Immigration - At what point do you deny entry?
Hello Everyone,
A couple of weeks ago, I started a discussion on abortion and the difference in views of pro-life and pro-choice. What I found was that, even though people were willing to offer different views, the majority sided with pro-choice. This led me to choose a topic that might have people on more definitive sides: immigration
I currently live in England, and those who also live here will agree that recently, immigration has been hijacked by certain politicians to fuel hatred towards specific demographics. Following our general election, there were violent riots in different parts of England, sparked by the tragic loss of three young children. Although the riots have subsided, the debate continues with passionate views from both sides.
I am aware that in America this is also a major topic of discussion as well, especially due to the upcoming election. So, I would like to hear your views on this and to see whether we differ from opinion due to difference in experience.
My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry?
This is a very broad subject, and I will not be able to touch on all aspects with my initial post so instead I will share my view:
I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does. England thrives on legal immigration. For example, according to NHS Workforce statistics published by NHS Digital, 265,000 out of 1.5 million NHS staff are of non-British nationality, making it 1 in 5. Immigrants contribute significantly to our society, and to disagree is, in my eyes, is regressive.
The part of the debate that gets everyone going is illegal immigration. Now lets start by splitting illegal immigration into categories. These categories are common classifications in immigration laws, policies and academic research:
Entry without inspection Individuals who cross borders without going through official entry points or undergoing inspection by immigration authorities.
Visa Overstayers
Fraudulent Entry
Asylum Seekers It is important to note that not all asylum seekers are classed as illegal, some may enter a country without proper documentation and then apply for asylum.
Human Trafficking Victims
Unaccompanied minors
Now looking at this, its easy to say, We should let X people in and not let X people in, but its not that simple. People are complicated, and any system of picking and choosing will have ways to be exploited.
In my opinion, these are all humans who deserve a fair shot at life. The term immigrant has become dehumanizing. When discussing this topic, people say illegal immigrant so often that it has lost its original meaning and is now more of a stamp on people. However, this does not mean I am advocating for open borders. Politically, I consider myself to have a centrist or left-leaning view on this topic.
Our first point of call should be to protect our citizens. However, where I think people get mixed up is the difference between protecting and preferring. If anyone who has entered illegally genuinely wants to live a good life, respects our society, and goes through a legal channel of seeking permission to stay, they should be treated equally to any other citizen. We should have stricter policies on deportation if they are found to break the law.
Its important to remember that there is always a reason for something. These people may be coming from war-torn countries or fleeing persecution based on race, nationality, religion, etc. They risk their lives to come here. If I were in their position, having left everything behind and risked my life, I would only pray that the people on the other side would accept me.
I still have a lot to say on this topic, but I dont want this to be too long. I would like to hear peoples thoughts, especially from those with more conservative views, to understand their perspectives.
A couple of weeks ago, I started a discussion on abortion and the difference in views of pro-life and pro-choice. What I found was that, even though people were willing to offer different views, the majority sided with pro-choice. This led me to choose a topic that might have people on more definitive sides: immigration
I currently live in England, and those who also live here will agree that recently, immigration has been hijacked by certain politicians to fuel hatred towards specific demographics. Following our general election, there were violent riots in different parts of England, sparked by the tragic loss of three young children. Although the riots have subsided, the debate continues with passionate views from both sides.
I am aware that in America this is also a major topic of discussion as well, especially due to the upcoming election. So, I would like to hear your views on this and to see whether we differ from opinion due to difference in experience.
My question is this: How do you decide who to let in and who to deny entry?
This is a very broad subject, and I will not be able to touch on all aspects with my initial post so instead I will share my view:
I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does. England thrives on legal immigration. For example, according to NHS Workforce statistics published by NHS Digital, 265,000 out of 1.5 million NHS staff are of non-British nationality, making it 1 in 5. Immigrants contribute significantly to our society, and to disagree is, in my eyes, is regressive.
The part of the debate that gets everyone going is illegal immigration. Now lets start by splitting illegal immigration into categories. These categories are common classifications in immigration laws, policies and academic research:
Entry without inspection Individuals who cross borders without going through official entry points or undergoing inspection by immigration authorities.
Visa Overstayers
Fraudulent Entry
Asylum Seekers It is important to note that not all asylum seekers are classed as illegal, some may enter a country without proper documentation and then apply for asylum.
