Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The extent that mass population flows wreak havoc on countries, yes it is very moral and desirable to regulate the flow of people coming in. Also to make it more practical to weed out the bad apples, those seeking to murder thousands of people, a low level of inflow is also desirable.

These extreme globalist positions and statements of the like espoused by the OP, are the very reason the UK just voted out and Trump is the Republican nominee. Most people are naturally pro-immigration, I consider myself pro-immigration. But when you have people running around saying "End all deportations" or "borders are morally corrupt", such extremism pushes people to the extremes and turns people into nativists.

No country or group of countries can take on the whole of the third world and it is ridiculous to say we have some moral obligation to innundate ourselves to the point that the instablity and chaos improveishes us all equally. No, the answer is to encourage stable politics, investment and growth and development in the third world to reduce poverty there, while preserving your own strength and wealth so you can in fact assist with investment and you know, buying their crap. And yes that requires trade and frankly as I said years ago, the elitism and out of touch nature of free traders was going to sign their own death warrants and the world would be worse off for it as true Protectionism came back in vogue. I was right.

But no, just the like the idiots running the GOP establishment who were too stupid and are still too stupid to steer away from the cliff, they keep thinking more and dumber ways to force things people don't want, pushing them further in the opposite direction. Not surprisingly, the globalists are reading from the same manual and with the same devastating result. This will not change until they look themselves in the mirror and say, "we brought this on ourselves", not ignorance, not stupid voters, not racism (though it clearly plays a part), but instead constantly telling a man who works his whole life that his life is ruined for the sake of some farcical and misguided notion of the global good and expecting him not to stick a knife in your gut, has brought the world to ruin.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, the nation-state isn't actually artificial. For America on the other hand...

Well in many respects it is, the modern concept of nationalism is pretty much a 19th century invention. Ethnic identities existed before that, of course, but there wasn't really much of a concept of basing the political state on ethnic groups, or self identifying "nations".

Before the 19th century, there was really no concept of being German, or Estonian, or Slovakian or many of the "Nation States" that we now take as being natural and inevitable.

Nationalism was an outgrowth of the French Revolution. But prior to that you had states, they just weren't nation states. Those states were far more restrictive of immigration and far more protectionist than the era of nation states that followed it. Because those states, practiced mercantlism and aimed to horde money, figuring that was how you enriched your country.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, from a utilitarian point of view, if something, on average, hurts people, then restructing it can hardly be immoral.

Nationalism was an outgrowth of the French Revolution. But prior to that you had states, they just weren't nation states. Those states were far more restrictive of immigration and far more protectionist than the era of nation states that followed it. Because those states, practiced mercantlism and aimed to horde money, figuring that was how you enriched your country.

I know, but pre 19th century states took their legitimacy from something that was not national or ethnic solidarity. The concept of a state taking its legitimacy from nationalism was a construct largely used for political purposes. All I was saying was that the Nation State isn't a "natural" phenomena.

The pre-19th century states did limit the access to its territory, not just as much but even more than the national states which replaced them. A national state is in fact often more open than the dynastic and regional states which came before them. Of course with the development of the non-discriminatory welfare state, the state had to protect its territory from outsiders again.

That's not really the point I was making.

But in any case, it is not entirely true that all pre 19th C states did restrict access to their territory, I mean for a start, the Mongol or Moorish empires were so conceptually different to a modern state that you almost couldn't compare them in any meaningful way.

And in much of medieval Europe, the institutions of state were often so weak as to be practically irrelevant. Look at the Holy Roman Empire and the way it completely fell apart in the thirty years war. There wan't much control of migration going on at that point in time.

And something like 30% to 40% of the population of Germany died as a result of the 30 years war.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Arguing in bad faith? The problem is not that I cannot read, the problem is I cannot comprehend what you want. You insist on structuring the question in such a way that any answer that will possibly satisfy you is one that confirms you previous held opinions. In that case what is the point in even asking then if you already have the answer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

I am saying the exact opposite of that. I am saying both places can benefit long term from the one that is doing well now. That is the whole premise of free trade etc etc.

An open border will not do that because 1) direct effects of mass population changes, and 2) indirect effects which you reject out of hand. You know perfectly well how people will respond and therefore it is factor in the moral equation without a dobut. If people overreact or respond to an open border with a border "too closed", it is my view that those who left it open are partially to blame for the extremism in the opposite direction. Also you are taking a notion that applies in a select circumstance, immigration is beneficial (arguably true), and then presuming it is the case in all areas and context and by extension, all levels (false).

Once again you have narrowed the question to the point of necessitating the accepting of a premise we reject for any answer to your question to not be rejected by you. Therefore, your question will never produce an answer contrary to what you already think.

Countries have a moral responsibility to preserve their own stability, this enables them to assist the rest of the world. This entails a secure, regulated border with a control flow of people, to preserve such stability. That is indeed moral, because it is answer that best enables the most people to be helped.