Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

I don't need treatment, I'm not the one with Tourette, banging out incoherent claptrap.

Interesting claim.

Would you like to support it with a link to the one post in this thread, or let's be generous, in this forum, in which you've made a coherent argument?

I have no desire to disappear down a rabbit hole filled with more of your absurd comparisons but thanks for the invite.

Carry on.

 

[Jokodo]

Interesting claim.

Would you like to support it with a link to the one post in this thread, or let's be generous, in this forum, in which you've made a coherent argument?

I have no desire to disappear down a rabbit hole filled with more of your absurd comparisons but thanks for the invite.

Carry on.

Thanks for admitting that you haven't posted a single coherent argument on this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't forget the iPhones.

What about them?

The point is anyone with an iPhone isn't anything like destitute. It's perfectly reasonable for a Syrian refugee to have an iPhone but for someone fleeing economic conditions it's clear that they weren't that badly off.


One simple test they could do: Require them to list on their asylum application anyone else they wish to bring over. Any application with non-Syrian addresses is refused. They can't bring over family that they didn't list on the initial application.

 

[maxparrish]

That 5% has apparently made all the difference.

Either that, or luck.

Either that or someone's also working smarter in addition to working harder.

I repeat my question: How did Jayjay earn the privilege he now defends?

And I'll repeat my answer, I guess:

He didn't. But his ancestors did - each generation, little by little.

Just like today's parents work hard to provide for their children a brighter better future, yesterday's parents did the same.

The fruits of my labors do not belong to the world as a whole to divvy up how it pleases, especially to those who sat capably but idly by while I labored.

"'Not I', said the dog"...​

Do you want to deal with that instead of posting some irrelevant bullshit about who invented bread?

I've dealt with it. I've shown that the argument sucks. You are the one refusing to deal with that.

You are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy.

Either admit that Syrians should be getting royalties from everyone in the world eating bread today, or admit that yours is a shitty argument.

Is it possible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the core philosophical issues, without resort to idiotic tripe about bread? Contemporary descendents of the middle east should no more getting royalties for bread, than Chinese for rice, or Europeans for double-entry accounting, calculus, and the periodic table of elements. These were all learned and shared knowledge, including that of bread making by those who (sometimes violently) pushed into Europe as farmers many thousands of years ago.

But your statement raises many questions. You wrote:

"(you)...are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy."

1. It this a question of "rights to enjoy privileges", or the right to benefit from what was intentionally earned and gifted to you? People generally work(ed) hard for their family, their posterity, and their fellow community. They create voluntary associations and political orders within a nation-state to protect and preserve the fruits of those efforts.

2. So I am wondering: "what is the moral right that denies a person's enjoyment of those earned/gifted benefits as long as someone else in the world does not have them"? Or: "where is the right to deny a people a nation-state within a defined territory to facilitate those goals"?

3. But is it only 'a privilege' to keep the fruit of your labor, and then to use it to help your children and posterity? By what moral schema ?

 

[laughing dog]

Are you getting treatment?

I don't need treatment, I'm not the one with Tourette, banging out incoherent claptrap.

I am told that acknowledgement is the first step to recovery. Try it.

 

[TSwizzle]

I have no desire to disappear down a rabbit hole filled with more of your absurd comparisons but thanks for the invite.

Carry on.

Thanks for admitting that you haven't posted a single coherent argument on this thread.

I haven't admitted anything so don't put words in my mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need treatment, I'm not the one with Tourette, banging out incoherent claptrap.

I am told that acknowledgement is the first step to recovery. Try it.

More tedious drivel.

 

[laughing dog]

Thanks for admitting that you haven't posted a single coherent argument on this thread.

I haven't admitted anything so don't put words in my mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need treatment, I'm not the one with Tourette, banging out incoherent claptrap.

I am told that acknowledgement is the first step to recovery. Try it.

More tedious drivel.

Seriously, get the treatment.

 

[TSwizzle]

Seriously, get the treatment.

Boring.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What about them?

The point is anyone with an iPhone isn't anything like destitute. It's perfectly reasonable for a Syrian refugee to have an iPhone but for someone fleeing economic conditions it's clear that they weren't that badly off.