Human Trafficking Victims
Unaccompanied minors
Now looking at this, its easy to say, We should let X people in and not let X people in, but its not that simple. People are complicated, and any system of picking and choosing will have ways to be exploited.
In my opinion, these are all humans who deserve a fair shot at life. The term immigrant has become dehumanizing. When discussing this topic, people say illegal immigrant so often that it has lost its original meaning and is now more of a stamp on people. However, this does not mean I am advocating for open borders. Politically, I consider myself to have a centrist or left-leaning view on this topic.
Our first point of call should be to protect our citizens. However, where I think people get mixed up is the difference between protecting and preferring. If anyone who has entered illegally genuinely wants to live a good life, respects our society, and goes through a legal channel of seeking permission to stay, they should be treated equally to any other citizen. We should have stricter policies on deportation if they are found to break the law.
Its important to remember that there is always a reason for something. These people may be coming from war-torn countries or fleeing persecution based on race, nationality, religion, etc. They risk their lives to come here. If I were in their position, having left everything behind and risked my life, I would only pray that the people on the other side would accept me.
I still have a lot to say on this topic, but I dont want this to be too long. I would like to hear peoples thoughts, especially from those with more conservative views, to understand their perspectives.
Comments (65)
I like your approach to the solution however I just think it is a bit optimistic. For the US government to step in and try to help that would mean a fair enough amount of money to be given in aid to Mexico for quite a while. In where a country who is already quite giving, and their population getting more fed up daily by the amount of money America is dishing out to other countries. I just dont see the US government being able to do that without major complaints from their people.
Also for the US to solve issues within Mexico it would require military presence which then may make cartels and other organisation within Mexico more violent, possibly displacing more people and creating more refugees. There would be a potential for parts of Mexico being destroyed through a certain level of destruction that this violence would bring along.
I do think there is a responsibility for America to find ways to help. To be a global superpower in this world I think there is weight on your shoulders to offer support where you can. So in my opinion you are correct that the US needs to find ways to help I just think it isnt that simple at all and unless you were to wage a war on gangs, which I dont think the US is willing to do right now, it will be really hard to change the business as usual.
The reason this doesnt work is that this is already sort of the case.
Speaking from the experience in England. A lot of our illegal immigrants are actually from close European countries such as France. You can travel a lot of European countries on land with somewhat ease, illegal immigrants will choose to travel through Europe, go to countries like France and sail over because they know that we are softer and we offer one of the better standards of life for refugees and immigrants.
European countries are all so unique and all have such different capabilities how do you decide which country does what in a way thats fair, and who decides that? England has left the EU and may be followed by a couple countries, Germany as an example. In my opinion that shows that certain European countries do not enjoy being told what to do already, let alone when they are told to carry the biggest burden by some randomly elected governing body that they may of not even voted for.
In my opinion that is a very cold, black and white way of looking at it. Would you turn away a human trafficking victim, would you turn away an unaccompanied minor on the border? What about an asylum seeker.
And if you were to say we should say no regardless then I would say that you need some compassion for your fellow human.
Yes, in Australia asylum seekers/refugees were relabelled 'illegal immigrants' quite successfully to play to the bedrock of community prejudice against 'hoards of folk' coming in and 'stealing jobs and bringing crime'. The usual tropes. Immigration involves a range of complex issues, not just those at the point of entry - what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? What quotas do you set when there is an almost inexhaustible supply of refugees in the world? What is the future of the nation-state and national identity? I don't have enough expertise in the area to say.
1. "A failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions, lacking effective control over its territory and borders." (Wikipedia)
2. Immigrants to the USA should "Surge the border"
3. Flying in inadmissible aliens.
And here we are three years later.
In the context of humanitarian issues, there are limits on resources that dictate that the nation establish rules and laws of immigration so that those who follow those rules be given an opportunity to present their cases. Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not.
That's what the laws of a nation are for, especially a democratic one. We decide as a whole, not as an individual. If we're all so noble, we'll create laws that allow it to the capacity we think we can handle.
Quoting Samlw
And I say you are too self-righteous in your denial of the bonds and rules of your nation. Are you better than everyone else? You'll be the one to decide? Where does that stop? If laws are to be broken whenever we deem, what good are they?
Think of it as a question about what the laws should be.
-
- :up:
The laws should be whatever the citizens desire in a democratic nation. Do you disagree?
