Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

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?

Indeed, perhaps it shouldn't be up to parents whether they can have children, but it should be decided by the state on basis of potential net worth of said citizen.

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's a work of evil to burn down a refugee shelter whether it's for lone children or for families or for adults;...

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.

Quite so. As I said, a work of evil regardless of how old the people there are.

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.

Certainly. Nobody is denying that it's understandable. But the fact that a behavior is understandable does not imply that other people have a duty to reward that behavior. The reason governments practice age discrimination is that they perceive children's need to be greater -- the consequence to a child of being deported to be greater than the consequence to an adult. Do you think they're mistaken about that?

 

[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?

Indeed, perhaps it shouldn't be up to parents whether they can have children, but it should be decided by the state on basis of potential net worth of said citizen.

Nothing I have said implies such a society at all.

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Gibberish.

 

[Jayjay]

Indeed, perhaps it shouldn't be up to parents whether they can have children, but it should be decided by the state on basis of potential net worth of said citizen.

Nothing I have said implies such a society at all.

Well, if newborns were treated the same as immigrants are now, that's what it would be, wouldn't it?

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

Some things you can change, some things you can't. There is huge societal momentum behind procreation and childbearing being in the domain of the parents rather than the state and it's not likely to change anytime soon. Immigration on the other hand is a problem that can be solved here and now. Besides if we were building utopian societies, the solution to the refugee problem would be to fix Iraq and Syria and every other country in the world so that people would have equal rights wherever they are, not only if they manage to smuggle themselves to Europe.

 

[bilby]

Nothing I have said implies such a society at all.

Well, if newborns were treated the same as immigrants are now, that's what it would be, wouldn't it?

What, are you under the impression that the state tells immigrants whether or not they can exist?

Citizenship is about rights, not existence. An immigrant who is currently in your country without citizenship still exists, and is still in your country - but he cannot vote, cannot access benefits, cannot lawfully work... there are lots of things he can only do if he becomes a citizen.

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

Some things you can change, some things you can't.

And anything that exists only as a result of legislation, you can.

Obviously.

There is huge societal momentum behind procreation and childbearing being in the domain of the parents rather than the state and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Or ever; but as it is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here, it really doesn't matter.

Immigration on the other hand is a problem that can be solved here and now. Besides if we were building utopian societies, the solution to the refugee problem would be to fix Iraq and Syria and every other country in the world so that people would have equal rights wherever they are, not only if they manage to smuggle themselves to Europe.

If you had a fictional nation - let's call it 'The Confederate States of America' - in which some people were full citizens, with the vote, access to government services, access to any job for which they were qualified and to the educational resources to acquire those qualifications, etc.; and other people were not full citizens, and had no vote, no rights, and were not even allowed to go to otherwise public places without permission from the full citizens - That would be a desperately unfair society, and one that needed to change.

Of course, the ruling elite all have the vote, so they are a democracy; and the rules that render the majority of people non-citizens are perfectly OK, because they were legislated by elected representatives of the voters.

If a bunch of non-citizens decided that they wanted to move from the squalid place they currently live, and to go to a place where there were good, well paying jobs, the ruling class would, of course, entirely democratically, ban them from taking those jobs; vote to build a fence to prevent them moving; and vote to catch and return any non-citizen who managed to get past the fence.

Now obviously such a situation would be abhorrent; and the good people of the world would argue that the limitations on these people should be removed; they should be free to go where they choose, and should have the vote, and be able to take jobs wherever they can find them.

Quite why this is a problem when it happens in the Confederated States of America, but not a problem when it happens on planet Earth, I do not know.

Rigid national borders are not a law of nature - they are fairly novel, having only really existed for a century or so. But in that short time, they have led to a massive imbalance between where people are, and where they want to be.

It is time we stopped pretending that we are democratic when we allow rich westerners to vote for laws restricting the movement of poor people who have no say in the matter.

It is time we dismantled the rigid borders around nations, and let people go where they please.

It would be trivially easy, in the information age, to restrict welfare such that people cannot move for the sole purpose of gaining access to it. That seems to be the only legitimate reason for tightly controlled borders; simply setting a minimum residency period to qualify for benefits ought to serve the same purpose.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Actually being a citizenship is an entitlement to a political association when living within a people's territory. The rules for membership can vary, and for various reasons they are never uniform for individuals or between nations. However, it is not necessarily arbitrary.