One simple test they could do: Require them to list on their asylum application anyone else they wish to bring over. Any application with non-Syrian addresses is refused. They can't bring over family that they didn't list on the initial application.

The cheapest way is to destroy one's documents then there is no where to deport them to

- - - Updated - - -

Syrians farmed the land and built cities at about the time Finland emerged from under an ice shield. How does that not count as "doing"?

Looks like the Syrians have changed course and decided to abandon farming, trash their cities and move elsewhere. But anyway, what does it matter who was doing what 5,000 years ago ? Another one of you absurd comparisons and red herrings.

Too bad the US armed Al Qaeda and its Free Syrian Army partners. Then they trashed their cities.

 

[arkirk]

That 5% has apparently made all the difference.

Either that, or luck.

Either that or someone's also working smarter in addition to working harder.

I repeat my question: How did Jayjay earn the privilege he now defends?

And I'll repeat my answer, I guess:

He didn't. But his ancestors did - each generation, little by little.

Just like today's parents work hard to provide for their children a brighter better future, yesterday's parents did the same.

The fruits of my labors do not belong to the world as a whole to divvy up how it pleases, especially to those who sat capably but idly by while I labored.

"'Not I', said the dog"...​

Do you want to deal with that instead of posting some irrelevant bullshit about who invented bread?

I've dealt with it. I've shown that the argument sucks. You are the one refusing to deal with that.

You are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy.

Either admit that Syrians should be getting royalties from everyone in the world eating bread today, or admit that yours is a shitty argument.

Is it possible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the core philosophical issues, without resort to idiotic tripe about bread? Contemporary descendents of the middle east should no more getting royalties for bread, than Chinese for rice, or Europeans for double-entry accounting, calculus, and the periodic table of elements. These were all learned and shared knowledge, including that of bread making by those who (sometimes violently) pushed into Europe as farmers many thousands of years ago.

But your statement raises many questions. You wrote:

"(you)...are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy."

1. It this a question of "rights to enjoy privileges", or the right to benefit from what was intentionally earned and gifted to you? People generally work(ed) hard for their family, their posterity, and their fellow community. They create voluntary associations and political orders within a nation-state to protect and preserve the fruits of those efforts.

2. So I am wondering: "what is the moral right that denies a person's enjoyment of those earned/gifted benefits as long as someone else in the world does not have them"? Or: "where is the right to deny a people a nation-state within a defined territory to facilitate those goals"?

3. But is it only 'a privilege' to keep the fruit of your labor, and then to use it to help your children and posterity? By what moral schema ?

So you think that you are the recipient of "gifts" from your ancestors. Look around you. The clothes you wear, the gas you burn, the electronics you are usuing, the coffee you drink much of the food you eat, most of your housewares...all taken from foreign lands and brought here for you to consume as some kind of ancestral gift. That is pure bullshit! The work you happen to put into something is no measure of its rightness, nor should it necessarily imply a continuing ownership of what you create. Perhaps what you create is a fucking polluting mess....that should only be eliminated from the planet. So you want to perch yourself on it and crow like a rooster about how wonderful you and it is. Your argument rings hollow in my eyes.

There are a number of measures of quality of the work one produces that should be applied...does it pollute...was it really just taken from somebody else by force...or by chicanery? There is a lot we need to know before we can decide that anybody has the right to kick back and "enjoy" the fruits of a nation that for most of a century devolved a lot of its wealth from the labor of slaves.

 

[maxparrish]

That 5% has apparently made all the difference.

Either that, or luck.

Either that or someone's also working smarter in addition to working harder.

I repeat my question: How did Jayjay earn the privilege he now defends?

And I'll repeat my answer, I guess:

He didn't. But his ancestors did - each generation, little by little.

Just like today's parents work hard to provide for their children a brighter better future, yesterday's parents did the same.

The fruits of my labors do not belong to the world as a whole to divvy up how it pleases, especially to those who sat capably but idly by while I labored.

"'Not I', said the dog"...​

Do you want to deal with that instead of posting some irrelevant bullshit about who invented bread?

I've dealt with it. I've shown that the argument sucks. You are the one refusing to deal with that.

You are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy.

Either admit that Syrians should be getting royalties from everyone in the world eating bread today, or admit that yours is a shitty argument.