You sidestepped my answer and question. If you disagree with them, point out why please. I plainly entered into the discussion as one of those democratic citizens. I firmly believe that each nation should be able to vote to decide how immigration works. If a nation wishes to have full and free immigration, then they can. If they want to be restrictive, then they can. It is up to the individuals of each nation to determine what they as a nation can allow in without risk to resources, population limits, housing, food, etc. There is no one size fits all, because every nation has different limits they have to consider.
I am not disagreeing with you, I am simply asking about your independent view on what we can do about this situation, lets dive into the topic and what your personal beliefs are, maybe even come up with an idea.
Quoting Philosophim
I am not out here saying that I am the one to choose nor what we are doing currently is wrong. You have a completely wrong idea. It is like coming into a discussion about anything and saying, "Well it should be whatever the country democratically chooses, and if it doesn't choose the thing, then we shouldn't do it". Where is the discussion? Your just stating a widely known fact that no one disagrees with.
You are making sense don't worry, @Philosophim thinks we are trying to take over and rule every democratic country with this conversation.
Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently?
I think this is the biggest cause of conflict when it comes to immigration. Me personally, I do not think that this is a big deal however for someone who is patriotic. Changing their countries culture and beliefs is this worst thing you can do. I think some aspects is just conspiracy paranoia as well, for example, those who are very against immigration in England believe that due to the high Muslim immigrant population, Shariah law will take over our laws. Which I just think is a silly idea but people will use this as a reason to push hatred.
I think diversity in society is a good thing as long as everyone is willing to be open to others, unfortunately that is an ideal situation that rarely happens.
In general, I would agree. However, I do think that it's going to be hard to address the topic of illegal immigration without some preliminaries on how and under which circumstances migration is morally good.
It's easy to agree that people should, in general, have the freedom to move, settle and work where they want to. Yet the social state, still the current iteration of our socio-political system, is arguably not build with this freedom in mind. It's supposed to be an inter-generational contract. The global economy is build on the free movement of goods and services but notably not of people.
Now of course we can argue that these are all arbitrary states of affairs that ought to be simply changed. But how? States are geographical entities, and people moving impacts both sides of the movement. If the smart and capable people leave, that leaves as state of origin worse off. Yet siphoning off the smart and capable is the explicit purpose of most immigration strategies.
Which begs the question, should our goal actually be that people stay put?
Quoting Samlw
I think our primary issue currently is a procedural one. The western immigration systems are badly broken, and they're not being fixed because the topic has become entirely politically toxic.
Deciding who to let in would be a problem one could approach by degrees, adjusting the criteria based on what the capabilities and needs of the people and societies involved is.
The problem is, whatever rules we come up with we'd need a system to enforce them. And that's where the issue currently lies. And I don't mean physical barriers here. We've created a system of controls that is insufficient to actually control immigration, but does provide a lot of motivation to subvert the rules and a lot of opportunity for organised smuggling to make money. We've got complex an bureacratic asylum and immigration proceedings that tend to punish those who actually attempt to follow the rules while providing ample opportunity to stall or otherwise sidetrack the process.
Nor is there really any simple solution. All solutions seem unpalatable in some respect or others. Holding camps are essentially indefinite detention for at most an administrative crime. Out-of-country immigration procedures have obvious issues with due process. Deportation to unstable or destitute targets seems cruel. Yet it seems to me that if you want some kind of immigration regulation, you need to have somewhat consistent outcomes. A lack of residency permit must lead to some predictable and clear consequences.
And I think this is true even if the goals of your immigration criteria are purely humanitarian. Arguably, if that's the case, you have the most motivation to make sure only the most deserving benefit from your resources, which will always be limited.
So, to reiterate, I think the big challenge right now is to find a set of procedural rules that is sufficiently humane but also sufficiently predictable and efficient to actually make immigration cirteria meaningful.
Quoting tim wood
Looking at the replies I'm receiving, I apparently don't understand the question either.
Quoting Samlw
This is my independent view and personal beliefs. Illegal immigration is never justified. There is no, 'right' answer as to how many immigrants can be allowed in to a society, as immigrants often time take societal resources such as enough infrastructure, employment opportunities, and tolerance for cultural dissimilarity and the rate of the melting pot for the society.