Some nation-states in the Americas provide citizenship by the 'right of the soil', "the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship." All the others in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania "grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of the right of blood, in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is not automatic for the children of certain immigrants."

In other words, quite literally, in most systems individuals are 'gifted' from their citizen ancestors their rights to citizenship. In fact, "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries.[5]"

That does not sound arbitrary - its sounds purposeful. Self-identified peoples, nations, want their people to continue to have the protection and benefits they are either born into, or have by blood and history.

Exceptions to these general rules are the rules of naturalization, which also usually are not arbitrary.

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?

And therefore one could just as easily say that there is only one uniform standard, one of citizenship by the right of blood. That is even more fair, by your standard. It is then a lottery of birth - either you have the right or you do not. After all, we wouldn't want to treat people differently, right?

However, the rules (and exceptions) do depend on the purposes of those who make the rules of citizenship. If, for example, Japan or Austria wishes to provide one rule for 'their own' cultural bloodlines, and another for those seeking to become citizens then its not a loophole, its a feature. The Japanese, for example, make it very difficult and, unlike many other states, does not permit permanent residents to use Japanese retirement benefits.

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?

Because the system of granting was not designed to be equal or fair to the applicant, it was designed by the ancestors to give its benefits to their posterity (so to speak). If you insist on equality, then eliminate naturalization. Either you were lucky, or you were not.

Telling us that life's fortune is arbitrary because some were born to the right or wrong parents is as true as it is irrelevant.

 

[Jayjay]

Well, if newborns were treated the same as immigrants are now, that's what it would be, wouldn't it?

What, are you under the impression that the state tells immigrants whether or not they can exist?

Citizenship is about rights, not existence. An immigrant who is currently in your country without citizenship still exists, and is still in your country - but he cannot vote, cannot access benefits, cannot lawfully work... there are lots of things he can only do if he becomes a citizen.

I'm talking more about residency than citizenship. It's morally questionable and socially untenable to allow large parts of society to be non-citizens with less than equal rights, which is why the control of who gets in should happen at the border. Same applies to newborns, if you are born in a country, you should have same rights as anyone else born in that country.

You seemed to be of the opinion a few posts ago that there is an inconsistency with demanding immigrants to prove their worth before being allowed to enter, when newborns have no such requirements. Yes? If so, then my point is that I wouldn't mind such controls being imposed on newborns either, if it ever became politically feasible to do so. So there is no inconsistency there. But unlike for an immigrant who can be turned away from the border, what does that mean for someone just being born? Are we going to shove them back into their mothers' wombs?

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

Some things you can change, some things you can't.

And anything that exists only as a result of legislation, you can.

Obviously.

There is huge societal momentum behind procreation and childbearing being in the domain of the parents rather than the state and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Or ever; but as it is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here, it really doesn't matter.

Immigration on the other hand is a problem that can be solved here and now. Besides if we were building utopian societies, the solution to the refugee problem would be to fix Iraq and Syria and every other country in the world so that people would have equal rights wherever they are, not only if they manage to smuggle themselves to Europe.

If you had a fictional nation - let's call it 'The Confederate States of America' - in which some people were full citizens, with the vote, access to government services, access to any job for which they were qualified and to the educational resources to acquire those qualifications, etc.; and other people were not full citizens, and had no vote, no rights, and were not even allowed to go to otherwise public places without permission from the full citizens - That would be a desperately unfair society, and one that needed to change.

Of course, the ruling elite all have the vote, so they are a democracy; and the rules that render the majority of people non-citizens are perfectly OK, because they were legislated by elected representatives of the voters.

If a bunch of non-citizens decided that they wanted to move from the squalid place they currently live, and to go to a place where there were good, well paying jobs, the ruling class would, of course, entirely democratically, ban them from taking those jobs; vote to build a fence to prevent them moving; and vote to catch and return any non-citizen who managed to get past the fence.

Now obviously such a situation would be abhorrent; and the good people of the world would argue that the limitations on these people should be removed; they should be free to go where they choose, and should have the vote, and be able to take jobs wherever they can find them.

Quite why this is a problem when it happens in the Confederated States of America, but not a problem when it happens on planet Earth, I do not know.