Is it possible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the core philosophical issues, without resort to idiotic tripe about bread? Contemporary descendents of the middle east should no more getting royalties for bread, than Chinese for rice, or Europeans for double-entry accounting, calculus, and the periodic table of elements. These were all learned and shared knowledge, including that of bread making by those who (sometimes violently) pushed into Europe as farmers many thousands of years ago.

But your statement raises many questions. You wrote:

"(you)...are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy."

1. It this a question of "rights to enjoy privileges", or the right to benefit from what was intentionally earned and gifted to you? People generally work(ed) hard for their family, their posterity, and their fellow community. They create voluntary associations and political orders within a nation-state to protect and preserve the fruits of those efforts.

2. So I am wondering: "what is the moral right that denies a person's enjoyment of those earned/gifted benefits as long as someone else in the world does not have them"? Or: "where is the right to deny a people a nation-state within a defined territory to facilitate those goals"?

3. But is it only 'a privilege' to keep the fruit of your labor, and then to use it to help your children and posterity? By what moral schema ?

So you think that you are the recipient of "gifts" from your ancestors. Look around you. TMhe clothes you wear, the gas you burn, the electronics you are usuing, the coffee you drink much of the food you eat, most of your housewares...all taken from foreign lands and brought here for you to consume as some kind of ancestral gift. That is pure bullshit!

Well let us look a little closer, shall we?

Cloths: My tee shirt and jeans were not a gift. I paid Russell and Levi for them with my earnings and savings. They manufactured them here (Levi) or in El Salvador (Russell). I also bought my clark shoes from a retailer, who bought them from a UK manufacturer. Purchasing them from others is not a "taking", its a voluntary transaction.

The Gas I burn: Paid for it. American natural gas, and gasoline purchased from domestic and international suppliers.

Electronics: Yep, I bought that to. Coffee: Yep bought that to. Housewares: Ditto (love my Le Cuisinart Dutch Oven).

No one "gifted" those to me (can't say about you). But what I was gifted by my parents (and their generation) is health, basic education, entertainment, and exposure to art and culture. I was also "gifted" language and values. And from prior generations I was gifted an economic and political system whose purpose is to secure my right to liberty.

As your sloganized view of what is known as "international trade" is so archaic, I wonder if you have also heard the classic explanation of how a pencil is made?

The work you happen to put into something is no measure of its rightness, nor should it necessarily imply a continuing ownership of what you create.

The work I put into something is not a measure a measure of wrongness, is it? Nor does it imply that the collective owns what I created, does it?. So far, your platitudes is the language of slavery, not free men (and women).

Perhaps what you create is a fucking polluting mess....that should only be eliminated from the planet. So you want to perch yourself on it and crow like a rooster about how wonderful you and it is. Your argument rings hollow in my eyes.

There are a number of measures of quality of the work one produces that should be applied...does it pollute...was it really just taken from somebody else by force...or by chicanery? There is a lot we need to know before we can decide that anybody has the right to kick back and "enjoy" the fruits of a nation that for most of a century devolved a lot of its wealth from the labor of slaves.

You mean you have to prove that I stole my creations and its material fruits? Funny, I don't recall that I did so.

 

[Bomb#20]

So you were actually talking about the long-term benefits of low levels of immigration,

No, I was talking about long-term benefits of immigration. Not low levels of immigration, or high levels. Simply immigration. You seem incapable of reading that as it's written; adding either "high levels of third world immigration" to what I mean; or, when I tell you not to do that, adding "low levels" to it. Stop. Just stop putting words into my mouth.

Oh for the love of god! Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between ridiculing you and putting words in your mouth? That sentence is dripping with sarcasm.

which nobody has disputed here, and introduced it into a discussion of a specific high immigration situation because of your deep appreciation of the red herring as a form of performance art? If you hadn't intended to imply that the current spike will in the long run be beneficial then you'd have had no reason to write what you wrote.

Here's the problem. I *do* think it will be beneficial long term.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Anybody who could read English and think was able to tell you think it will be beneficial long term. That's the point. That's what skepticalbip was reacting to (or else to similar statements by others in the thread). That's precisely why you have no grounds to accuse him of a strawman.

