First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
What is the right to live somewhere?
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/23/10
This has been bothering me for quite a while now, so I'm asking others for their opinions, perhaps they can help me figuring this out.

What is the right to live in a country?
For example my country, the Netherlands, not everyone is allowed to live here, if you are from a poor country in Africa then you probably wont be allowed to stay here legally, why is that?
Wat did I do to deserve to live here? All I did was getting born here, nothing special, everyone I know was born so that cant be it right?
Another example: Illegal immigrants in the US, Mexicans for example, alot of them go to the US but they do not have a Green card, or any other right to live and work there, why? What did the American people do to deserve to live in the US?

Of course I understand that if we open all borders permanently that this would cause a massive global migration and that that wouldn't do us (1st world country's) many good, but we have practically no right to stop that.

It really makes me feel guilty, I did nothing to deserve this, while others travel around the globe just to get here, they actually went through hardships to get here.... Doesn't that makes them deserve to live here in my country?
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/23/10
Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.
19580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / United Kingdom,...
Offline
Posted 2/23/10
That is a very good point As for the answer to your question ... there really isnt one, may play well with religion but im no preacher :p
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/23/10 , edited 2/23/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


I'm not talking about "privileged" countries... I'm talking about ourselves. If all men are privileged, then it wouldn't be a privileged. Get it?

I'm no good at explanation so everything might be messed up especially since I am trying to be as sincere as possible not only to you, but to those who we are talking about so here goes:http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n2/velasquez.html

That link might provide some insights about your topic. However, I do not expect you to change your mind since I do not have the intention to do so. This is just to show you the two sides of the right to cross borders.

However, not all immigrations are like that. At times, forcefully crossing the borders may bring good change into a human (although there are risks). An example of this is the escape from North Korea to the South. In this scenario, this is different from your first example because the one preventing you to leave is your country itself. Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EeXTG4mWw&feature=related

How I love History Asia... Sorry, but I enjoy history more than philosophy.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


I'm not talking about "privileged" countries... I'm talking about ourselves. If all men are privileged, then it wouldn't be a privileged. Get it?

I'm no good at explanation so everything might be messed up especially since I am trying to be as sincere as possible not only to you, but to those who we are talking about so here goes:http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n2/velasquez.html

That link might provide some insights about your topic. However, I do not expect you to change your mind since I do not have the intention to do so. This is just to show you the two sides of the right to cross borders.

However, not all immigrations are like that. At times, forcefully crossing the borders may bring good change into a human (although there are risks). An example of this is the escape from North Korea to the South. In this scenario, this is different from your first example because the one preventing you to leave is your country itself. Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EeXTG4mWw&feature=related

How I love History Asia... Sorry, but I enjoy history more than philosophy.


Well after watching the interesting video about North-Korean refugees and reading the article with pretty much the same statement as this topic, I can say pretty sure that there is no such thing as a right to live somewhere.
But that was what we already knew, the real problem is, how do we create a fair and equal solution to this situation.

Privileged people live in 1st world countrys, they (we) stop people at our borders because of the fear for material losses, now thanks to your article I see that even that argument has its flawed points but still it is usable because unlimited migration would cause alot of social problems.

I am not talking about escaping from a oppressive country, but talking about a (well for example) Mexican trying to get into the USA, he is stopped because he doesnt have the papers too live over the *artificial* border.

Equal chances not only mean that people only recieve more chances but also that ''privileged people'' have to give away chances, I am talking about us, Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, these were the words in the french revolution, alot of people have taken a liking in these words, yet very few truely support these words.

Freedom to live where ever the hell you want and to do whatever the hell you want (keep it nice people), Equality in chances soo that no one is ''privileged" over a other, and Brotherhood because we all want too like eachother.

Can we live up to these terms when we do not allow others to live in our country's because of our selfish reasons?
(assuming that everyone agrees with these terms, I see no reason not too).
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


I'm not talking about "privileged" countries... I'm talking about ourselves. If all men are privileged, then it wouldn't be a privileged. Get it?

I'm no good at explanation so everything might be messed up especially since I am trying to be as sincere as possible not only to you, but to those who we are talking about so here goes:http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n2/velasquez.html

That link might provide some insights about your topic. However, I do not expect you to change your mind since I do not have the intention to do so. This is just to show you the two sides of the right to cross borders.