Rigid national borders are not a law of nature - they are fairly novel, having only really existed for a century or so. But in that short time, they have led to a massive imbalance between where people are, and where they want to be.

It is time we stopped pretending that we are democratic when we allow rich westerners to vote for laws restricting the movement of poor people who have no say in the matter.

It is time we dismantled the rigid borders around nations, and let people go where they please.

As I said, that's in principle fine, but it's a utopian fantasy. And the analogy breaks in the sence that the "citizens" of the world don't really have a say in how the non-citizens rule themselves. If Iraqi people want to live in Europe, they could fix their own country to grant the same rights and privileges that Europeans enjoy. Making Europe the social office for the whole world isn't a solution (to paraphrase that Swedish guy who said something similar recently).

It would be trivially easy, in the information age, to restrict welfare such that people cannot move for the sole purpose of gaining access to it. That seems to be the only legitimate reason for tightly controlled borders; simply setting a minimum residency period to qualify for benefits ought to serve the same purpose.

That sounds completely opposite to everything else you wrote. What moral basis is there for one person to receive certain benefits just because they lived in a country a little bit longer than someone else? Isn't the new arrival who hits hard times in just as much in need as the one who came in year before (or lived there his whole life)?

 

[bilby]

Actually being a citizenship is an entitlement to a political association when living within a people's territory. The rules for membership can vary, and for various reasons they are never uniform for individuals or between nations. However, it is not necessarily arbitrary.

Some nation-states in the Americas provide citizenship by the 'right of the soil', "the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship." All the others in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania "grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of the right of blood, in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is not automatic for the children of certain immigrants."

In other words, quite literally, in most systems individuals are 'gifted' from their citizen ancestors their rights to citizenship. In fact, "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries.[5]"

That does not sound arbitrary - its sounds purposeful. Self-identified peoples, nations, want their people to continue to have the protection and benefits they are either born into, or have by blood and history.

Exceptions to these general rules are the rules of naturalization, which also usually are not arbitrary.

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?

And therefore one could just as easily say that there is only one uniform standard, one of citizenship by the right of blood. That is even more fair, by your standard. It is then a lottery of birth - either you have the right or you do not. After all, we wouldn't want to treat people differently, right?

However, the rules (and exceptions) do depend on the purposes of those who make the rules of citizenship. If, for example, Japan or Austria wishes to provide one rule for 'their own' cultural bloodlines, and another for those seeking to become citizens then its not a loophole, its a feature. The Japanese, for example, make it very difficult and, unlike many other states, does not permit permanent residents to use Japanese retirement benefits.

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?

Because the system of granting was not designed to be equal or fair to the applicant, it was designed by the ancestors to give its benefits to their posterity (so to speak). If you insist on equality, then eliminate naturalization. Either you were lucky, or you were not.

Telling us that life's fortune is arbitrary because some were born to the right or wrong parents is as true as it is irrelevant.

So you are saying that it is either arbitrary or it isn't? That's good to know

I agree completely that the system of granting was not designed to be equal or fair to the applicant, it was designed by the ancestors to give its benefits to their posterity. Where we differ is that I reckon the opinions of living people should be given greater weight than the opinions of the deceased.

I don't care what the ancestors wanted; I care what the people alive today want. And as democracy seems to be the best system we have yet devised for determining and implementing the will of the people, I suggest we do just that - but there are no grounds to exclude people who are directly involved from the decision making process, so we must enfranchise the entire world.

Equality of outcome is probably not desirable; equality of opportunity is probably not achievable; but universal suffrage is achievable and desirable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Yup--which means we need to handle such cases differently. Deportable but we don't know where you go? You get something akin to a POW camp until you give the authorities proper information on where to deport you to.

 

[maxparrish]

Actually being a citizenship is an entitlement to a political association when living within a people's territory. The rules for membership can vary, and for various reasons they are never uniform for individuals or between nations. However, it is not necessarily arbitrary.

Some nation-states in the Americas provide citizenship by the 'right of the soil', "the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship." All the others in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania "grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of the right of blood, in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is not automatic for the children of certain immigrants."

In other words, quite literally, in most systems individuals are 'gifted' from their citizen ancestors their rights to citizenship. In fact, "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries.[5]"

That does not sound arbitrary - its sounds purposeful. Self-identified peoples, nations, want their people to continue to have the protection and benefits they are either born into, or have by blood and history.

