Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:46:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Are closed borders/immigration restrictions morally defensible?  (Read 1618 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2016, 07:33:34 PM »

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
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2016, 07:37:29 PM »

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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2016, 07:47:54 PM »

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.

Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2016, 08:11:24 PM »

I think one could make a virtue ethics argument for closed borders (in a general sense although not in an absolute sense) based on the virtue of prudence.

Provided the potential immigrants are not fleeing a place where there is a serious violation of some important natural right, then there is no absolute obligation for the host country to accept the person seeking entry. A simple economic inequality between the two countries is not sufficient to require such an obligation. Now, that does not absolve the potential host country of all moral responsibility to those seeking entry, only an absolute responsibility. Charity does dictate that, to the extent feasible, the good of the would-be immigrants are taken into account when considering the situation. But it does not require accepting literally every applicant. Prudence should be used in determining the number of applicants accepted and what potential dangers they might pose to the people who already live in the host country.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2016, 09:14:59 PM »

Okay, here's one: If you believe that closed borders are morally indefensible, that means that you have a moral compass; if you believe that your moral compass points in the right direction, you would want to advance your ethical principles in the world (in fact, you ought to believe that you have a moral obligation to do so); thus, if you thought that the culture of a particular people was immoral, you could justify that people's exclusion from your homeland by appealing to the potentially sinful effect of their presence.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2016, 10:37:10 PM »

Defensible? Yes. A good idea? Not at all.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2016, 02:05:04 AM »

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.

Well since none of us are in charge of anything, I don't think "sleeping easy" should be a problem for any of us, regardless of our political positions. Tongue

But I'd basically argue it on utilitarian grounds.  If you allow for completely open borders, you make it much more difficult for rich nations to provide services at their current capacity and endanger their ability to produce economic growth that fuels aid to those countries which are struggling.  Plus, allowing mass migration often means the least-skilled members of countries are the ones that stay, making their economies weaker and depriving them of the best talent in their labor force..  It intentionally works against the interests of the people within that country and frankly, that's antithetical to democracy (assuming you want that).
 
Personally, I think TJ's argument is pretty good as well.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2016, 02:36:21 AM »

I really think this wouldn't be hard question for people to get their heads round
Well, either it's a sh**tty question or you're operating on a level that's different (not better, not worse) than the rest of us that have replied.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2016, 02:03:41 PM »

Okay, here's one: If you believe that closed borders are morally indefensible, that means that you have a moral compass; if you believe that your moral compass points in the right direction, you would want to advance your ethical principles in the world (in fact, you ought to believe that you have a moral obligation to do so); thus, if you thought that the culture of a particular people was immoral, you could justify that people's exclusion from your homeland by appealing to the potentially sinful effect of their presence.

     This is actually one of the issues that liberal Democrats face these days. There are many people who believe that excluding other cultures is morally indefensible. However, they also believe strongly in the values of modernity, which are not universally respected across human cultures. This leads to a paradox where they resolve to embrace cultures that reject their most deeply held beliefs. The resolution that is oftentimes adopted is that people simply refuse to criticize or sometimes even acknowledge retrograde views promulgated in other cultures (e.g. Islam endorsing intensely homophobic views).
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2016, 05:16:34 PM »

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?

Is it moral to eat, to breathe, to sleep?

The problem is that you tries to set up moral agency to a fundamental amoral entity. A state have only one goal the continued survival of the state. As such making this a moral question (and one where you shifted the goal post, from purely philosophical to practical, which you said you didn't want to discuss) is meaningless. Immigration is a question about it being beneficial or not. And there's no doubt that not controlling the access to a state is not beneficial for the state, in fact several states have collapse because of thir unwillingness or inability to control the access to its territory.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2016, 08:01:39 PM »

Okay, here's one: If you believe that closed borders are morally indefensible, that means that you have a moral compass; if you believe that your moral compass points in the right direction, you would want to advance your ethical principles in the world (in fact, you ought to believe that you have a moral obligation to do so); thus, if you thought that the culture of a particular people was immoral, you could justify that people's exclusion from your homeland by appealing to the potentially sinful effect of their presence.

     This is actually one of the issues that liberal Democrats face these days. There are many people who believe that excluding other cultures is morally indefensible. However, they also believe strongly in the values of modernity, which are not universally respected across human cultures. This leads to a paradox where they resolve to embrace cultures that reject their most deeply held beliefs. The resolution that is oftentimes adopted is that people simply refuse to criticize or sometimes even acknowledge retrograde views promulgated in other cultures (e.g. Islam endorsing intensely homophobic views).

The interesting way liberals seem to resolve this paradox is to uplift the most "tolerant" members of that retrograde group.  One amusing example of this is a BuzzFeed video where they had people who were, rather "liberal" adherents to the faith (I'm sure LibertarianRepublican and TimTurner would agree on this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJDZoGdDF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMQjyRc7eiY
Logged
Greatest I am
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 819
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2016, 12:11:49 PM »

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?

It is a nations duty to safeguard their ideology from immoral ideologies.

Islam and Sharia are demonstrably immoral ideologies and should be banned from any freedom loving land.

Regards
DL
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.