You however, decided to word your post in such a way as to imply that if I were to state such a thing, that automatically means I'm in favor of all these other things, things which you happen to dislike in rather strong language.

But that's not how I worded it. Quite the opposite. You seriously need to go to the effort of understanding the "Sense and reference" link I posted.

You do understand that a thing can have both positive and negative outcomes right? I hope that you also understand that just because you think that x will also lead to y, that doesn't mean that y actually will and that other people may have perfectly valid reasons for thinking that y will not.

And your opinion that you have perfectly valid reasons for thinking that x will not lead to y entitles you to explain those reasons to skepticalbip and to tell him that's why he's wrong. Your opinion on this point does not entitle you to accuse him of setting up a strawman.

But the demographics of the people currently trying to get into Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. and having a substantial rate of success at getting in are different from the demographics of the people trying to get into other places; and there is no politically powerful demographic in Northern Europe in a position to enact policies preferentially admitting Christians or Hindus or Buddhists over Muslims. Hungary could probably pull off a high level of third world immigration without a surge of Islamic influence. You can't.

That's weird... because we've definitely had high levels of third world immigration in the past without any surges in Islamic influence.

So what? That was before there were hundreds of thousands of Muslims trying to get in. You did it before; conditions changed; you can't do it any more.

Also, you DO realize that there's a lot of latin-american immigration to Europe as well, right? Not to mention a lot of immigration from non-islamic Asia and Christian Africa.

If a member of the Riksdag or your Parliament proposed that your respective countries solve their retirement and assimilation problems by allowing large-scale immigration from Latin America while excluding people from the Middle East, what would happen? Would the other members see this plan as being in the self-interest of their constituents and enact it into law? Or would the proposal be labeled "racist" and shouted down? "You can't do it" doesn't mean "You couldn't do it even if the obstacles weren't there."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's making a false damaging written statement about another person with reckless disregard for the truth*. Which is what you did.

(* Or knowingly, or with malice; but those don't appear to obtain in this case.)

 

[arkirk]

That 5% has apparently made all the difference.

Either that, or luck.

Either that or someone's also working smarter in addition to working harder.

I repeat my question: How did Jayjay earn the privilege he now defends?

And I'll repeat my answer, I guess:

He didn't. But his ancestors did - each generation, little by little.

Just like today's parents work hard to provide for their children a brighter better future, yesterday's parents did the same.

The fruits of my labors do not belong to the world as a whole to divvy up how it pleases, especially to those who sat capably but idly by while I labored.

"'Not I', said the dog"...​

Do you want to deal with that instead of posting some irrelevant bullshit about who invented bread?

I've dealt with it. I've shown that the argument sucks. You are the one refusing to deal with that.

You are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy.

Either admit that Syrians should be getting royalties from everyone in the world eating bread today, or admit that yours is a shitty argument.

Is it possible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the core philosophical issues, without resort to idiotic tripe about bread? Contemporary descendents of the middle east should no more getting royalties for bread, than Chinese for rice, or Europeans for double-entry accounting, calculus, and the periodic table of elements. These were all learned and shared knowledge, including that of bread making by those who (sometimes violently) pushed into Europe as farmers many thousands of years ago.

But your statement raises many questions. You wrote:

"(you)...are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy."

1. It this a question of "rights to enjoy privileges", or the right to benefit from what was intentionally earned and gifted to you? People generally work(ed) hard for their family, their posterity, and their fellow community. They create voluntary associations and political orders within a nation-state to protect and preserve the fruits of those efforts.

2. So I am wondering: "what is the moral right that denies a person's enjoyment of those earned/gifted benefits as long as someone else in the world does not have them"? Or: "where is the right to deny a people a nation-state within a defined territory to facilitate those goals"?

3. But is it only 'a privilege' to keep the fruit of your labor, and then to use it to help your children and posterity? By what moral schema ?

So you think that you are the recipient of "gifts" from your ancestors. Look around you. TMhe clothes you wear, the gas you burn, the electronics you are usuing, the coffee you drink much of the food you eat, most of your housewares...all taken from foreign lands and brought here for you to consume as some kind of ancestral gift. That is pure bullshit!

Well let us look a little closer, shall we?

