Respectfully, in my opinion, you have not explained anything. You've just made a series of statements without qualifiers, which is not convincing. Are you a pure utilitarian or do you believe in principles that go beyond that? Do you believe governments have restraints on their powers towards persons under their care regardless of citizenship status?

The point of government is universally debatable and changes based on new knowledge or new principles/needs; governments are continually evolving and there are many different types of governments. If a government has jurisdiction over persons and those persons misbehave, that government is still responsible for those persons and does not get to discard them without violating human rights as they are understood today (and most constitutions and courts subscribe to the position I am describing).

You keep iterating your belief in how governments should work but you have not defended that belief in a convincing way (with either historical examples or justifying the seeming abuses other than saying "they can do this"). I believe governments should and/or do support universal human rights and defend human rights (as enlightenment thinkers believed).

What you're describing, if I understand correctly, is in violation of those universal principles of human dignity (some persons are lesser than others under the law, which is not true no matter how you try to justify it).

The whole reason we have international courts is countries can violate the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. Your claim that governments can do whatever they want to non-citizens, flies in the face of that idea. Are you against international courts that try to protect persons from the governments that have jurisdiction over them against abuses?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48755995

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48755893

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Just because there are differences in public attitudes between groups or nations does not mean you can look at one applicant and assume they personally believe whatever the average person in that culture believes.

Most immigrants are not a random sample of the country they come from, they may be educated, secular, religious minorities, political dissidents, LGBT themselves, liberal, etc.

If you're worried about a particular belief or ideology then make that the standard for the applying individual and do background checks, interviews, security screening, civic knowledge, etc, rather than a blanket country of origin ban.

It is inherently discriminatory to take group-level generalizations and turn them into blanket exclusions of individuals.

As for the "destination country becomes like the origin country", that is far too simplistic and reductive of a take. Selection effects, institutions, education, intermarriage, generational change, laws/culture of the host country, all matter in shaping behaviors of immigrants in society. Immigrants affect a society but the society also affects immigrants.

What I'm saying is that persons legally present in a country should not be penalized as a group based on nationality, religion or any other broad cultural polling/averages rather than individual conduct and due process of the law.

Citizenship can allow for some distinctions but it does not make non-citizens mere guests whose rights can be revoked at will. A state can regulate immigration but it still has the moral/ethical and legal duties to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of all persons under its jurisdiction, especially toward people it has already admitted lawfully.

There should never be 'second class' persons under the law and rights should not be "subject to changing political winds" as you seem to be suggesting, because that would mean there are no such thing as universal human rights which would put all persons (citizen or otherwise) in danger of losing their rights at the whims of the state or the majority.

I also don’t see how universal human rights leads to “nation-states should not exist". A state can have borders, put limits on immigration, and prioritize citizens while still being limited by due process, equal protection, and non-discrimination.

The part I'm against is treating individuals as suspect mainly because of group averages, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc, rather than their own conduct.

If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).

I’m not saying countries are inherently unjust or that Sweden must have open borders. I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present (which to my understanding the party being discussed in this thread openly considers, but I could be misunderstanding their position).

I think the private-home analogy does not work in the instance of nation-states. States exercise legal power over people in ways private individuals do not, so due process and equal treatment matter more than an individual's personal preferences.

The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages (based on imperfect polling).

Practicalities matter but so does fairness to individuals.

Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.

>> "When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility."

Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).

>> "They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation."

They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle. And no, it very much is the fault of the nation/people making a discriminatory policy, not the fault of those being discriminated against because of that policy.

>> "Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will."

Is that an ethical/moral position? Does that conform with belief in universal human equality?

You just made a bunch of statements about what they can do and failed to address if the behavior is moral/ethical or otherwise... so it isn't even worth engaging with in a discussion since you just made a bunch of statements with no ethical rationale surrounding them.

All you're saying is "this is how it is or should be" which tells me nothing about whether those positions are discriminatory/unethical (but it seems clear they are unjust and arbitrary discrimination and unethical).

>> "In isolation that would be unjust discrimination."

You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it (legally, practically, ends support the means, or otherwise).

The discussion isn't about what a person or country CAN do, the discussion is about what is fair and ethical behavior.

I do see a lot of people on the right, some conservatives, and some libertarians calling for blanket bans on entire groups of people based on dubious claims and hypotheticals.

It's a hard argument to make that banning an entire country from opportunities/immigration is "treating everyone as an individual".

The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group (and ignore individual differences/persons)?

I would call that discriminatory and unethical. What are your thoughts on that (regardless of what laws/citizenship of the persons)? I'm asking in the abstract as an ethical exercise.

Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?

Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?

It really does simply boil down to whether or not you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic rights and considerations. The "citizenship" argument is essentially a legal loophole to claim that whatever the law says is the moral/ethical path, which it is not.

Laws can be (and often are) immortal/unethical, so grounding your argument in what is currently legal or not is a bad look (as it has always been); just ask former slave owners about the morality/ethics of the law, and see where that gets you.

The Supreme Court historically matches my argument (which is all that matters). The recent controversial rulings do not negate that the US has for hundreds of years extended the protections of the US Constitution to all peoples that are on US soil (including non-citizens).

Nobody has discussed dividing the wealth of nations (including me, a rising tide raises all ships), but even if such a thing occurred (distribution of global wealth), it would be a hard case to make to call that "ruinous to all our wealth" (Whose wealth? Ruinous to what groups? What history/science is this view based on? Do more people gain in wealth than lose wealth?)

We are a species of ape (and often act like it as can be surmised from the tribalism proudly on display here) but that does not mean we should idolize apes and act as if we are apes in all areas of our existence.

Nature is a poor teacher of morality/ethics, which is why we have religious text and ethical treatises on how to act that does not recognize nature as the ultimate source of correct action, or else assault, rape, and murder would be legal (unless you deny those are worthy areas of thought and guidance?).

I respect evidence and truths, I do not believe the ideology you're pushing is supported by reality or necessity. I believe your ideology comes from fear of change and worries of scarcity, rather than any logical conclusions from first principles.

Here is a truth for you: The world has benefited greatly from the sharing of information and resources across borders (including human resources) and trying to deny hundreds of years of enlightenment progress flies in the face of all available evidence that the world is becoming more prosperous, more wealthy, more open, and providing more opportunities than was afforded by the protection closed nation-states that came before.

How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?

But okay, let's get specific then. Which country are you talking about and what views?