The only fair way to judge is to let the society as a whole decide. If you are fairly letting people decide through democratic and representative processes, then that is what works for that society. Any individual going against the wishes of that society is deciding they know better than society, and is morally circumspect.
If it is the will of the people of that state, I do. Why would you disagree with this?
Sovereign nations further have the right and responsibility to set up standards for admission and the volume of admits. It can elect to let none, some, or everyone in. If would-be immigrants do not like the standards or volume to be admitted, they are not entitled to find ways to get in, anyway. If they do get in, a sovereign nation may decide to expel them.
That said, I'm generally in favor of controlled immigration.
Sovereign nations should (but they may not) have a long range plan for population and demographics. If their birth rate is too low to maintain the population of the country, then either incentives can be made available for 'breeding pairs' to reproduce, OR immigrants can be admitted to make up the shortfall. Too few people in an economy is perhaps worse than too many, As far as I know, "cash for babies" doesn't really work all that well.
Sovereign nations can decide how they want their demographics to change in the future. Maybe they would like to increase the population of Buddhists and decrease the population of Moslems; maybe they want fewer Catholics and more Lutherans and Jews. Maybe they want more educated workers; maybe they just want strong backs. Whatever they decide, the policy should b upfront and clear. If you don't fit, well... too bad.
Countries can be somewhat choosy if there are abundant and diverse immigrants wishing to get in. In future climate change, water shortages, famine, wars, despots, wholesale displacement of population, etc. will set ever larger numbers of people on the move. These huddled masses, yearning for a chance to survive, will be showing up on everyone's doorstep in the relative near future, if they aren't already ringing the doorbell.
It's still the case, however, that a sovereign nation's first responsibility is to its citizens, and not to the displaced people of the world.
So, we have a choice: help people manage to live better where they are, or resort to barbed wire, land mines. guard towers, guns, drones, and so on to keep them all out.
If the government insists on flying in "inadmissible" immigrants, then they should be carefully chosen to
benefit the nation in some manner. Doctors and nurses, scientists, engineers, might well be encouraged to apply. That does not appear to be the case.
It is not a question of WHO is it more or less a question of HOW MANY or WHERE. The tabloids distort the rhetoric more often than not.
If we focus on the WHO rather than the HOW MANY or WHERE, then we find ourselves entrenched in a cultural dilemma.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/
Population has increased since 1991 by about 17% and net Migration ha spiked over the past 4-5 years after a significant slump. Looking at numbers though tends to do little more than fan the flames one way or another.
I post this just to show I understand the numbers and that omission of some figures in favour of others can favour one perspective over another. I am not concerned primarily with the numbers, but rather the general needs and requirements of UK citizens so as not to place them below the needs of disruptive/illegal immigrants.
Note: I would personally benefit from looser Immigration Laws in the UK so do not jump to conclusions about where my biases lie when reading the following :)
The problem is the human factor and the question of integration. It is absolutely the case that people with vastly different ideals and views are unable to fully integrate and due to people often shouting 'racist' even the police fear intervening.
It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out.
In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public.
As for the US ... that is a separate issue. I know the UK well enough and have seen the problems firsthand. If the government is struggling to deal with homelessness then they should put laws in place that allow them to remove (deport) foreigners (without passports) if they are living rough on the streets. Obviously, this comes with a whole lot of baggage involving 'human rights' and relations with neighboring nations. I see no real problem in simply shipping them back to their country of origin with threat of jail time if they return illegally.
It seems like a compassion mindset where no one who wants to come can be denied entry. How does one go about opposing a compassion-motivated decision?
I honestly don't know that we will even begin to address this problem until the costly consequences of excessive compassion are felt. I think the voters in the next generation or two will make it worse.
None of this has anything to do with the topic of immigration.
Quoting tim wood
Because each nation can determine their own immigration policy. If England doesn't want America's immigrants, it has the right to say no.
Quoting tim wood
There's a large emotional undercurrent for you here that isn't come out as points or policy yet. So I'll ask to focus the conversation. What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? If you believe that a democratic nation can make a wrong choice in its immigration policy, what is it, why? If there is a problem, what would fix it?
I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state.
There is an ideal level of migration, both for states, and also for potential migrants. Migrants impose congestion costs on each other, and as the share of migrants in an area increases assimilation tends to take longer and the risk of the emergence of isolated ghettos climbs up. They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers.
Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents.