Cloths: My tee shirt and jeans were not a gift. I paid Russell and Levi for them with my earnings and savings. They manufactured them here (Levi) or in El Salvador (Russell). I also bought my clark shoes from a retailer, who bought them from a UK manufacturer. Purchasing them from others is not a "taking", its a voluntary transaction.

The Gas I burn: Paid for it. American natural gas, and gasoline purchased from domestic and international suppliers.

Electronics: Yep, I bought that to. Coffee: Yep bought that to. Housewares: Ditto (love my Le Cuisinart Dutch Oven).

No one "gifted" those to me (can't say about you). But what I was gifted by my parents (and their generation) is health, basic education, entertainment, and exposure to art and culture. I was also "gifted" language and values. And from prior generations I was gifted an economic and political system whose purpose is to secure my right to liberty.

As your sloganized view of what is known as "international trade" is so archaic, I wonder if you have also heard the classic explanation of how a pencil is made?

The work you happen to put into something is no measure of its rightness, nor should it necessarily imply a continuing ownership of what you create.

The work I put into something is not a measure a measure of wrongness, is it? Nor does it imply that the collective owns what I created, does it?. So far, your platitudes is the language of slavery, not free men (and women).

Perhaps what you create is a fucking polluting mess....that should only be eliminated from the planet. So you want to perch yourself on it and crow like a rooster about how wonderful you and it is. Your argument rings hollow in my eyes.

There are a number of measures of quality of the work one produces that should be applied...does it pollute...was it really just taken from somebody else by force...or by chicanery? There is a lot we need to know before we can decide that anybody has the right to kick back and "enjoy" the fruits of a nation that for most of a century devolved a lot of its wealth from the labor of slaves.

You mean you have to prove that I stole my creations and its material fruits? Funny, I don't recall that I did so.

You don't have to prove anything, Max. Your tribe doesn't think past the end of its nose. In fact, you are almost immaterial to the flow of international events in the world. I said almost. Why do you buy this stuff? Because it is cheap? You buy it because you need it and it is provided cheaply by hundred of Asian hands. You have been gifted the right to bypass meeting your personal needs by a supply of sweatshop goods to keep you clothes and coffee'd up. You buy these things because you can "afford" them. I have no idea what YOU CREATED. You did give me a slight clue as to what you consume. There is a lot that you either don't see or simply don't care about. You really ought to ease up on the rest of the world.

 

[Jayjay]

I honestly don't think you have a point.

So keep calm and carry on.

Jayjay wants being allowed in Europe to be a privilege one has to earn. He himself, as far as we can tell, did nothing to earn it, which I pointed out.

And which I replied to.

The point is, that the receiving country should be able to decide who gets to enter. You are basically broadening that by asking, "well how did the the people who are born in those countries get in?", it's a false analogy on two accounts: 1) the new people being born have no place to go to, unlike the economic migrants coming from Iraq or other such countries that are reasonably safe, and 1) babies are blank slates that are considered inherently valuable by most countries, because they can be indoctrinated and trained from scratch. But even then, most liberal western countries are ok with abortion, i.e. giving the mother a right to choose whether her offspring gets to "migrate" from her womb into full-fledged citizenship.

 

[bilby]

The relevant thing that maxparrish's parents, and arkirk's, and mine, gifted us is not education or a political system or a pair of shoes.

The relevant thing is citizenship.

What has a newborn baby with EU citizens for parents done, that a Syrian refugee, or a Tanzanian asylum seeker has failed to do, such that the baby deserves the right to live, and when grown up, to work, in a rich nation with well paid jobs, and a social safety net, but the Tanzanian does not?

Citizenship is mostly completely arbitrary; it is acquired at birth, and only rarely changes - and yet for some reason, we feel that it is justified to make changing citizenship difficult, expensive, and subject to a plethora of terms and conditions.

If we are going to insist that a new citizen must have a certain minimum level of education in specified fields; that he must pass a medical, be sponsored by an employer, and/or have a certain amount of monetary net worth, then surely there is a desperate need to close the loophole by which millions of completely unqualified individuals become citizens every year, despite having no marketable skills, no money, and not being able to speak a word of any language?

If we are going to grant citizenship to people who have done nothing at all to earn it, then what justification is there for refusing it to some people on the basis of something over which they had no control?