However, not all immigrations are like that. At times, forcefully crossing the borders may bring good change into a human (although there are risks). An example of this is the escape from North Korea to the South. In this scenario, this is different from your first example because the one preventing you to leave is your country itself. Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EeXTG4mWw&feature=related

How I love History Asia... Sorry, but I enjoy history more than philosophy.


Well after watching the interesting video about North-Korean refugees and reading the article with pretty much the same statement as this topic, I can say pretty sure that there is no such thing as a right to live somewhere.
But that was what we already knew, the real problem is, how do we create a fair and equal solution to this situation.

Privileged people live in 1st world countrys, they (we) stop people at our borders because of the fear for material losses, now thanks to your article I see that even that argument has its flawed points but still it is usable because unlimited migration would cause alot of social problems.

I am not talking about escaping from a oppressive country, but talking about a (well for example) Mexican trying to get into the USA, he is stopped because he doesnt have the papers too live over the *artificial* border.

Equal chances not only mean that people only recieve more chances but also that ''privileged people'' have to give away chances, I am talking about us, Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, these were the words in the french revolution, alot of people have taken a liking in these words, yet very few truely support these words.

Freedom to live where ever the hell you want and to do whatever the hell you want (keep it nice people), Equality in chances soo that no one is ''privileged" over a other, and Brotherhood because we all want too like eachother.

Can we live up to these terms when we do not allow others to live in our country's because of our selfish reasons?
(assuming that everyone agrees with these terms, I see no reason not too).



Can we live up to these terms when we do not allow others to live in our country's because of our selfish reasons?

How do u know those terms dont only apply to the french? In the US army American lives are put on a higher priority then any other lives on the battle field. This was especialy true in WWII (atomic bomb was justified because it saved American lives).

The point is global peace, brotherhood, and equality, pursuit of happiness, love, ect. All sound great on paper, but they just dont exists in real life and they simply dont apply to everyone.its a sad truth, but rights/privlidges/ect. just means u killed enough people to make sure u can protect what little property u took from someone else.
To earn a right/privledge, you better kill everyone who refuses to give it to you. This is how the world works in reality-its like that in the animal kingdom to.Fighting for survival and competeing for resources is intra-species.IT always was and it always will be.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"-Animal Farm

Animal Farm is a good book, try reading it.peace over war
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/23/10
Who decides the right though? I think it's ok and logical for countries to have their own immigration policy. We don't own the world's land, so it isn't right for me (nor a right of mine) to simply go and illegally move to Canada or Japan. With the US, it isn't right to allow illegal immigrants to move in. One thing is that they don't pay taxes, and another is that it is an injustice to law abiding people who are applying for US citizenship in the correct and legal fashion.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/23/10 , edited 2/23/10

JJT2 wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


I'm not talking about "privileged" countries... I'm talking about ourselves. If all men are privileged, then it wouldn't be a privileged. Get it?

I'm no good at explanation so everything might be messed up especially since I am trying to be as sincere as possible not only to you, but to those who we are talking about so here goes:http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n2/velasquez.html

That link might provide some insights about your topic. However, I do not expect you to change your mind since I do not have the intention to do so. This is just to show you the two sides of the right to cross borders.

However, not all immigrations are like that. At times, forcefully crossing the borders may bring good change into a human (although there are risks). An example of this is the escape from North Korea to the South. In this scenario, this is different from your first example because the one preventing you to leave is your country itself. Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0EeXTG4mWw&feature=related

How I love History Asia... Sorry, but I enjoy history more than philosophy.


Well after watching the interesting video about North-Korean refugees and reading the article with pretty much the same statement as this topic, I can say pretty sure that there is no such thing as a right to live somewhere.
But that was what we already knew, the real problem is, how do we create a fair and equal solution to this situation.

Privileged people live in 1st world countrys, they (we) stop people at our borders because of the fear for material losses, now thanks to your article I see that even that argument has its flawed points but still it is usable because unlimited migration would cause alot of social problems.

I am not talking about escaping from a oppressive country, but talking about a (well for example) Mexican trying to get into the USA, he is stopped because he doesnt have the papers too live over the *artificial* border.

Equal chances not only mean that people only recieve more chances but also that ''privileged people'' have to give away chances, I am talking about us, Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood, these were the words in the french revolution, alot of people have taken a liking in these words, yet very few truely support these words.

