All humans have an equal basic moral status. They possess the same fundamental rights, and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in calculations that determine social policy. — Rank Amateur

Again, I completely disagree. There is no sense in which the interests of an impulsive, violent person can be treated as on the same level as the interests of someone who goes about their life thoughtfully, without doing harm. Society could not possibly function if that were taken seriously. The impulsive, violent person has less moral worth than the thoughtful, harmless person. They are of positive disvalue to humanity, to society, to those around them, etc., etc., and their interests are of less account (though under certain circumstances some of their interests may still be taken into account, see below - it's not like any human being, even the worst, is ever totally valueless, totally morally discountable).

There are two senses in which a kind of equality, in a sense, pertains to human beings, but neither of them have anything to do with morality (or rather, they aren't corollaries of the moral calculus per se).

1) The spiritual sense, as I mentioned. For Christians, for example, all human beings are "equal in the eyes of God", or for Jews, everyone is equally a "spark of the Divine." Most religious have something equivalent. In a secular context, that might be expressed in terms of "dignity", or proportionality, or in the expression of mercy and taking into account mitigating factors, or in the understanding that moral redemption may be possible for some. But this is DESPITE the obvious disparity in moral worth between people (it's something that under certain circumstances might override the normal moral calculus). And again, mercy and redemption are conditional on remorse being shown.

2) Equal treatment before the law. This is really a procedural function of how to go about ensuring social order: nobody gets any special privileges, everyone comes before the law as innocent until proven guilty, that sort of thing. There is a distal connection to morality here, in that, like every other human endeavour, the law must proceed morally (and prejudice is immoral). But it's not that the law is set up to enforce a particular view of morality. (This is a common mistake people make. The function of the law is not to promote morality, but to propagate social order; the connection with morality is simply that in doing so it must itself act within moral bounds.) And again, this proceeds DESPITE obvious moral differences.

It is imoral to frustrate an individual will unfairly wilh restriction derived from traits that are not a result of his or her own decisions. It's how you ID the citizens not the border. Borders may not be imoral but certainly citizenship by birth AND borders are.

It is difficult to see how you can justify saying some poor baby born in the Phillipines cannot move to Seattle to work if he or she wants to.

Too bad there is not some way to force that great red stain of shame from the heart of the land of liberty for their un-America choice to embrace the frustration of the freedom of others. Citizenship by embrace of an ideology is so much fairer.

It is such a tragedy that that great light of liberty in New York harbor is being extinguished and a wall intending to set up an exclusive gated community is replacing it as the symbol of America.

Doubly tragic becasue it will not in the slightest help economically and is in fact as damaging to supporters as critics. Those people who think they can bring back outmoded forms of work instead of competing are just fooling themselves. That "again" in "Make America great again" is a colossal mistake. We could have, were, in fact, moving to a better future, but now? Don't worry reds, you lack of education and employability will certainly be compensated for by stopping imigrants from competing with you. De-globalize the whole border and you will still be unemployed - and much, much poorer.

The only market in the world that is not globablized in name is the labor market. What we need is completely free markets and borders with labor and capital and we need people to associate by ideology and defend their borders that way. Citizenship by belief in freedom. Demonstrate you are against it and you should be deported from America.

So much treasure, blood, and lives down the drain. Even if we are often, no usually, hypocritical, the ideals of America, the land of the free, were something to behold. I have been travelling the world for about three decades and it was amazing how much hope I used to be greeted with and how much sympathy, as if I have had a death in the family, I am greeted with now.

Ah well, we always were hypocrites. Biological warfare against the indians because they were indians. Enslavement of blacks because they were black. Destruction of lives in South East Aisia because they were gooks. Destruction of innocent civilians because they were Tajihs. But now the population is shifting and the whites are scared...It's ok if "they" die just not ok if "we" die.

They have no hope of winning the way they are going. Greatness just doesn't come cheap.

We'll see how it all turns out.

