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 2/24/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


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.


Then please point it out more clearly to me, because when i search for Iemitsu I get tokugawa Iemitsu and with that the closing of Japans borders.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

amersfoort wrote:

Then please point it out more clearly to me, because when i search for Iemitsu I get tokugawa Iemitsu and with that the closing of Japans borders.


Oops... You are correct... My mistake. I didn't read it clearly.
maffoo 
79814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / England
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

amersfoort wrote:




maffoo wrote:


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.


Intolerance is part of human nature. Removing borders would not remove the "them" and "us" perception, as the existing population would still see a lot of "foreigners" coming in. The political borders would be gone but not the human ones; an example would be people in rural areas complaining when "townies" buy property in the countryside - they are part of the same nation yet still different enough to cause tension.

As for the jobs, if you have an area where jobs are scarce large numbers of immigrants (legal or not) can create a perception of increased pressure on jobs, leading to tensions with the existing population, especially if they feel they are being undercut by the immigrants.



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.


I would argue that your parents' taxes paid towards your education and healthcare (you could see it as a loan in a way, as your taxes will presumably pay towards their care in their old age.) Regardless, this is again a question of perception - if immigrants come into an area and start using already stretched services, people can see it as them coming in and "taking" from the existing population. Then there are schools in the UK where English is a second language for a large number (sometimes even a majority) of the pupils - this leads to tensions with the existing population.



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.


Contact and communication are definitely positive things. All countries can learn from others and share ideas, technology etc. However, eliminating borders would IMO be counterproductive in this respect, as it would lead to the "them" and "us" perception, which would create barriers to communication.

This isn't to say that immigration is fundamentally bad of course, the UK has gained a lot from immigrants over the centuries (possibly more than we should have - I seem to remember some controversy a few years back when we were "stealing" medical staff from developing countries!) Controlled levels of immigration (ie. effective but not overzealous border control) is a benefit to the host nation; eliminating borders is not.


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?



I think there are certainly good moral reasons for stopping immigrants. The risk of conflict from mass immigration (which would occur if all borders were eliminated) is one. Also, the government of a country has a moral duty to act in the interests of its citizens, careful control of immigration is in their interests; for example, it is in our interests to allow in a highly qualified scientist or doctor who will add to the nation's general wellbeing, but to turn back terrorists and rapists at the border. The only question is really where we should draw the line.

6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/24/10

maffoo wrote:


amersfoort wrote:




maffoo wrote:


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.


Intolerance is part of human nature. Removing borders would not remove the "them" and "us" perception, as the existing population would still see a lot of "foreigners" coming in. The political borders would be gone but not the human ones; an example would be people in rural areas complaining when "townies" buy property in the countryside - they are part of the same nation yet still different enough to cause tension.

As for the jobs, if you have an area where jobs are scarce large numbers of immigrants (legal or not) can create a perception of increased pressure on jobs, leading to tensions with the existing population, especially if they feel they are being undercut by the immigrants.



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.


I would argue that your parents' taxes paid towards your education and healthcare (you could see it as a loan in a way, as your taxes will presumably pay towards their care in their old age.) Regardless, this is again a question of perception - if immigrants come into an area and start using already stretched services, people can see it as them coming in and "taking" from the existing population. Then there are schools in the UK where English is a second language for a large number (sometimes even a majority) of the pupils - this leads to tensions with the existing population.



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.


Contact and communication are definitely positive things. All countries can learn from others and share ideas, technology etc. However, eliminating borders would IMO be counterproductive in this respect, as it would lead to the "them" and "us" perception, which would create barriers to communication.

This isn't to say that immigration is fundamentally bad of course, the UK has gained a lot from immigrants over the centuries (possibly more than we should have - I seem to remember some controversy a few years back when we were "stealing" medical staff from developing countries!) Controlled levels of immigration (ie. effective but not overzealous border control) is a benefit to the host nation; eliminating borders is not.


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?



I think there are certainly good moral reasons for stopping immigrants. The risk of conflict from mass immigration (which would occur if all borders were eliminated) is one. Also, the government of a country has a moral duty to act in the interests of its citizens, careful control of immigration is in their interests; for example, it is in our interests to allow in a highly qualified scientist or doctor who will add to the nation's general wellbeing, but to turn back terrorists and rapists at the border. The only question is really where we should draw the line.



Ahh finally a awnser that might be true enough to accept.

But your points are all about the legal citizens reaction, not about rights, your judgement is based on what is good for one or perhaps both parties, but not on the rights of both parties.
Your moral reason is to stop conflict, wich is something I certainly agree on but to stop other form living a better life because of our own intolerance is that morally righteous?
Is depriving others from a better life just to avoid conflict a good enough reason to stop ''them'' at our borders?
The choice is basically this: selective happyness or equal rights (wich on the long term will happen anyway and will proove to be the best for all nations).

But yes you have awnsered my question, this is a real moral objection, and it perhaps is just.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 3/1/10
It is too keep the poor countries poor

and the rich countried wealthy

we import their goods cheap and import our good expensive

we pay them less for services and they pay us more

we keep them out and they will stay poor


















































First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.