Freedom to live where ever the hell you want and to do whatever the hell you want (keep it nice people), Equality in chances soo that no one is ''privileged" over a other, and Brotherhood because we all want too like eachother.

Can we live up to these terms when we do not allow others to live in our country's because of our selfish reasons?
(assuming that everyone agrees with these terms, I see no reason not too).



Can we live up to these terms when we do not allow others to live in our country's because of our selfish reasons?

How do u know those terms dont only apply to the french? In the US army American lives are put on a higher priority then any other lives on the battle field. This was especialy true in WWII (atomic bomb was justified because it saved American lives).

The point is global peace, brotherhood, and equality, pursuit of happiness, love, ect. All sound great on paper, but they just dont exists in real life and they simply dont apply to everyone.its a sad truth, but rights/privlidges/ect. just means u killed enough people to make sure u can protect what little property u took from someone else.
To earn a right/privledge, you better kill everyone who refuses to give it to you. This is how the world works in reality-its like that in the animal kingdom to.Fighting for survival and competeing for resources is intra-species.IT always was and it always will be.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others"-Animal Farm

Animal Farm is a good book, try reading it.peace over war





digs wrote:

Who decides the right though? I think it's ok and logical for countries to have their own immigration policy. We don't own the world's land, so it isn't right for me (nor a right of mine) to simply go and illegally move to Canada or Japan. With the US, it isn't right to allow illegal immigrants to move in. One thing is that they don't pay taxes, and another is that it is an injustice to law abiding people who are applying for US citizenship in the correct and legal fashion.


First things first, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't bombed to force the Japanese too resing, infact the Gouverment of Japan was already finding ways to resing in a honorable way, the real reason to use these weapons was simply too intimidate the Sovjet Union, I know this because I study history.

The global peace, brotherhood and equality can obviously be pursuied, You and I are doing it right now, okay its not a 100% fool proof but.... that is something we all can accept, but we are literly denying others that ''right''.
Your reference towards survival of the fittest it flawed, how come we have social systems providing help for the weak if we are all about survival of the fittest?

Now for Digs, If paying taxes was the only requirment to live in the US then I bet there would be no illegal immigrants, but since every year only 50.000 green cards are given away, while 6 million people apply for them, thats how the legal fashion goes, does not really sound fair to me.
Infact if paying taxes made you legal, then loads of illegals would pay them because that also made them able to get legal work, with minimum wages, health care etc etc.

Since we don't own the world's land, we should also have no authority over it, thus leaving us unable to refuse other to live on it.
Do we really believe that everyone needs to have equal chances, or is that just what we say while we continue this hypocrisy?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

amersfoort wrote:

Now for Digs, If paying taxes was the only requirment to live in the US then I bet there would be no illegal immigrants, but since every year only 50.000 green cards are given away, while 6 million people apply for them, thats how the legal fashion goes, does not really sound fair to me.
Infact if paying taxes made you legal, then loads of illegals would pay them because that also made them able to get legal work, with minimum wages, health care etc etc.

Since we don't own the world's land, we should also have no authority over it, thus leaving us unable to refuse other to live on it.
Do we really believe that everyone needs to have equal chances, or is that just what we say while we continue this hypocrisy?



I am not saying paying taxes makes you a citizen. I was arguing saying it isn't fair to real citizens because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes while others do. 1 individual person many not own a country, but humanity has dominion over the earth. We have laws and governments that have dominion over territories. I doubt 6 million people apply for green cards and only 50,000 get them. Even if that's true someone is still knowingly breaking a law in order to illegally immigrate. I believe that humans do have inalienable rights, but we still have to adhere to laws. I support immigration and I think it should be easier for people to immigrate, but laws are still important too. When people illegally immigrate they take the spot of someone who should be there that is waiting for legal citizenship. It's just not right for citizens and those who are trying to legally apply.
maffoo 
78814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


While it is arguably "unfair" that I get to live my current lifestyle through the pure luck of being born in a wealthy country, opening all borders can only lead to trouble. It could lead to a mass influx of immigrants from poorer countries into richer ones, resulting in pressure on resources (medical care, housing, food etc.) This in turn leads to resentment - "they" are taking "our" jobs, "we" can't see a doctor or get a home because "they" have taken "our" place in the queue etc. which leads to conflict. Not only that, but there could be a perception that the newcomers are getting the benefits of the wealthier society without having paid in; I pay taxes to help fund my country, as did my parents before me, while a newcomer has paid nothing (though admittedly they or their descendents could ultimately pay in a lot more than they initially take out.)

