branching off into a test of the Markov property for labour market transition rates.

User avatar
The Nationalist Republic of America
Envoy
 
Posts: 222
Founded: Oct 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Nationalist Republic of America » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm

Agymnum wrote:
The Nationalist Republic of America wrote:Dear god no! :shock: :eek:


Yes, immigrants are beneficial to the country. However, we can't use have the border completely open and let all sorts of riff raff run in here.

Instead, we should just make immigration easier (while tightening border security) and bring back assimilation programs.


Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.



Destroying immigrant culture? When immigrants come here, they should live as if they were in their new country, not their old. You know, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? Ideally, immigrants would drop that bad parts of the their culture and retain the good ones, which would contribute to the already existing culture that is here, helping further develop and advance American culture.

But assimilation programs would be beneficial. For example, they would help teach immigrants English, our etiquette and manners, give them a brief lesson on our history, and tell them why Americans culturally do certain things. If immigrants don't assimilate, it can cause division in the nation, as they will segregate themselves by living in their own communities and continue living as if they were in their home country. They won't connect with the rest of the host country, and that could be a problem down the road.

This is nothing like the Native American "assimilation".
Yes, I'm an American nationalist. But even though I'm an American nationalist, I'm not going to be all in your face about it, and I do not think America is the greatest country in the world. In fact, I don't believe that there even is a greatest country in the world.
I also don't believe that we should go around invading Middle Eastern countries just because "there might be 'WMD's'"

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm

Hippostania wrote:
Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.

It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.


What do you mean "we," white Finn man?
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm

Hippostania wrote:
Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.

It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.


Mostly because we forced them to.

You're not even American. Who are you to say what's good for this country?
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:35 pm

Hippostania wrote:
Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?

Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.

We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.

It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.

If you ever bother to go to America, go to a Native American reservation. You'll be surprised. Trust me.

Plus, the Finns didn't show up first.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:35 pm

Agymnum wrote:
Hippostania wrote:It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.


Mostly because we forced them to.

You're not even American. Who are you to say what's good for this country?


Someone who's More American than 49 million of us American citizens.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Socialist EU
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1825
Founded: Aug 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:37 pm

Saiwania wrote:
Socialist EU wrote:That will not advance human freedom.


That does not make it any less of a reality, if you do not like a particular nation's immigration policies; take it up with that national government. Countries cannot be forced to open their borders when they may have any number of reasons for wanting to regulate their borders. The citizenry of a particular country might even vote to restrict immigration and in that case, I believe it is appropriate for a democratic government to respect their citizens' wishes.


Ok, why not keep New York for New York's citizens. We must respect the democratic wishes of the citizen's of New York and keep the states borders secure and bureaucratically managed. Of course, if you do not like the states immigration policies, take it up with the New York state government.
Egypt:
Spontaneous protests will not produce organisation, it is more likely to lead to an oppressive clampdown! There needs to be a long-term strategy to build the left towards..
-mass parties of the left
-mass trade unions
-mass left-wing publications

Europe
For a United socialist Europe under democratic working class rule.
For the unity of the working class across Europe and eventually* take power.
*'Towards a communist party of the EU'

Britain
For a voluntary federated democratic republic.

Scotland
Abstain on independence referendum, Salmond wants to keep within the union!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adam Friedland Gum Town, Alvecia, Arlye Austros, Bananaistan, Caffeinated, Definitely Not Trumptonium, Dresderstan, Dunkirlothesia, Esalia, Facist Fighting Fogeys, Fairsea, Fartsniffage, Gallade, Google Adsense [Bot], Grinning Dragon, Heloin, Kavagrad, La xinga, Neu California, Old Tyrannia, Opiachus, Rathalas, Sahuarita, Saiwania, Salus Maior, San Lumen, Suryak, The Alkdorian Empire, The Huskar Social Union, Valentine Z, Washington Resistance Army, Xmara

Advertisement

Remove ads