Who in the scenario has a higher moral purpose. A woman protecting her children, or a government protecting its border ? — Rank Amateur

The purpose of any government is to protect the people. Unfortunately, this is merely ideal and not always followed for many countries. Without the application of compassion and mercy, the woman and her children are encroaching on another person's property, as most land within many nations are privately owned and not government property. By removing the woman and children to place them back to their own country is actually more logical than offering refuge; as one cannot know the intents of all such immigrants, as many crossover with dishonorable intent. In order to protect citizens from potential harm, the government must remove such persons without regard to the woman and her children's situation.
In regards to the information available, as one cannot know the true intent, is it truly less moral to return a person back to the country of origins?

It seems that on an individual basis, the actions of the government have lesser moral standing - can it be justified as a lesser evil than mass migration ? — Rank Amateur

What gives one person a higher right than another? If one person is obligated to permit encroachment, then the same holds true for any other individual, including the woman and her children. The argument seems to stem from what the motivation of another is, and at that, subjective to the judger's system of morals. The solution to deeming what is truely right comes from the recognition of a law advanced above the human nature, a law indifferent to human interpretation. It is wrong for any government to persecute innocent people, but also wrong for a government to refuse its duties in protecting its people.

So as the caravan of 4,000 give or take make their way toward the US, while we are planning to send 8 or 9 thousand troops to the boarder to prevent them from entering - once again I find this situation presents us as a country with a moral dilemma.

As I see the options - we can allow these people to enter the country as refugees seeking asylum and process their individual claims.

Or somehow - ultimately with force - prevent them from crossing the boarder.

I can not see how in anyway we as a nation can do the later and present ourselves in anyway as a moral force in the world any longer.

Crossing the boarder, and presenting yourself as a refugee seeking asylum is not an illegal act. Why would we try to prevent that ? We have laws and processes that address this - why would our President be unwilling to use them?

This is the libertarian argument for open borders, and I think it has a number of problems. First of all, how can you say everyone has "rights"? I do believe within a general moral framework, I can agree with the statement that people should not be abused, but this is not the same thing as claiming that people have something known as a "natural right." I have rights as an American citizen, because I am a citizen, and non-citizens do not have the same rights that I have. And if natural rights did exist, how would you know what their scope s? How is it that I wouldn't have a natural right to form a nation with other people where we set limits on who can become our fellow citizens?

As a practical matter, national borders and a restriction on citizenship does help to preserve the workings of a nation, both in economic terms as well as cultural/political terms. I'm not a xenophobe, and recognize we are a land of immigrants, and I wish we had an easier path to citizenship for people already here, who are working and staying out of trouble, but, I don't see why just anyone should be allowed to enter the USA.

First of all, how can you say everyone has "rights"? — LD Saunders

I do think as human beings we have certain inalienable rights - simply due to our humanness. One of those rights would be to improve the condition of my life within my capabilities.

The question is can an arbitrary line, in the main established and maintained by force - superseded what I say is a human's right to improve ones life within his/her's capabilities. I say no, i say there should be a doable, at least semi efficient process to evaluate immigrants and allow willing workers into the country.

I don't think there is any real evidence that taken on any kind of balance that immigration has been anything but a great positive for this country. If you want to continue to fund SS and Medicare in an aging economy - allow in younger workers.

Borders make lousy economic barriers -

Rank Amateur: I understand that you are claiming such a right exists, but what is your claim based on besides pure speculation on your part? And if the right is inalienable, understand that this means the person cannot even waive it, like if a person has a right to life, he cannot request he be put out of his misery if suffering greatly from a terminal illness. In which case, this so-called right is used as a source of abuse against the person, which is one reason for anyone to be highly suspect that any such right exists in reality.

Can I speculate all human beings have a right not to be enslaved ?? How without circular logic would one go about proving that ? Or one has a right not to be killed - how without circular logic would one prove that -

by definition inalienable human rights are inalienable and by definition the right of all humans simple by being human - the argument comes on where the inalienable line is.

P4. Political borders exist in the world — Rank Amateur

Perhaps this point should be more discussed here, as especially when the following P5. makes the argument that these borders are so artificial that the majority are only upheld by power...and hence without it would collapse.