Then there are the cultural conflicts. Here in the UK, every so often there will be a flurry of debate over the Islamic veil, Shariah Law and the like. If "foreigners" arrive en masse and bring their culture and values with them the existing population can feel alienated and react violently, which benefits no-one.

IMO, borders can only really be abolished when the poorer countries become rich enough that their people don't feel the urge to cross continents in the hope of a less poverty-stricken life. Ironic really - we can only allow true equality once it has effectively been achieved!
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

digs wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Now for Digs, If paying taxes was the only requirment to live in the US then I bet there would be no illegal immigrants, but since every year only 50.000 green cards are given away, while 6 million people apply for them, thats how the legal fashion goes, does not really sound fair to me.
Infact if paying taxes made you legal, then loads of illegals would pay them because that also made them able to get legal work, with minimum wages, health care etc etc.

Since we don't own the world's land, we should also have no authority over it, thus leaving us unable to refuse other to live on it.
Do we really believe that everyone needs to have equal chances, or is that just what we say while we continue this hypocrisy?



I am not saying paying taxes makes you a citizen. I was arguing saying it isn't fair to real citizens because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes while others do. 1 individual person many not own a country, but humanity has dominion over the earth. We have laws and governments that have dominion over territories. I doubt 6 million people apply for green cards and only 50,000 get them. Even if that's true someone is still knowingly breaking a law in order to illegally immigrate. I believe that humans do have inalienable rights, but we still have to adhere to laws. I support immigration and I think it should be easier for people to immigrate, but laws are still important too. When people illegally immigrate they take the spot of someone who should be there that is waiting for legal citizenship. It's just not right for citizens and those who are trying to legally apply.


Digs you are right that it isnt fair that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes while citizens do, but if we wouldnt stop those illegal immigrants on the boreds and let them simply be legal immigrants from the start then they would pay taxes for they wouldnt be ''illegal''.
Well doubt all you want my dear friend but fact is that over 6.4 million applications for the 2008 Diversity Visa Lottery were submitted.
And who gave us dominion over earth? No one, we didnt recieved it, but we've taken it, now I'm not saying that I'm all for opening all borders because I know what chaos and hardships it would cause but moralliy seen we cannot have any good objections to why not.
And I doubt legal citizens will take the spots of illegal ones if the illegal ones leave, infact the jobs they do I wouldn't even consider doing them, so no, they do not take the spot of a legal citizen, they just fill the empty spots, the ones no legal citizen wants.



maffoo wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:

Couldn't it be just an accidental privilege? We're just lucky. That's all.


True but does that provide us with the right to forbid other people to live in these ''privileged'' country's?
If luck is the deciding factor then it is ''unfair'', and as we all try to make this world as fair as possible (I hope everyone agrees on this) then shouldn't we open all borders for everyone?

Do we not all agree that it is unfair for people too recieve things they do not ''deserve'', I for one think that non of us deserve to live in a 1st wolrd country any more then someone born in a 3rd world country, yet we denie them acces to our country's.

All I try to say is that it is morally despicable too denie others acces for what we got by accident.
I have learned that within our society everyone gets a equal chance, but we are denying others that equal chance at our borders.
The sadness is that how can Anyone (includes you and me) really have equal chances if we deny others the same right.

PS: I know that the word deserve and unfair are very abstract words with a even more abstract meaning on them.


While it is arguably "unfair" that I get to live my current lifestyle through the pure luck of being born in a wealthy country, opening all borders can only lead to trouble. It could lead to a mass influx of immigrants from poorer countries into richer ones, resulting in pressure on resources (medical care, housing, food etc.) This in turn leads to resentment - "they" are taking "our" jobs, "we" can't see a doctor or get a home because "they" have taken "our" place in the queue etc. which leads to conflict. Not only that, but there could be a perception that the newcomers are getting the benefits of the wealthier society without having paid in; I pay taxes to help fund my country, as did my parents before me, while a newcomer has paid nothing (though admittedly they or their descendents could ultimately pay in a lot more than they initially take out.)