Exceptions to these general rules are the rules of naturalization, which also usually are not arbitrary.



And therefore one could just as easily say that there is only one uniform standard, one of citizenship by the right of blood. That is even more fair, by your standard. It is then a lottery of birth - either you have the right or you do not. After all, we wouldn't want to treat people differently, right?

However, the rules (and exceptions) do depend on the purposes of those who make the rules of citizenship. If, for example, Japan or Austria wishes to provide one rule for 'their own' cultural bloodlines, and another for those seeking to become citizens then its not a loophole, its a feature. The Japanese, for example, make it very difficult and, unlike many other states, does not permit permanent residents to use Japanese retirement benefits.

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?

Because the system of granting was not designed to be equal or fair to the applicant, it was designed by the ancestors to give its benefits to their posterity (so to speak). If you insist on equality, then eliminate naturalization. Either you were lucky, or you were not.

Telling us that life's fortune is arbitrary because some were born to the right or wrong parents is as true as it is irrelevant.

So you are saying that it is either arbitrary or it isn't? That's good to know

So then my usage of the word arbitrary was imprecise. Life's fortune is not a random choice (arbitrary) because it is no choice at all. That a particular sperm-egg fertilization meeting is from a particular set of parents is a natural event outside of anyone's choice of who is born and to whom.

And for different reasons, the rules for citizenship are also not 'arbitrary' (based on a random choice) - they are a non random choice based on an intentional system to attain certain goals.

And that is really what is "good to know", because we can now cease using the word "arbitrary" in any citizenship context.

I agree completely that the system of granting was not designed to be equal or fair to the applicant, it was designed by the ancestors to give its benefits to their posterity. Where we differ is that I reckon the opinions of living people should be given greater weight than the opinions of the deceased.

I don't care what the ancestors wanted; I care what the people alive today want. And as democracy seems to be the best system we have yet devised for determining and implementing the will of the people, I suggest we do just that - but there are no grounds to exclude people who are directly involved from the decision making process, so we must enfranchise the entire world.

But if you believe that the ancestors gave their membership to their posterity, if follows that the inheritors, their posterity (as living people), may give to others or keep it as they please. Their grounds for excluding non-owners, such as illegal aliens, derive from their rightful ownership of what their forefathers passed on to them.

Those hobos and bums who wish to squat in your house, as passed on to you from your parents, does not make those squatters "enfranchised" to move in with you, does it? It does not dilute the membership of your children against your will, does it?

Of course not.

Equality of outcome is probably not desirable; equality of opportunity is probably not achievable; but universal suffrage is achievable and desirable.

Universal suffrage is a process within a commonly owned membership; it is not the same as universal membership in the 139 other memberships (nations).

 

[angelo]

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.

That as well as refusing to accept any asylum seeker who has destroyed their identity papers!

 

[angelo]

You blame the man in the street for that? It's not xtians committing the world site terrorist attacks, it's moslems.

They are committing some.

But the biggest act of terrorism in the last 15 years was the US led invasion of Iraq.

Nothing else comes close.

Not even the Nazi invasion of France and the low countries? What about Saddam's invasion of Iran where chemical weapons were used, and later Kuwait.

 

[bigfield]

They are committing some.

But the biggest act of terrorism in the last 15 years was the US led invasion of Iraq.

Nothing else comes close.

Not even the Nazi invasion of France and the low countries? What about Saddam's invasion of Iran where chemical weapons were used, and later Kuwait.

Holy fuck, that is hilarious.

"...the biggest act of terrorism in the last 15 years..."

Try counting backwards from 2015 and see if 15 years gets you to 1990, let alone 1940.

 

[whichphilosophy]

They are committing some.

But the biggest act of terrorism in the last 15 years was the US led invasion of Iraq.

Nothing else comes close.

Not even the Nazi invasion of France and the low countries? What about Saddam's invasion of Iran where chemical weapons were used, and later Kuwait.

But we supplied the weapons to Saddam when he was the West's ally. Germany also sold the gas to Saddam which he used on the Kurds.

 

[untermensche]

They are committing some.

But the biggest act of terrorism in the last 15 years was the US led invasion of Iraq.

Nothing else comes close.

Not even the Nazi invasion of France and the low countries? What about Saddam's invasion of Iran where chemical weapons were used, and later Kuwait.