Very high levels of migration can also overwhelm local school districts, particularly because ESL and SPED students are much more expensive to educate properly (and immigrants tend to have a much higher rate of IEPs). Massachusetts, one of the best states at funding education, estimates SPED students cost about four times as much, and the English language learner supplement is about 40% of the entire tuition rate. Compressed poverty is also worse for educational outcomes, such that MA gives about 70% of total tuition in an additional supplement for the highest poverty districts. But migration tends to increase compressed poverty, at least in the short to medium term. MA does this better than most by using the income tax to redistribute aid to poorer districts, but it still has huge disparities, and there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that support for such redistribution can be hindered by high rates of migration (maybe people shouldn't shift their attitudes like this, but they do).
Which is all to say there are valid concerns about the ideal levels of migration. Political instability as Western Europe undergoes a demographic transformation that is more rapid than that seen in the Americas in the early modern period is another issue.
But these tend to get clouded over by:
A. Racist demagogues
B. The inverse, people claiming that any opposition to immigration is necessarily racist.
To complicate matters, the ideal level of migration for natives and immigrants already in a country is almost always going to be much lower than the ideal level for people who want to move to that country but haven't made it there yet. And ideal levels of migration will also vary by income level, with the poor benefiting least and the wealthy benefiting most from high levels of migration. There is a reason that immigration is a rare issue where the GOP dominated with independents and national polls (despite their vile rhetoric) and yet the GOP held zero votes on migration when they held the House, Senate, Court, and White House from 2017-2019because policies that benefit the elite are very often put into place or kept in place regardless of popular opinion.
I made a thread on this a while back: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10332/pragmatism-and-the-ethics-of-migration
I'm curious if you'd take issue with hundreds of thousands of Europeans migrating to another continent en masse, perhaps entering countries illegally, and availing themselves of the cultures and systems built by the native populations. After all diversity is a good thing, and perhaps they could use a little.
I ask because the immigration question always seems to flow one way. But it is my belief that there is a fine line between mass migration, colonialism, and gentrification. Mexico city, for example, has been met with an influx of "digital nomads" from the United States, leading to a rise in housing costs for the native populations. Recall the Boer migrations throughout Africa, with the displacement of the original peoples and the bloody wars that resulted. In modern times we have Israeli settlers expanding into Palestine. Diversity is so good that original populations can no longer afford to live there, or worse, are met with violence.
All in all, displacement of the original population is one of the key issues, but whenever someone broaches the topic he is often belittled and dismissed for feeling that way.
I recall that Sweden allowed large numbers in, then several years later changed its mind.
No, I'm noting that a nation run largely by its people are free to decide their immigration policy. If they feel they don't have enough immigrants, they can open their doors. If they feel they have enough, they can close them. If there are mistakes for that nation in having too little and too much immigration, a nation is free to change it to fix these issues, and I see no broader moral issue here. In any case, I see no moral justification for illegal immigration.
I did ask if you had an example you wanted to cover. Since you don't, and I've stated my points, then I suppose the discussion has reached its end.
You raised valid concerns about the level and impacts of migration. However you are pinpointing negatives about them where I believe if you look at a broader picture, the benefits often outweigh the challenges:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
You touched on economic growth, immigrants often fill labour shortages in critical sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing/factory work, agriculture etc. This helps sustainability of these industries but also drives economic growth.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a good point, however, I would not say that this is not a stain on immigration but more of a responsibility of the country to introduce policies that can mitigate this. These can be to increase wages, bring down housing costs, investing in education and training, (for everyone, not just immigrants).
I wouldn't say I am purely humanitarian however I lean more to that side, in my opinion the ideas of "our" resources or "my" resources is what is limiting us here. Although I am not calling for a communist regime, I believe that, for us to further as a civilisation there needs to be a way for us to let go of certain ownerships and have everyone own it, equally. I do understand how that sounds extremely close to communism but I do prefer capitalism over communism, I just wonder if there is that sweet spot in-between.
I agree with that statement but I would add that even though the first responsibility is to protect their citizens. I would argue that powerful countries, (such as the UK and USA) have just as an equal responsibility to displaced people in the world. If you are a global superpower, you bear additional weight on your shoulders to help. To even deserve a voice on the global stage I believe you should be helping out as much as you can. I understand that isn't how politics works and I am being idealistic but along with all the pros immigration brings, helping is so important.