Then there are the cultural conflicts. Here in the UK, every so often there will be a flurry of debate over the Islamic veil, Shariah Law and the like. If "foreigners" arrive en masse and bring their culture and values with them the existing population can feel alienated and react violently, which benefits no-one.

IMO, borders can only really be abolished when the poorer countries become rich enough that their people don't feel the urge to cross continents in the hope of a less poverty-stricken life. Ironic really - we can only allow true equality once it has effectively been achieved!


I know opening all borders would cause alot of trouble (on the short term) but I also think that on the long term were better of, but thats not what the discussion is about so I digress.
The cause of conflict (when opening all borders) is not because of the immigrants, but because of the intolerance of the citizens, they will be (not in a illegal way) deprived from rescourses.
The argument of ''they'' are taking our jobs is also flawed, because there would be no borders, there would be no group refferd to as ''they'' AKA the illegal immigrants, because they are no longer illegal, jobs would then be given to people who would qualify for then or who simply would take the lowest wages.
In other words the situation wouldnt change because right now people are choosen on the qualifications or their acceptance of low wages.

Until I got a job I didnt pay taxes.... Yet I got medical care and school, as soon as I got a job I started to pay taxes, doesnt that count towards the immigrants either? As soon as they get jobs they start paying taxes, funding the country.
And they didnt receive anything from the country before they were in it, Your point only applies to country's with closed borders.
Opening all borders would make that argument unusable.

History has teached me that cultures develop fastest when they come in touch with other cultures, for example, your metric numbers came from India, were adapted by Arabs and passed on too Italy and then spreaded all over Europe and ultimatly over half of the world.
Confclict comes from 2 sides, so us blaming the other side is an invalid argument simply because it is also our fault.

Yes the situation is very ironical, seems like equality cannot be given to others.

But thats not the question, the question is are there any real moral objections for stopping immigrants at borders?

6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

amersfoort wrote:

But thats not the question, the question is are there any real moral objections for stopping immigrants at borders?



I think I have one. Japan became a closed country because of Iyemitsu. Please search for the history of that. I don't have the time to type long. Sorry.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

But thats not the question, the question is are there any real moral objections for stopping immigrants at borders?



I think I have one. Japan became a closed country because of Iyemitsu. Please search for the history of that. I don't have the time to type long. Sorry.


Yes after the Spanish conquest of the Phillipines the Japanese lost their faith in the European's good intentions.
Thus reflecting upon their own country they saw that alot of people were convirted to Christianity and that process would only go faster and faster, so what they did was closing borders, and prosecute Christians.
Result was because of the lack of cultural exchanges they didn't acquire modern weaponry, this made them vulnerable and resulted in the US threathening Japan too open their harbors.
A result of this was that Japan's markets were completly open for Western products, and what you see is that Japan's economical and military power grew at an incredible speed, this process even made them win a war against Russia in 1905.

But the closing of Japan was not based on morality, but simply on power and influence.
Actually as we can see with the extreme example of Japan (completely closing their borders) we see that there wasn't much development in Japan at that time.

But when the borders had to open they opend up pretty good making Japan a force to be reckond with, simply put: they took good things out of other cultures and added them to their own, making them stronger.

But again: Is there any real moral objection for stopping immigrants at borders?


6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

amersfoort wrote:
Yes after the Spanish conquest of the Phillipines the Japanese lost their faith in the European's good intentions.
Thus reflecting upon their own country they saw that alot of people were convirted to Christianity and that process would only go faster and faster, so what they did was closing borders, and prosecute Christians.
Result was because of the lack of cultural exchanges they didn't acquire modern weaponry, this made them vulnerable and resulted in the US threathening Japan too open their harbors.
A result of this was that Japan's markets were completly open for Western products, and what you see is that Japan's economical and military power grew at an incredible speed, this process even made them win a war against Russia in 1905.

But the closing of Japan was not based on morality, but simply on power and influence.
Actually as we can see with the extreme example of Japan (completely closing their borders) we see that there wasn't much development in Japan at that time.

But when the borders had to open they opend up pretty good making Japan a force to be reckond with, simply put: they took good things out of other cultures and added them to their own, making them stronger.

But again: Is there any real moral objection for stopping immigrants at borders?




Not that one. I'm talking about the other one.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.