4 ms·
I know you're joking but some people actually think that way and it's so disgusting. No borders no nations no walls
by paint 3y ago
I know you're joking but some people actually think that way and it's so disgusting.
No borders no nations no walls
- dudul 3y agoI am not joking. Countries are made to protect their citizens first.
- Zetice 3y ago[flagged]
- dudul 3y agoPeople immigrated there because it was needed at the time. What was good centuries ago may not apply today. Yes permanent residents in the US/Iceland/Australia/Spain/whatever should get priority over temporary visa holders in their respective country. This is the whole point of countries.
- Zetice 3y agoNo, people immigrated here because it was better here, and it was better here because people immigrated. And no, permanent residents do not have anything about them that is inherently more deserving of anything. That is in no way what a country is for. A country provides social services to people in exchange for some control, so as to keep order. If you give control, you get services. Land borders are not an important aspect of a country’s decision of who to provide services to, who that country can provide order to is.
- dudul 3y agoOnce we reach level 4 or 5 of replies I think it's not really worth pursuing so I'll just give my take on this one and leave it there. That's probably a case where principles/values or whatever you want to call it differ too much for anything to come out of it. People were allowed and welcome to immigrate because there was a gigantic country to fill. Now this policy makes no sense so rules have changed. It's just common sense. The way a country was built/populated doesn't need to persist forever and should adapt to whatever works best at a given time. Otherwise let's push the logic: mostly white people immigrated at the beginning, should we stick to this? It makes no sense. It's not about "deserving". It's about the common good of the population. I believe in helping people who are already here better their life instead of relocating someone. One could argue that having access to good jobs is part of the nebulous "social services" you mention. As a side note, it's interesting how the interest of the immigrant seems to always be superficially taken into consideration. Immigrants don't all want to move. I would bet a lot of them would much prefer to have a better life where they are to begin with.
- Zetice 3y agoYou keep getting stuck in the bureaucracy, presuming it results in just outcomes. It doesn’t. If the concept of citizenship was simply an agreement to the social contract, open to all, you could start to favor those who’ve agreed over those who haven’t, though even then you can’t say from a moral perspective the lives of those who’ve agreed are superior. However you seem overly attached to the concept of soil and citizenship, both of which can be manipulated by bigots to hurt the people they’re hateful towards. This is why “Americans” can’t be considered first; what even qualifies is set based on a wildly racist past, riddled with hateful people making nationalistic laws that remain in effect today.
- spaceprison 3y agoIf the contract is this simple then is it surprising that existing control givers (aka permanent residents) may have a sense that as long as they're still 'giving' they should still be 'getting' or at least have a place in line to 'get' ahead of a prospective 'giver' (h1b).
- Zetice 3y agoExisting control givers are corrupt and selfish, possibly evil.
- thfuran 3y agoWhere's the joke? The purpose of any government ought to be to benefit its citizens. Certainly there's a moral obligation to not unduly wrong others in the course of that pursuit, but it is contrary to the mission of a government to benefit foreigners at the expense of its own population.
- Zetice 3y agoThe purpose of government is to provide social goods to everyone who agreed to give up some freedoms to be part of that government. Non citizens have equal right to feed their families, and anyone who has agreed to the social contract has equal rights to the social services the government has agreed to provide, regardless of citizenship.
- pacerier 3y agoreplace the word "citizen" with "consenter" to understand where the mistake is in your argument.
- dudul 3y agoDo you have walls and doors in your house?
- Zetice 3y agoIdiotic argument, nobody's house is 3.7 million sq miles, nor do 350 million people live in anybody's "house".
- nec4b 3y agoSo it's inconvenient for you to open your house to anyone?
- Zetice 3y agoIf my house were like a country, it would be quite convenient and I would indeed open my home to everyone willing to participate in my social contract. But my home isn’t in any way like a country, so this question isn’t meaningful.
- nec4b 3y agoSo your logic doesn't apply for your home, for your neighborhood or your city? Does it hold for you state or do you need to become completely independent country?