5 ms·

How so? I claim that severe discrimination (like banning a group of people from entry level positions) based on circumstances of birth is ethically dubious. I t

by an_cap 8y ago

How so? I claim that severe discrimination (like banning a group of people from entry level positions) based on circumstances of birth is ethically dubious. I think that's why we don't entertain the idea of banning people from entry level work because they were born to black parents. Why doesn't it generalize to being born to Indian parents?

diogenescynic 8y ago
Because it’s intellecually dishonest and an argument based on the fallacy of appeal to extremes. There is obviously a difference between citizenship and race... the entire purpose of a government is to service its citizens. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. If one country were to allow this first, they’d just be harming themselves, which would be against the interests of its citizens. You look out for your own citizens first. That’s just a government fundamental.
- an_cap 8y ago
  Two points. 1. I am on board with a government serving its citizens. That of course doesn't allow governments to murder foreigners at will. I humbly submit that it also doesn't allow governments to prevent a willing American employer from hiring a willing Indian employee. 2. Again, why is it okay to look out for your own citizens first, but not to look out for your fellow whites first? Your argument so far seems to be - because! Suppose I start an organization (we'll call it the KKK) whose whole purpose is to serve whites. And if the KKK then goes around preventing all white from hiring blacks, surely that wouldn't be okay.
- m0zg 8y ago
  Don't feed the troll.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. Maybe it's worth examining why would that be from time to time.
m0zg 8y ago
Now would be a good time for dang to get involved.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  ...why? Whether you agree with it or not, “people should have the right to relocate to other countries for work” doesn’t seem like an outrageously offensive or trolling opinion. Why does it cause such an emotional reaction for you?
  - m0zg 8y ago
    Because immigration is not a "right". It's a privilege. And if this privilege is afforded at all, it should be afforded in such a way as to not screw the citizens whom the government represents, through social contract and otherwise. Otherwise the citizens should elect the government that will represent their interests. I mean it's not rocket science, it's civics 101.
    - maksimum 8y ago
      Based on the US's history, relatively free immigration has made the country as a whole very successful. It's not obvious that citizens should want protectionist immigration policy.
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        "Free" Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe) 1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher) 2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option. 3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p... The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration) So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well. Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.

by an_cap 8y ago

diogenescynic 8y ago

Because it’s intellecually dishonest and an argument based on the fallacy of appeal to extremes. There is obviously a difference between citizenship and race... the entire purpose of a government is to service its citizens. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. If one country were to allow this first, they’d just be harming themselves, which would be against the interests of its citizens. You look out for your own citizens first. That’s just a government fundamental.

an_cap 8y ago
Two points. 1. I am on board with a government serving its citizens. That of course doesn't allow governments to murder foreigners at will. I humbly submit that it also doesn't allow governments to prevent a willing American employer from hiring a willing Indian employee. 2. Again, why is it okay to look out for your own citizens first, but not to look out for your fellow whites first? Your argument so far seems to be - because! Suppose I start an organization (we'll call it the KKK) whose whole purpose is to serve whites. And if the KKK then goes around preventing all white from hiring blacks, surely that wouldn't be okay.
m0zg 8y ago
Don't feed the troll.
rbanffy 8y ago
> Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. Maybe it's worth examining why would that be from time to time.

m0zg 8y ago

Now would be a good time for dang to get involved.

umanwizard 8y ago
...why? Whether you agree with it or not, “people should have the right to relocate to other countries for work” doesn’t seem like an outrageously offensive or trolling opinion. Why does it cause such an emotional reaction for you?
- m0zg 8y ago
  Because immigration is not a "right". It's a privilege. And if this privilege is afforded at all, it should be afforded in such a way as to not screw the citizens whom the government represents, through social contract and otherwise. Otherwise the citizens should elect the government that will represent their interests. I mean it's not rocket science, it's civics 101.
  - maksimum 8y ago
    Based on the US's history, relatively free immigration has made the country as a whole very successful. It's not obvious that citizens should want protectionist immigration policy.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      "Free" Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe) 1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher) 2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option. 3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-processing-time https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p... The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration) So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well. Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.