 

[Bomb#20]

Not entirly true since the comrades of maxparrish et al has burnt down a number of refugee shelters

Not burned down. Set fire to. One. Also, a refugee shelter exclusively for lone children. Truly the work of evil. But nothing happened. The fire was only on the outside of the house and was quickly quenched. Still worrying development.

It's a work of evil to burn down a refugee shelter whether it's for lone children or for families or for adults; that said, what reason do you have for believing this refugee shelter was exclusively for lone children?

The law requires better treatment for underage migrants than it requires for adult migrants, and migrants believed to be children are much less likely to be deported. The migrant community knows this. Consequently, many migrants lie about their age. Finland, Norway and Denmark have consequently taken up age-testing migrants who claim to be children but look like adults. The last I heard, Sweden has refused to take this step. Has this changed recently? If you still aren't age-testing, your government doesn't know who's a child and who isn't. If you still aren't age-testing, then that was almost certainly a refugee center for both children and adults.

In the case of the migrants into Denmark, as near as I can puzzle out the Danish, this Metroxpress story says "72 percent of those who said they were children were over 18."

Curiously, in 2014 about 9 times as many migrants who say they're children asked for asylum in Sweden as in Denmark. This might be a coincidence unrelated to the circumstance that Sweden doesn't age-test; then again, it might indicate that the fraction lying about their age in Sweden is higher than 72%.

 

[arkirk]

Not burned down. Set fire to. One. Also, a refugee shelter exclusively for lone children. Truly the work of evil. But nothing happened. The fire was only on the outside of the house and was quickly quenched. Still worrying development.

It's a work of evil to burn down a refugee shelter whether it's for lone children or for families or for adults; that said, what reason do you have for believing this refugee shelter was exclusively for lone children?

The law requires better treatment for underage migrants than it requires for adult migrants, and migrants believed to be children are much less likely to be deported. The migrant community knows this. Consequently, many migrants lie about their age. Finland, Norway and Denmark have consequently taken up age-testing migrants who claim to be children but look like adults. The last I heard, Sweden has refused to take this step. Has this changed recently? If you still aren't age-testing, your government doesn't know who's a child and who isn't. If you still aren't age-testing, then that was almost certainly a refugee center for both children and adults.

In the case of the migrants into Denmark, as near as I can puzzle out the Danish, this Metroxpress story says "72 percent of those who said they were children were over 18."

Curiously, in 2014 about 9 times as many migrants who say they're children asked for asylum in Sweden as in Denmark. This might be a coincidence unrelated to the circumstance that Sweden doesn't age-test; then again, it might indicate that the fraction lying about their age in Sweden is higher than 72%.

If they are refugees from violence what difference the age...2 -98 years old. People don't stop being human beings when they become 18. If somebody is making an issue of age they are engaging in age discrimination. Need for asylum is just that...need. They may lie about age if forced to by people with age discrimination views are in charge of asylum cases. It is understandable.

 

[Bomb#20]

What has a newborn baby with EU citizens for parents done, that a Syrian refugee, or a Tanzanian asylum seeker has failed to do, such that the baby deserves the right to live, and when grown up, to work, in a rich nation with well paid jobs, and a social safety net, but the Tanzanian does not?

What has a sweepstakes winner done to deserve his million dollars? Nothing. Do you think that means sweepstakes should be outlawed, or that property rights should not apply to sweepstakes winnings? Citizenship isn't a matter of deservingness.

Citizenship is mostly completely arbitrary; it is acquired at birth, and only rarely changes - and yet for some reason, we feel that it is justified to make changing citizenship difficult, expensive, and subject to a plethora of terms and conditions.

Quite so.

If we are going to insist that a new citizen must have a certain minimum level of education in specified fields; that he must pass a medical, be sponsored by an employer, and/or have a certain amount of monetary net worth, then surely there is a desperate need to close the loophole by which millions of completely unqualified individuals become citizens every year, despite having no marketable skills, no money, and not being able to speak a word of any language?

Show your work.

If we are going to grant citizenship to people who have done nothing at all to earn it, then what justification is there for refusing it to some people on the basis of something over which they had no control?