First and foremost, borders are an idea we share.

Naturally borders define a nation (typically a nation-state) and hence borders are engrained in the whole idea of a sovereign state. Hence this is a question of why there exist nation states in the first place. There are many practical reasons for nation states to exist, but one of the reasons there to exist nation states is to create social cohesion amongst the populace that might otherwise have little if anything to do with each others lives. It's a collective idea. You might call it "invented" or artificial, but a lot of people tend think of themselves as citizens of a country, people of that country. This isn't an unimportant idea. Hence nation states have been very successfull, even if the negative aspects are typically focused on (nationalism, jingoism etc).

And this comes to the ideas of P1, P2 and P3. All of them focus only on the individual. It's about a human, not humans as a social group or as a society. And here lies my critique: by focusing on the individuals rights not only is humans acting as a society sidelined, but totally marginalized and borders (i.e. sovereign countries) are just a given thing that simply seem to be a nuisance for the freedom of the individual.

Yet since we are very social animals and the societies we have organized into makes us a totally dominant species in this planet, it is wrong not to think about the issue from a standpoint on how successfull societies formed into nation states work.

I fail to see how nation states represent anything morally good. If ever "one world" becomes a reality, then surely its denizens will look upon the era of nationhood with considerable horror.

However nation states is what we have right now, but only some are successful and some are failing badly. Who can blame folks from fleeing the horror and poverty of the worst nation states? Anyone who is not sympathetic to their plight could easily be said to be immoral by anyone else who cares about human beings.

But fully open borders is not a sustainable policy as long as the world is so unequal. One day there will be no borders or nations, I hope, but the task of moral people in successful nation states today is to show respect and offer support for people who cannot flourish in their own locale. This can be done by encouraging policies that help other nation states and their citizens to become successful - even if this incurs some material sacrifice. Not to do so is immoral if morality is about caring about other human beings.

If such caring was crafted creatively and constructively it could make a big difference. For example, would be migrants to the US, say, who would not normally qualify for entry, could be entered into a lottery, where there is a small but not impossibly remote chance each year of obtaining US citizenship provided they do not attempt to enter illegally. Each year, if their number doesn't come up they would be entitled to a modest lump sum of dollars , or perhaps their community would get it. These small beer policies aimed at helping individuals and small communities abroad should be employed alongside the bigger aid and trade initiatives aimed at helping failing countries become successful. To have this vision requires notions of self sacrifice and sharing.

Nation states have no moral goodness associated with them if morality is about caring about human beings in general. Nation states are about "us" and "them", you'd have to be a fantasist to think otherwise.

Nation states have no moral goodness associated with them if morality is about caring about human beings in general. Nation states are about "us" and "them", you'd have to be a fantasist to think otherwise. — Kippo

Not quite ready to believe that. Nation states have various degrees of morality, and different levels of concern about individuals. If that makes me a fantasist, so be it.

Nation states have historically allowed large "safe spaces" for technology and trade to develop and flourish, generally refocusing human concern away from fear and violence, as Pinker so convincingly relates in his History of Violence book. But looking at our present era it seems as if they are becoming an impediment to furthering the betterment of humanity as a whole. Nations are like guns....the world would surely be a hugely better place in the future if they didn't exist.

Nation states have no moral goodness associated with them if morality is about caring about human beings in general. Nation states are about "us" and "them", you'd have to be a fantasist to think otherwise. — Kippo

I've noticed that one of the most patriotic people, meaning that they love or have a fondness to their country and the people, cherish the culture and heritage are actually ex-pats living in foreign countries. As aliens they are constantly in touch living and working with foreigners.

Nation states are one of those things that links totally different people together. Even the rich and the poor.

Immigration reform is needed, the question is: what should it look like? What problems are we trying to solve?