I think squatting should be outlawed regardless on who you are, obviously if they do not have a passport they should be deported but if that is the case, if you have a British passport should simply be arrested and not be protected by the law.
Quoting I like sushi
I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it.
Can I ask what happens if a majority of a nation voted for open borders and the country gets ruined because of it?
I think that @tim wood point is that simply saying "let the people decide" is not an appropriate answer and may even make it worse. You are assuming that the average citizen has the ability to make the right choice with limited information, Also other outside influences may spread disinformation to try and persuade a majority to vote a certain way that may destabilize/ weaken that country.
I don't think it should be up to the people on this specific topic, I think it should be down to experts that are chosen by elected officials.
Then please explain how it can be moral.
Quoting tim wood
This is a lot of assuming. That would be like me saying, "Assuming people have a good reason for stealing your car, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim." Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all.
I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent.
Fair enough, I was just responding to the claim that no one can have valid concerns about legal immigration. One can even have valid concerns about natives moving within their own country, e.g. the population booms in areas that we predict will be below sea level in the medium term.
The question of if the benefits outweigh the costs is very fraught because the question will be "benefits for who?"
The levels of migration that benefit potential migrants will almost always be much higher than the levels of migration that would most benefit the poorest individuals already within a state, and so questions of distributive justice arise.
I understand, I enjoy hearing different sides, you brought a different perspective that I hadn't thought of.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think the main topic has been bigger picture, talking about economies and broad subjects like housing and education. If you were to look at it individually then you would get lost in the possibilities, I think if you aim to increase wages, better education and provide affordable houses then that will benefit most people. Obviously, there will be people who won't benefit or have their quality of life decrease but if you are to subscribe to a countries way of life such as the UK and America, their societies have been built with the prior knowledge that some people will get the bad end of the stick. Not ideal but its the place we live in.
How so?
I think this is a chronically online take. In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. However, if you were to always be online, constantly being fed news about war and hatred along with the constant arguments and attacks from every side possible you would think this.
Technology has made it so you and me can have this discussion, you can facetime your family wherever you are, you have an insanely large database where you can research whatever you want, you don't have to just trust whatever your told. Obviously there will be some Neanderthals that allow it to affect them negatively but it benefits the majority.
And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life.
You are comparing someone who has potentially escaped a war zone, their family killed, scared and not knowing where to go. To someone stealing a car...
Also for an example for an occasion for when it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere and for a country to allow it, just read the first sentence again.
Yes, I suppose you could look at the average change in safety, education, health, etc. across the relevant populations. However, the issue is that migration itself changes the landscape of our analysis. Political economy is filled with complex systems that have tipping points.
Just for an example, suppose we find the following premise probable: "Donald Trump wouldn't have the huge level of influence he has if Americans weren't widely dissatisfied with migration."
And suppose Donald Trump provokes a full blown constitutional crisis in the US by overturning the upcoming election (this seems unnervingly possible, even if not likely). This in turn tanks future economic growth, health, safety, etc.
In this case, it seems like migration levels are a key (perhaps the key) factor in crossing a tipping point that craters metrics of well-being. Brexit might be a similar issue.
It seems to me that a lot of disagreement about migration is actually disagreement about how close we are to these tipping points. And it doesn't help that large scale racist and xenophobic fear mongering probably bring us closer to those tipping points, all else equal. There seem to be a lot of positive feedback loops on play here too because xenophobia itself is a function of migration levels.
For example, I would imagine even people who embrace very open immigration levels would allow that if the US has 150 million people migrate to it over a few years there would be a crisis.
Now, people often respond that people should just not be racist and xenophobic. This likely moves the tipping point much higher. Fair enough, I agree. But people ARE racist and xenophobic. So this is like saying that the solution to gun policy is for people not to murder or recommending that drug policy be handled by people only using drugs responsibly.
Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.
I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers.
Quoting Samlw
I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D
Then they made a mistake obviously. Why it got ruined would be the question here. Was it because they didn't understand the culture they were letting in? They were too altruistic for their limited resources? The issue is not whether legal immigration vs illegal immigration is moral in this case, but whether they made a misjudgement. If you're looking for a benefit vs cost analysis on a countries capacity for immigration, that's fine. If you're looking for a moral justification for illegal immigration, I still have yet to see it.
