TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

39 点作者 monort大约 8 年前

21 条评论

WillyOnWheels大约 8 年前
The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.
评论 #13851356 未加载
评论 #13851163 未加载
评论 #13851188 未加载
phy6大约 8 年前
Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn&#x27;t violating Marvin&#x27;s rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it&#x27;s uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town.<p>Edited because I was distracted by children.
评论 #13851334 未加载
lngnmn大约 8 年前
There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.
评论 #13876692 未加载
75dvtwin大约 8 年前
The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here<p>&quot;... <i>A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights.</i> ....&quot;<p>Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing.<p>Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies.<p>First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at &#x27;global level&#x27;. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy.<p>Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just &quot;US government&quot; vs &quot;an immigrant&quot;.
评论 #13851192 未加载
coldtea大约 8 年前
Only when one believes in &quot;God given rights&quot; or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs.<p>Otherwise, what&#x27;s a right is what people define as one.<p>Here&#x27;s a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. &quot;no immigration to our parts&quot;) more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there?<p>And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question.<p>P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. &quot;how you A people think you ended where you are now?&quot;, we can make A&#x27;s proclamation as &quot;no further immigration to our parts&quot; -- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical.<p>P.S 2: Since few&#x2F;no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A&#x27;s will as the usual majority&#x2F;plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.
评论 #13851122 未加载
booleandilemma大约 8 年前
I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in.<p>Let&#x27;s say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I&#x27;d like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can&#x27;t just move in because I feel like it.
评论 #13851384 未加载
jerkstate大约 8 年前
No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.
评论 #13851455 未加载
评论 #13851165 未加载
评论 #13851193 未加载
coldtea大约 8 年前
&gt;<i>1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture. 3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations.</i><p>The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.<p>First of all, there are no &quot;prima facie&quot; rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).<p>But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.<p>Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).<p>First, because else it&#x27;s just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.<p>And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another&#x27;s. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that&#x27;s seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).<p>But &quot;free boundless immigration as a fundamental right&quot; means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?
return0大约 8 年前
Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?
评论 #13851570 未加载
评论 #13856835 未加载
评论 #13851571 未加载
gonmf大约 8 年前
There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.
exit大约 8 年前
the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the passport regime has destroyed that.<p>nationality is segregation.
评论 #13851343 未加载
Koshkin大约 8 年前
It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one&#x27;s philosophy.<p>For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a <i>right</i> to immigrate into your home?<p>If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.
microcolonel大约 8 年前
&gt;I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified.<p>This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions <i>do</i> violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses <i>don&#x27;t</i> violate rights.<p>With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.
wz1000大约 8 年前
An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis.<p>Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It&#x27;s a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.
CuriouslyC大约 8 年前
The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people&#x27;s choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.
评论 #13851149 未加载
评论 #13851100 未加载
评论 #13851157 未加载
评论 #13851107 未加载
ap3大约 8 年前
My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?
yellowapple大约 8 年前
Is there a right for a person to move into my house?<p>Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even &quot;my&quot; house in the first place?
Mikeb85大约 8 年前
First, let&#x27;s start with the fact that &quot;rights&quot; are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there&#x27;s no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited.<p>The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the &quot;right&quot; of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about &quot;brain drain&quot;, but it seems we&#x27;ve either forgotten about it, or just don&#x27;t care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world.<p>The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It&#x27;s great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that&#x27;s willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population.<p>So then this leads to the problem: it&#x27;s great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what&#x27;s the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn&#x27;t an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we&#x27;re essentially living in a completely stratified world.<p>Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won&#x27;t happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it&#x27;s an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they&#x27;re accumulating human capital. The nation they&#x27;re leaving loses.<p>And I&#x27;ll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:<p><i>&quot;In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa&#x27;s hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!<p>I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa&#x27;s problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa&#x27;s place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information.&quot;</i><p>And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Human_capital_flight" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Human_capital_flight</a>
fixxer大约 8 年前
The author: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Michael_Huemer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Michael_Huemer</a><p>Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;uk-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;apr&#x2F;11&#x2F;british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;uk-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;apr&#x2F;11&#x2F;british-musl...</a><p>I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.<p>Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of &quot;normal&quot; immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don&#x27;t see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?<p>I don&#x27;t consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don&#x27;t want open door immigration either!).<p>In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don&#x27;t look at how they&#x27;ve managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.
评论 #13851310 未加载
评论 #13851260 未加载
评论 #13851239 未加载
评论 #13851330 未加载
评论 #13851348 未加载
unlmtd大约 8 年前
The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.
评论 #13851162 未加载
评论 #13851137 未加载
评论 #13851128 未加载
Hydraulix989大约 8 年前
Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.
评论 #13851228 未加载