Rank Amateur: You asked the question, "Can I speculate all human beings have a right not to be enslaved ?? How without circular logic would one go about proving that ?" for which I already answered. You don't need to create any fictional rights. You look at the issue from a general moral framework, which is exactly where so-called natural rights come from in the first place. Every right an American has comes from people figuring out that it would be a good thing to establish such rights, and they do have limits. Saying a person has a right to be free does not mean that we cannot imprison those who murder, or that a parent can't send a child to their room as a punishment.

sorry - i have no clue at all what point you are making here.

Rank Amateur: I'm making the point that natural rights do not exist. Never have and never will. People instead first figure out what is morally good, and then make up legal rights to accomplish what is morally good. It's only after people figuring out that freedom of speech is a good thing that it then becomes a legal right. Rights are always governed by a larger moral system. To say something is a natural right doesn't help anyway. Once you make such a claim, you then have to figure out is the right absolute, or qualified. If you claim the right is absolute, you'll end up with absurdities, like saying we can't imprison a murderer because he has the absolute right to freedom. If you say a right is qualified, then how is it in any way a natural right?

I'm making the point that natural rights do not exist. Never have and never will. — LD Saunders

then we just disagree - i believe simply by being human i have several natural rights, i have a right not to be killed, not to be enslaved, not to be raped, etc I would go further to say I have a right to use my talents and effort to better my life.

People instead first figure out what is morally good, and then make up legal rights to accomplish what is morally good. It's only after people figuring out that freedom of speech is a good thing that it then becomes a legal right. Rights are always governed by a larger moral system — LD Saunders

all of that seems inconstant with -

I'm making the point that natural rights do not exist. Never have and never will. — LD Saunders

Nation states are one of those things that links totally different people together. Even the rich and the poor. — ssu

There is nothing in terms of linking people that a nation state has to offer that cannot be acheved by less destructive means. For example people support league sports teams very ardently - often from another nation state.

Immigration reform is needed, the question is: what should it look like? What problems are we trying to solve? — Relativist

A better question is "how should the world be in the long term?". This then provides the long term goals of planning. If we do not address the long term requirements then we can never break free of historical chaos. This is true of all spheres of economic and political life it seems, where few are prepared to look beyond short term "problem solving" - (let's not call it short term "planning" because political goals are rarely stated, even short term ones)

One point I have noticed. If a displaced person arrives in a developed nation, be that Europe, America, or Australia, from an impoverished nation, or a nation that has no regard for human rights, then they can't be returned. This is because the new host nation cannot send that displaced person back to their country of origin. In some cases (e.g. Iran), originating nations won't even accept the return of anyone who has left without authorisation; basically, un-authorised departure constitutes the renunciation of citizenship. In other cases, the originating country is so war-torn or impoverished that return to it poses clear risk of death for the displaced (e.g. Somalia, South Sudan, Myanmar). So such displaced people have become, in effect, stateless citizens - and there are many millions of them. And because the developed nations at least have a commitment to human rights, then in effect there's no place for such persons to be sent once they have taken up residence in the developed nation. So the effect is like osmosis - the movement of displaced persons only works one way. Once arrived, it's almost impossible to reverse.

Australia is going through this at the moment, with regard to about 1,100 displaced persons still residing in offshore detention in PNG and Nauru that had arrived previously by boat. There is now immense popular pressure on the Government to offer refuge to these persons, some of whom have been detained in these venues in pretty wretched conditions for more than five years. However the Government says that if they are re-housed in Australia, then this will signal to the people-smugglers that 'arriving guarantees residency' and the illegal immigration trade will re-start. It's an extremely difficult issue.

It's an extremely difficult issue. — Wayfarer

Actually it's not; there are merely difficult people. What I observe is that the most powerful nations simply exhibit a real impoverishment of imagination in thinking up solutions. Here's one: people often are on the run from tyranny and terror, and that makes perfect sense. Solution? Eliminate the sources of tyranny and terror. How? Draw from the repertoire of sticks and carrots. Of course sticks and carrots come with the respective risks of abuse and corruption. I'd like to think these could be minimized.

