Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot of the justification for borders seem to me like the defence of apartheid gone global. Why is it moral to trap people iin poverty within an artificial creation like a nation-state for the various governments of the world to do as they wish to them

I mean on deontological grounds, closed borders are basically indefensible. People have a right to be free and own themselves (not held within the binds of a government they only have a part of).

So is there really a moral defence that says it is OK for governments to keep someone from migrating from Congo to Europe, but that it is immoral for the Soviet Union to stop Siberians moving to Moscow?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

But what schools of morality can be used to defend borders?

Certainly not a deontological one, nor a Rowlsian veil of ignorance. I guess utilitarian thought? Which is kind of dead man's argument (ignoring his typically moronic closing remarks)?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK obviously reading Yankee's responce i didn't make myself clear. I'm not interested in talking about the political ramifications or whatever. I posted it here in this board (and not the Discussion or Economics board) because I want to find a moral perspective using ethical theory on borders. In short, i want to find a way that I can sleep easy at night believing in closed borders on one hand and condemning seemingly governmental intrusions on liberty like apartheid and segregation on the other.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK obviously reading Yankee's responce i didn't make myself clear. I'm not interested in talking about the political ramifications or whatever. I posted it here in this board (and not the Discussion or Economics board) because I want to find a moral perspective using ethical theory on borders. In short, i want to find a way that I can sleep easy at night believing in closed borders on one hand and condemning seemingly governmental intrusions on liberty like apartheid and segregation on the other.

But the political ramifications do matter because they lead to bad political decision making in turn a worse end result, like depending on your perspective Brexit. Lets say you are a remainer, and believe in the consequences Brexit has been stated to have. Therefore the morality of being able to keep out terrorists and easing the pain at least somewhat in post-industrial areas as a way of preventing the leave vote, presents itself with a moral benefit of avoiding those negative consequences.

I listened to Corbyn's speech the next morning and he made important points how many of these areas had been left behind, by gov't economic and immigration policy thus motivating their vote for out. I compare that to say Tony Blair, who said they basically used it as a protest vote (implied against Cameron), but the truth of the matter was they were protesting 40 years of policy of which Europe was a part. Corbyn is a terrible leader, but at least he has sense enough to understand these communities plight and what motivates them.

No they don't. Because it's not the question I am asking. Because your answer does not satisfactory answer a question on morality, merely quibbles on tactics.

I fail to see why it's immoral. A state is nothing more than institution, which seek to monopolise force on a specific territory. Limiting the access of people to that pierce of territory is just the enforcement of the that monopoly. People are welcome to think that the state's monopolising of force on its territory is immoral, but in that case you're not a liberal democrat, but a anarchist.

If we look at human rights which set up the few limitation of the state's monopoly of force. It gives people the right to leave a state's territory, not a right to enter. That right is limited to citizens, who can't be banned from entering their country, unless they have done something to lose their citizenship.

Also this entire discussion sum up why the Left keep losing election and people become more nationalistic. So crabcake if you want to know why UK left EU, a large part of the answer lies in you even asking a question like this.

But why does this right exist? Why is it moral for the northern unemployed man in Britain to "get on his bike" to find work, while it is immoral for an African man to get in his bike to go after work?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why is it that only the first order of events matter?

I give a 16 year old boy a horse in a village, and he can use that to plow a field. Is it moral, yes!

The boy then falls off the horse and breaks his legs. Was it a moral decision?


But a few days later that village goes to war, and every one his age except him has to go off and fight? Was it a moral decision now?

You can tie yourself in knots and lose sleep over theoretical discussions of morality all day long, and drive yourself crazy in the process. And worse, if you make policy based on that, drive yourself right to the scaffold and plunge the whole world in chaos.

Leaders and countries have to make decision for what is best for their people. A strong and rich country has the ability to help other countries with charity, invest in other country's infrastructure and buy other countries products. A poor country can do none of those things and frankly, condemning the whole world to poverty in some misguided sense of morality, is probably the most immoral thing you can do.

Lol now I'm convinced you're arguing on bad faith or otherwise can't read.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I fail to see why it's immoral. A state is nothing more than institution, which seek to monopolise force on a specific territory. Limiting the access of people to that pierce of territory is just the enforcement of the that monopoly. People are welcome to think that the state's monopolising of force on its territory is immoral, but in that case you're not a liberal democrat, but a anarchist.

If we look at human rights which set up the few limitation of the state's monopoly of force. It gives people the right to leave a state's territory, not a right to enter. That right is limited to citizens, who can't be banned from entering their country, unless they have done something to lose their citizenship.

Also this entire discussion sum up why the Left keep losing election and people become more nationalistic. So crabcake if you want to know why UK left EU, a large part of the answer lies in you even asking a question like this.

But why does this right exist? Why is it moral for the northern unemployed man in Britain to "get on his bike" to find work, while it is immoral for an African man to get in his bike to go after work?

Why is it moral to create poverty where it doesn't exist because it exists somewhere else, as opposed ot preserving the former as a wealthy country so that it can work to erase poverty elsewhere?

OK far from the lousy economics that is "if one place benefits, another place hurts" that is basically immaterial. An open border will cause the net misery of both areas to lower. Therefore can we justify our policies in the West on moral grounds? I really think this wouldn't be hard question for people to get their heads round