The last 15 years.

Try reading one time. It is educational.

And Hussein's invasion of Iraq was supported by the US and he used a lot of weapons supplied from the US.

The US has great responsibility in that.

 

[Jokodo]

The left column is attacks of refugee reception centers in Germany during the first 6 months of 2015. The right column is islamist attacks during the same period.

If Europe is submitting, it is submitting to the reemergence of fascism.

 

[angelo]

Not even the Nazi invasion of France and the low countries? What about Saddam's invasion of Iran where chemical weapons were used, and later Kuwait.

The last 15 years.

Try reading one time. It is educational.

And Hussein's invasion of Iraq was supported by the US and he used a lot of weapons supplied from the US.

The US has great responsibility in that.

Hold on, Hussain invaded Iraq?

Well, if newborns were treated the same as immigrants are now, that's what it would be, wouldn't it?

What, are you under the impression that the state tells immigrants whether or not they can exist?

Citizenship is about rights, not existence. An immigrant who is currently in your country without citizenship still exists, and is still in your country - but he cannot vote, cannot access benefits, cannot lawfully work... there are lots of things he can only do if he becomes a citizen.

However that kind of society would be largely theoretical. Societies that control their borders and have immigration controls are a reality.

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

Some things you can change, some things you can't.

And anything that exists only as a result of legislation, you can.

Obviously.

There is huge societal momentum behind procreation and childbearing being in the domain of the parents rather than the state and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Or ever; but as it is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here, it really doesn't matter.

Immigration on the other hand is a problem that can be solved here and now. Besides if we were building utopian societies, the solution to the refugee problem would be to fix Iraq and Syria and every other country in the world so that people would have equal rights wherever they are, not only if they manage to smuggle themselves to Europe.

If you had a fictional nation - let's call it 'The Confederate States of America' - in which some people were full citizens, with the vote, access to government services, access to any job for which they were qualified and to the educational resources to acquire those qualifications, etc.; and other people were not full citizens, and had no vote, no rights, and were not even allowed to go to otherwise public places without permission from the full citizens - That would be a desperately unfair society, and one that needed to change.

Of course, the ruling elite all have the vote, so they are a democracy; and the rules that render the majority of people non-citizens are perfectly OK, because they were legislated by elected representatives of the voters.

If a bunch of non-citizens decided that they wanted to move from the squalid place they currently live, and to go to a place where there were good, well paying jobs, the ruling class would, of course, entirely democratically, ban them from taking those jobs; vote to build a fence to prevent them moving; and vote to catch and return any non-citizen who managed to get past the fence.

Now obviously such a situation would be abhorrent; and the good people of the world would argue that the limitations on these people should be removed; they should be free to go where they choose, and should have the vote, and be able to take jobs wherever they can find them.

Quite why this is a problem when it happens in the Confederated States of America, but not a problem when it happens on planet Earth, I do not know.

Rigid national borders are not a law of nature - they are fairly novel, having only really existed for a century or so. But in that short time, they have led to a massive imbalance between where people are, and where they want to be.

It is time we stopped pretending that we are democratic when we allow rich westerners to vote for laws restricting the movement of poor people who have no say in the matter.

It is time we dismantled the rigid borders around nations, and let people go where they please.

It would be trivially easy, in the information age, to restrict welfare such that people cannot move for the sole purpose of gaining access to it. That seems to be the only legitimate reason for tightly controlled borders; simply setting a minimum residency period to qualify for benefits ought to serve the same purpose.

 

[angelo]

View attachment 4538

The left column is attacks of refugee reception centers in Germany during the first 6 months of 2015. The right column is islamist attacks during the same period.

If Europe is submitting, it is submitting to the reemergence of fascism.

You mean just in Germany right? When the government's policies don't meet with approval of a part of the population, some of the dissenters turn to violence. Anti immigration parties are doing quite well in elections in Europe lately.

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 4538

The left column is attacks of refugee reception centers in Germany during the first 6 months of 2015. The right column is islamist attacks during the same period.

If Europe is submitting, it is submitting to the reemergence of fascism.

You mean just in Germany right? When the government's policies don't meet with approval of a part of the population, some of the dissenters turn to violence. Anti immigration parties are doing quite well in elections in Europe lately.

This is on the rise. Being anti immigration does not automatically equate with racism.