The legal justification is that that's the law; and that's the law because we're democracies and that's the way the voters want it. They want it that way because they perceive it to be in their self-interest. Are you advocating abolishing democracy and replacing it with the rule of philosopher-kings?

If you mean moral justification, what kind of an answer are you looking for? Are you a moral realist, and you're asking for facts that will lead to that conclusion via whatever is-to-ought inference rule you think is correct? Are you a moral subjectivist who thinks "It's justified" means "I like it", and you're asking people to explain to you why you like it? Are you a moral noncognitivist who thinks "It's justified" means "Yayyy!" and you're asking for an argument with "Yayyy!" as its final proposition?

 

[bilby]

What has a sweepstakes winner done to deserve his million dollars? Nothing. Do you think that means sweepstakes should be outlawed, or that property rights should not apply to sweepstakes winnings? Citizenship isn't a matter of deservingness.

Citizenship is mostly completely arbitrary; it is acquired at birth, and only rarely changes - and yet for some reason, we feel that it is justified to make changing citizenship difficult, expensive, and subject to a plethora of terms and conditions.

Quite so.

If we are going to insist that a new citizen must have a certain minimum level of education in specified fields; that he must pass a medical, be sponsored by an employer, and/or have a certain amount of monetary net worth, then surely there is a desperate need to close the loophole by which millions of completely unqualified individuals become citizens every year, despite having no marketable skills, no money, and not being able to speak a word of any language?

Show your work.

There are strict rules making it very hard to become a citizen.

Those rules are waived for a particular class of persons (newborn babies).

The rules are therefore being applied in an inconsistent, irrational and unreasonable way.

It is not moral to harm people by imposing inconsistent, irrational and unreasonable rules.

If we are going to grant citizenship to people who have done nothing at all to earn it, then what justification is there for refusing it to some people on the basis of something over which they had no control?

The legal justification is that that's the law; and that's the law because we're democracies and that's the way the voters want it. They want it that way because they perceive it to be in their self-interest. Are you advocating abolishing democracy and replacing it with the rule of philosopher-kings?

A small group of people voting for a law that denies rights held by that small group to the disenfranchised majority is not democracy. I am advocating abolishing whatever the fuck system it is that has led to this situation, and replacing it with something more democratic - ie voted upon by all of the people it affects, and not just a small, wealthy oligarchy.

If you mean moral justification, what kind of an answer are you looking for? Are you a moral realist, and you're asking for facts that will lead to that conclusion via whatever is-to-ought inference rule you think is correct? Are you a moral subjectivist who thinks "It's justified" means "I like it", and you're asking people to explain to you why you like it? Are you a moral noncognitivist who thinks "It's justified" means "Yayyy!" and you're asking for an argument with "Yayyy!" as its final proposition?

I am a democrat (small 'd') who opposes the arbitrary disenfranchising of the majority of the world population.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a work of evil to burn down a refugee shelter whether it's for lone children or for families or for adults; that said, what reason do you have for believing this refugee shelter was exclusively for lone children?

The law requires better treatment for underage migrants than it requires for adult migrants, and migrants believed to be children are much less likely to be deported. The migrant community knows this. Consequently, many migrants lie about their age. Finland, Norway and Denmark have consequently taken up age-testing migrants who claim to be children but look like adults. The last I heard, Sweden has refused to take this step. Has this changed recently? If you still aren't age-testing, your government doesn't know who's a child and who isn't. If you still aren't age-testing, then that was almost certainly a refugee center for both children and adults.

In the case of the migrants into Denmark, as near as I can puzzle out the Danish, this Metroxpress story says "72 percent of those who said they were children were over 18."

Curiously, in 2014 about 9 times as many migrants who say they're children asked for asylum in Sweden as in Denmark. This might be a coincidence unrelated to the circumstance that Sweden doesn't age-test; then again, it might indicate that the fraction lying about their age in Sweden is higher than 72%.

If they are refugees from violence what difference the age...2 -98 years old. People don't stop being human beings when they become 18. If somebody is making an issue of age they are engaging in age discrimination. Need for asylum is just that...need. They may lie about age if forced to by people with age discrimination views are in charge of asylum cases. It is understandable.

Its easier to get in if a person says he or she is 15 or under even if he or she is 42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAuAtscuyy8