This post is going to be rather convoluted and unclear, but I think the overall topic is worthy of some discussion despite my lack of brevity.

We have no choice to whom we are born or where we are born to. Nearly all of us would agree that people should be treated equally regardless of color, ethnicity, etc. So why do we discriminate based on country of origin?

Nearly anyone replying to this message had the tremendous good fortune of being either born in a first world nation or is now living in one. International borders are arbitrarily drawn lines that change frequently, ask Africa and the Middle East about how well imperially drawn lines of nationality and rights have worked out for them.

Why should immigration be controlled at all? If it is controlled, for what good reason? Why aren't I allowed the free will to move my life to Brazil or New Zealand without examination? Surely they wouldn't prevent me from immigrating there because of my gender or race? Why is our nationality so important? WE've drawn lines on a map, that's it.

is it safe for me to post in this thread?

Fire away. my post was sort of a running consciousness attempt at looking at the conflicts that arise from something as obtuse as a line across a field.

I like how Canada goes about it's immigration policy. They determine how many people Canada requires for growth or can successfully take in during a year. They then start to divide that number into groups. Hoping to have a certain percentage be of immediate help to Canada by providing an in demand skill (doctor, nurse), a certain number to be economic refugees with no real care about where they're coming from, a certain number of family unifications, etc....

I think a caountry has to absolutely control the number of people immigrating. I think using immigration as a way to address skill shortages is smart. I think basing it on much else is so arbitrary as to be bigoted.

Controlled immigration is a reflection of government's obligation to enforce order on society. In order to do so government must define its kingdom. So we have borders.

A perfect society is one in which all governments, or a single government, work as parts of a whole towards their established end, which is usually considered to be creating a just society, thereby allowing individuals to freely pursue virtue.

Earth is not a perfect society. Governments do not work as parts of a whole towards a common end. Even without this common end between governments, it remains the individual governments duty to provide a just society. Part of providing a just society is preserving order. Borders exist now because they existed before and we haven't done away with them yet.

Thus, governments best argument for controlling immigration is pure conservatism. We do not open our borders because we have closed borders. Changes that come about slowly stand stronger against the test of time.

Immigration is controlled because the best way to achieve one aspect of a perfect society is to slowly progress towards that aspect of perfect society. At least, that is why it should be controlled. I'm not going to speak for why it is controlled because I don't trust the intentions of man.

Absolutely free movement across the Earth is what I consider a utopian ideal. The borders and laws that exist today are merely an imperfect version of the perfect form that is contained in the utopian ideal, that is, free movement.

Free movement is related to another utopian ideal, absolute tolerance. In a utopian society, all people will be absolutely accepting of everyone else, and one could exist in any proximity to any other person and not be offended. Our world today is, I believe, much farther from this perfect form than it is from the above perfect form.

Further, I'm not sure that any utopian ideal can be achieved absolutely.

on a similar note, i think this post of mine from the burqa topic fits



anyway, i am for born on US territory, you're a US citizen laws. i do have an idealistic trouble with border controls, but i do think there's a pragmatic issue with completely open borders.

Birthright citizenship is actually quite controversial on consititutional grounds (which doesn't affect my opinion of it), but I disagree with it regardless. Even so, it is deduced from the 14th(?) amendment and as such it is exceedingly unlikely to be looked at in the next 100 years or so.

I will point out, dkfan9, that the quotation marks around "in a nation's best interest" is actually quite telling of your argument, since you go on to describe policies that are in fact against the nation's best interest. So I am not sure if you mean that you actually oppose nations acting in their best interest, or if you oppose nations acting against their interest but claiming otherwise. Because I think just about anyone can agree with the latter, that hiding harmful and discriminatory policy behind the veil of interest is pretty much universally wrong. But I can't possibly imagine what your argument might be if you think a nation should not truly act in its best interest.

how are US Ag subsidies against our best interest? if we drop them, we lose a ton of business to foreign nations. they're surely in our short term interests no matter what (at least for everyone in the middle class and below and farm owners), and they're in our long term if other nations maintain them simply from a competitive standpoint. but they're sure as hell not in the world's best interest, in humanity's best interest.



yup, 14th.

Subsidies are only in the best interest of the small, directly effected segment of the population. They are against the best interest of everyone else, including the rest of the country. Except for cases where the industry being subsidized cannot be provided for by the market.

Ask thodoks about this.

now we're getting somewhere.

they don't benefit the lower class who pay very little taxes and even the middle class?
they don't keep prices down? isn't that why third world farmers can't compete, government allows our farmers to charge lower prices?

If third world farmers were allowed to compete you would be raising supply relative to demand and prices would fall.

In the long run you are much better to only subsidize those that need the help, rather than a whole industry.

No, in the long run, you are better off letting those that need help be replaced with those who are more efficient and more productive.

Nope, their money comes from taxes, so people are paying twice for subsided product.

just sayin

but how much of the federal taxes that lower or middle class people pay really go to these farmers? if it kept prices lower, which i'm not saying it does anymore since it may not, lower classes would clearly benefit from it. they don't pay high enough taxes for it to hurt them.

what percentage of the budget is dedicated to these farmers? and after that you'd have to turn the budget into only non-deficit spending to look at the short term effects. and then make an estimation for how much each person pays, based on what they pay in taxes.

however, if these subsidies really do drive prices up then that changes things... but if they drive prices up why can't thrid world farmers compete?

Good point.

Why shouldn't everyone in China be allowed to move to New Zealand if they all want to integrate, work hard, and contribute to making that country better?