Quoting Samlw
No, I was comparing to Tim's scenario. My point was that he was already assuming that if a person commits a crime, they have moral justification for doing so. They do not. A crime committed alone does not determine whether that crime was morally justified. If you believe a crime is morally justified, then you need to explain why, not just assume the crime is morally justified.
If you're claiming illegal immigration is morally justified because the other illegally entering person does not get the benefits they want, I don't agree. If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home. Now, we could argue that you denying the person a place to sleep, despite not knowing what quality of character they are, is immoral. And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in.
I believe that the sovereignty of one's property is in the decision of the person. We can judge their decisions as who to let in or not let in as immoral, but defying that decision because someone else wants the benefit of being on that property needs a good reason. I can't see any viable reason except in matters of immediate life or death, and In the case of a nations decision, I see even less of a good reason why someone should force themselves in to live there against the wishes of its people.
In the case of a refugee for example, it is not a life or death situation that they travel to a country that does not want them. They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war. It is not an immediate life or death situation in most war torn situations for people to immigrate to a new country. Its more convenient, higher quality of life, and much more beneficial. But it is a want, not a need. Therefore I see no justification in illegally going to one.
Me personally I think politicians such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage inflate the issue of immigration to stir up a certain demographic, I am not saying they don't present any actual issues because they do. but using words such as "invasion" and creating lies about these immigrants is wrong and they are only doing it for their personal gain. Unfortunately, some people don't see that and the get swept up in their lies.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Agreed, there is a limit.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think the issue is, when you call people racist and xenophobic for their personal views, that only alienates them and pushes them further in their mindset. The best way to combat bad speech is better speech, if you censor these people the anger will only fester.
How has technology changed people being honest?
Quoting I like sushi
Understandable, difference in experience. I agree people are hooked on their screens, but at the same time, they are doing what they want. No one is forcing a phone in front of them. From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap which probably is why there is a difference of opinion on this. But you cannot disagree with: the way we evolve as a civilisation and better as many peoples lives as possible, is technology. With that will come with insane change, which is scary, we just have to hope and pray the people directing the ship have humans in their best interests.
I am not understanding what you aren't understanding. Why risk the fate of a country on an issue so complex on average citizens and not experts in that field that have access to information that the general public may not. like I said in my previous post, it should be down experts chosen by elected officials.
Quoting Philosophim
Again, the comparison doesn't meet the severity of the topic. I understand the logic you are trying to use however you simply cannot use a blanket answer from the situation you just described as the answer for a topic that is so complex as immigration.
Quoting Philosophim
This is literally the question from the start.
Quoting Philosophim
Both of those options are terrible, either potentially die and kill people for your country, or move to a poor place due to your country being war-torn and have a terrible quality of life. No wonder they choose to come over here.
The problem is no one is banning them. Children having access to these devices is fairly insane.
Quoting Samlw
I never said that.
Quoting Samlw
Maybe? I am 46 years old. I grew up without a phone in my pocket. I think I am in a reasonable crossover period to assess better than anyone significantly older or younger as the internet only really picked up decent momentum from when I was 16-18 yrs old.
Democratically elected right? We're talking about the same thing. Ultimately this is the people choosing, through representatives usually.
Quoting Samlw
Then I don't understand your topic. This seemed to be to be a sovereignty vs justifications for breaking sovereignty question. What is your point? You use illegal immigration combined with the question of who to let in and not. Are these meant to be part of the same topic, or different questions?
My answer was that a country should decide who to let in, and not. Period. The morality is sovereignty, and the idea that a country is best equipped to handle its own immigration based on a complex number of factors that only a society can handle itself. As such, there is no justification that I can see for illegally entering into a country and living there against its citizens wishes.
What do you think about this?
Quoting Samlw
Yes, and I've put my answer forth. Now why do you disagree? To be clear, my answer is: Nations can manage their own immigration issues. If a nation freely decides to limit or let in more immigrants, that's their decision." There is no, "A nation should let immigrants in when X, Y, and Z happens" if people don't want to. Immigration is a willingness of its citizens to accept foreign change and influx, it is not a moral responsibility.
Quoting Samlw
These are less ideal choices yes, but not choices that compel others morally to provide them the more optimal choice. Life is often unfair, cruel, and less than ideal. It is not a moral responsibility of anybody to make life fair for everyone else across the board, because that takes time, resources, and effort that people are generally using on themselves to make their own life acceptable first. And by 'moral responsibility' that if they don't do this, someone else has the right to take from them, or coerce them to assist others.
