Putting immigration on the other foot

cooks1

No matter where you go-there you are
@Gold
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
19,811
Reaction score
5,625
Immigration and immigration reform is a very polarizing issue for many.

I often wonder how a person would look at it as an individual if they were the ones trying to 'get away'. But they were being fought at every turn.

If you were trying to get out of a dangerous or truly derelict situation, would you feel the place you were fleeing to had any moral right to stop you?
 
If you were trying to get out of a dangerous or truly derelict situation, would you feel the place you were fleeing to had any moral right to stop you?

Generally speaking, I'm not sure that's a very useful question to ask.

People who have an extremely heavy personal investment in something tend to have biased/selfish/rationalized opinions, rather than rational/reasonable/societally beneficial ones.
 
Other than wanted criminals, no.
 
Generally speaking, I'm not sure that's a very useful question to ask.

People who have an extremely heavy personal investment in something tend to have biased/selfish/rationalized opinions, rather than rational/reasonable/societally beneficial ones.

You don't think honestly trying to look at things in another persons shoes before forming an opinion on a matter is a useful thing to do?
 
I'd hope for compassion but also accept that there's not always room for sentiment in the game of survival.
 
Why is it this debate is always about emotion from the left, never about facts?
 
If you were trying to get out of a dangerous or truly derelict situation, would you feel the place you were fleeing to had any moral right to stop you?

They don't have a moral right to stop you from fleeing the dangerous place. But they do have a moral right to stop you from fleeing to where they live.

If someone you don't know knocks on your door, says he's in danger and wants to live in your house, do you not have a moral right to say no?
 
My issue with immigration has nothing to do with where people are from, but when unemployment is already really high, and in states like California with ongoing drought we just don't have the resources to handle the influx.
We've shipped far too many jobs overseas and have our own economically depressed areas where people have no hope of getting a decent job.
 
They don't have a moral right to stop you from fleeing the dangerous place. But they do have a moral right to stop you from fleeing to where they live.

If someone you don't know knocks on your door, says he's in danger and wants to live in your house, do you not have a moral right to say no?

Now we are getting somewhere.

If it were my house, I would say I have a right to say no. But a country is not a house. A country is a mass of land with arbitrary lines drawn around it by some people.

What if a person came you and said, 'The land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it where I was born is a shitty place. This land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it is much nicer. I would like to relocate to this land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it please."
 
All an illegal alien has to do is claim fear of returning back to their country and they speak with an asylum officer and get a hearing to determine if that fear is credible. To actually get to deport someone these days is quite a task. Most immigration judges won't remove someone unless that person has felony convictions. And even then it depends on how the conviction documents read
 
If i was looking to escape unfavorable conditions then i would certainly hope for amnesty when i arrived on European territory.

However, when i got there i'd proceed to go on a raping spree and call everybody racist.
 
If i was looking to escape unfavorable conditions then i would certainly hope for amnesty when i arrived on European territory.

However, when i got there i'd proceed to go on a raping spree and call everybody racist.

I love honesty.
 
Now we are getting somewhere.

If it were my house, I would say I have a right to say no. But a country is not a house. A country is a mass of land with arbitrary lines drawn around it by some people.

What if a person came you and said, 'The land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it where I was born is a shitty place. This land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it is much nicer. I would like to relocate to this land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it please."

Do you have a front or back yard? Your property is just that, an arbitrary line drawn around it by some people. A country is pretty much the same principle just on a larger scale involving more people. So if a country's inhabitants collectively decide that they do not want people just entering their country, then yes, I believe it's their moral right. In the same way that it's my moral right to not let just anybody into my own house just because they want to.
 
if i was looking to escape unfavorable conditions then i would certainly hope for amnesty when i arrived on european territory.

However, when i got there i'd proceed to go on a raping spree and call everybody racist.

10/10
 
Now we are getting somewhere.

If it were my house, I would say I have a right to say no. But a country is not a house. A country is a mass of land with arbitrary lines drawn around it by some people.

What if a person came you and said, 'The land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it where I was born is a shitty place. This land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it is much nicer. I would like to relocate to this land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it please."