Being a global superpower gives one a deserved voice on the global stage, for better or for worse. As it happens, this global superpower (USA) doesn't actually spend very much on foreign aid. If you cut out the military aid portion, it's a paltry amount. Private overseas philanthropy is substantial, but doesn't make up for the measly foreign assistance budget.
And, as it happens, doing good things for people around the world isn't all that easy. Many countries are deeply corrupt and delivered aid often gets syphoned off before it leaves the port. Many countries lack 'capacity', and capacity-building is a slow process. Then there are cultural features to be traversed without offending too many locals. The problems are not insurmountable, but effective foreign aid is a long game requiring patience, competence, and commitment across administrations. Good luck on all of that.
Another problem is that past and present military aid can get in the way of present and future assistance programs.
Another angle on all this is global warming. As responsible as the industrialized nations are for global warming, that doesn't mean that they are going to be able to help everyone (or maybe anyone). Excess heat, desertification, severe water shortages, crop failures, famine, floods, old and new epidemics, and so on will at some point overwhelm our collective resources.
One way the industrialized world (US, Europe, East Asia) could help people in the global south is to get on with decarbonizing our economies. Alas, that is more difficult than it might seem to be. Some small areas of the industrialized world are making good progress on decarbonization in some areas. A few states, for instance, are doing well. On the whole, CO2 emissions rise every year along with methane and other gases.
Shifting global economies from high to low carbon is only theoretically possible. The realities of a rapid shift involve very unpleasant tradeoffs in the immediate future, something that very few people want to do. Thus it is that global warming isn't going to go away.
I highly disagree Tim. Without logic, philosophy is simply imagination and emotional exploration. These are elements of philosophy, but the tie that binds them together to be philosophy is logic.
Quoting tim wood
You have not asked me why I have those views or have come to my conclusions. You are assuming things that I don't think are true here. Perhaps they are, but neither you nor I will be able to confirm that if you aren't interested as to why I've made my conclusions.
Quoting tim wood
We have that today. If you enter through legal means you are treated just like that. Its those crossing the border without permission that generate much of the anger in America. I'm feeling this is more of a political and personal issue to you then a philosophical discussion. I don't care about politics, and I like to think of the subjects from a stable base that builds a compelling argument. If you're interested in that, I'm interested. But if this is a political or venue to assume I'm evil because I conclude something you dislike without exploring more, I'm not.
I am curious, have you revised your position that goodness or "this is good" is just a way of saying "I approve of this," and that morality is just personal preference derived from social norms?
If not, what exactly is this statement supposed to amount to? If one doesn't approve of welcoming refugees then it seems like it should simply be good and moral to deny them entry, and this would seem to come down to emotion.
Like Jewish refugees in Palestine? Or Palestinians in Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, etc.?
You know, if you can't treat the people in front of you nicely who are trying to politely disengage from a conversation, maybe you aren't the person we should be listening to in regards to moral choices. As a long term member, you should be behaving better. Get ahold of those emotions in you that want to attack or belittle me for whatever reason, and we'll have a nice conversation another time.
Let's say I am a Kurd or a Palestinian and the entire world conspired against my national statehood, and I don't want to live anymore in Syria, but I want to move to the biggest country in the world, i.e. Russia. I don't see a single ethical reason that Russians should stop me from emigrating there. Russians used power, intrigues, weapons, suppression, alliances and so on, to have the biggest country in the world with just 160 million citizens and to stop a Kurd or a Palestinian relocating there does not seem to me to have any ethical grounds.
Anyway, although I don't find ethical grounds on stopping immigration (and even if I found one I don't see real practical solutions against immigration), lately I have started thinking that maybe countries should apply gender quotas on immigration, cause you have countries like Bahrain where the 75% of population are males, and I don't know what is the purpose allowing countries to have these abnormal gender ratios. In Bahrain it sounds terrible to be either a man or a woman, and I hope some western countries start to apply gender quotas on immigrants, before Ireland or Netherlands become Bahrain. No woman and no man should live in a country where the male population is two or three times higher than the female one. It sounds like total hell for everyone. Gender ratio, in my view, is a matter Europeans and Americans should have in mind when talking about immigration.