The lines are not arbitrary in any meaningful sense. Leaving aside that the lines are typically drawn by blood and treasure, they have a very clear meaning in terms of how the government relates to the people in different places. Given that government is largely self determined by the people, would people who were able to establish a relatively benign government want people who were unable to do so in their own lands to be allowed in? Do people have no interest in determining to some extent the makeup of the group determining the nature of their own government and society? I think they do. America is not just or even primarily an area of land, it's a set of ideals, cultural, and governmental practices that is wholly dependent for its existence on its people maintaining those traditions. You couldn't just throw a random assortment of people into America and have it still be America. You need people who either are American and have been raised and school in its cultural traditions and mores, or you need people who seek those values for their own sake rather than because they're fleeing somewhere else. Allowing people in who want to be American is fine, allowing people in who want to be Mexican or Salvadoran or Chinese or whatever but take advantage of American culture and governance without personally investing in the ideals that make that system possible are not. It's silly to think we could allow in an unlimited number of people who don't understand or value the American way and not see a significant degeneration of our culture and governance.
 
Personally i dont mind immigrants at all, they work hard, work for cheap, but practically we can't take everyone. It doesnt bother me to say no either.
 
Now we are getting somewhere.

If it were my house, I would say I have a right to say no. But a country is not a house. A country is a mass of land with arbitrary lines drawn around it by some people.

What if a person came you and said, 'The land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it where I was born is a shitty place. This land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it is much nicer. I would like to relocate to this land mass with arbitrary lines drawn around it please."

Also a difference between push or pull immigration.

People who are genuinely refugees are different morally from people who just come for work or whatever.
 
Yes. I would feel they had a moral right to try and stop me if that was their general policy.

Why wouldn't they have a moral right to set their own laws?
 
The lines are not arbitrary in any meaningful sense. Leaving aside that the lines are typically drawn by blood and treasure, they have a very clear meaning in terms of how the government relates to the people in different places. Given that government is largely self determined by the people, would people who were able to establish a relatively benign government want people who were unable to do so in their own lands to be allowed in? Do people have no interest in determining to some extent the makeup of the group determining the nature of their own government and society? I think they do. America is not just or even primarily an area of land, it's a set of ideals, cultural, and governmental practices that is wholly dependent for its existence on its people maintaining those traditions. You couldn't just throw a random assortment of people into America and have it still be America. You need people who either are American and have been raised and school in its cultural traditions and mores, or you need people who seek those values for their own sake rather than because they're fleeing somewhere else. Allowing people in who want to be American is fine, allowing people in who want to be Mexican or Salvadoran or Chinese or whatever but take advantage of American culture and governance without personally investing in the ideals that make that system possible are not. It's silly to think we could allow in an unlimited number of people who don't understand or value the American way and not see a significant degeneration of our culture and governance.

Now we are cooking with gas!!

This is beginning to approach my personal thoughts on it.

I agree that we should have an interest in who comes. But barring a violent criminal record or contagious disease or the like, I don't think we have a moral right to stop someone from coming.

That said, once they are here, I think that's where our rights begin. It's also where the responsibilities of the immigrant begin. They have chose to leave the land of their birth/residence and come to this land. To live in a different society and culture. While no one ever would or could change completely, a certain amount of assimilation and adjustment on the part of the immigrant can and should be reasonably expected.

In a nutshell-This

theodore_roosevelt_quote_immigration.jpg


The problem is not the number of people that are coming or who is coming. The problem is that some of the ones that are coming are not embracing being an American. It's their fault that they are not. But it's our fault we are not making them. Or at the very least it is our fault that we are making it easier for them to be here while not being an American.

Rather than trying to deport people or make them 'immigrate legally', we should be requiring them to become citizens. And while removing the obstacles to citizenship, we should also be removing the crutches helping people avoid assimilating (for example-bi-lingual anything).

I am thinking about this a little more these days because just a few weeks ago I watched my wife take her oath of allegiance to the US and become an American citizen.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I would feel they had a moral right to try and stop me if that was their general policy.

Why wouldn't they have a moral right to set their own laws?

Just because a society makes a law legalizing something or prohibiting it, does not make it moral or immoral.

Was slavery moral before it was made illegal? It used to be 'general policy'.
 
Back
Top