Well, I agree that the kinds of solutions that need to be sought, are through international development, political stabilisation, and like measures - exactly the kinds of programs that conservative governments are slashing in Australia and the US. But, that said, there are currently in excess of 50 million displaced people and refugees seeking resettlement in the world right now. With the best will in the world, it is still an extremely difficult issue, and I think with climate change, resource depletion, and population growth, it is only going to get worse.

Yes indeed it is a difficult situation (to think about), especially for anyone who has empathy for others. There are masses of people wanting to migrate for a host of reasons ranging from life threatening persecution and poverty to seeking Shangri La and everything in between. The age of communication has increased the appetite for migration and also enabled a variety of methods of migration, such as trafficking and now the walking train of Guatemala. On the other hand, the age of communication has done little to increase empathy for migrants - dead toddlers washed up on the beach doesn't cut it with most of the prosperous populations of the target nations, where the age of communications has seen a huge rise in hostility to "others" and defensiveness against a perceived invasive threat.

On the other hand, I really do think that there are far too many impoverished people from poorer regions of the world wishing to seek a better life in richer nations for uncontrolled migration to be allowed. It is unsustainable and would lead to chaos. And yes resentment from large sections of the host populations when change happens too fast and on too large a scale. This might be an unpleasant realisation, but it is a fact that will not change. And while extra provision has to be made for people fleeing from opression and danger, it is clear the asylum system is being sorely tested by economic migrants.

So what to do? Firstly, I think we ought to recognise that countries targeted for migration have something in common. They are generally speaking "liberal democracies". People want to move to liberal democracies, ideally. They like what they see. In the long term the current batch of liberal democracies need to "export" their political system to the world and not do the opposite for selfish reasons - e.g arms sales and trade that enhances the elites of despotic states who are never going to allow trade to soften them like what eventually happened in the west throughout the course of the industrial revolution and in to the twentieth century. This exporting of liberal democracy should not be seen as patronising or colonialism - it is a vital mission, and one that should not be driven by material benefit for the exporters.

In the shorter term -but linking in with the idea of the liberal democracies jointly selling their philosophy to the rest of the world - they need to pick out countries for privileged treatment that are going to respond best to massive aid and then accept migrants as citizens. The developed world can still have its quotas for migration.

Regarding Latin America, there is one single act that would reduce the urge to migrate - eliminate the money to be made through illegal drugs - a lot of which is bought in the US and other western countries. This can be done by making cocaine etc legal to buy. It would have to be preceded by a massive program of public awareness to discourage using these drugs - which are far more damaging than cannabis.

Agree! But aren’t they exactly the kinds of benefits that globalisation and neo-liberalism were supposed to have provided? Wasn’t the idea to ‘make a larger pie’ so that all could have a larger slice ? The problem - or one problem - seems to be that the benefits of globalisation and neo-liberal economics have been very unevenly spread, even in that bastion of capitalism, the United States, not to mention many other nations. But I think overall, that kind of advancement was pretty much exactly the Obama playbook.

Meanwhile, as you point out, fear of ‘the Other’ is used, or rather exploited, for pretty shabby political gains, as we can see with Trump’s unrelenting fear-mongering. But he is appealing to, or exploiting for political ends, real fears. Obama was also pretty strict about border control, but he didn’t showboat it for votes the way Trump does.

This can be done by making cocaine etc legal to buy. — Kippo

Yeah good luck with that. :roll:

Obama was also pretty strict about border control, but he didn’t showboat it for votes the way Trump does. — Wayfarer

Border controls are seen as shameful by many progressive leaning people; some accept the need but are still wary of admitting it. Maybe such policies need to be publicly explained so that the likes of Trump can't exploit people's fears. The "left" needs to be savvy.

The problem - or one problem - seems to be that the benefits of globalisation and neo-liberal economics have been very unevenly spread, even in that bastion of capitalism, the United States, not to mention many other nations. — Wayfarer

Yes I agree. the "liberal elite" have been congratualting themselves on the rights revoultions that have come about in recent decades, while holding on to all the cash for themselves. I think Universal Basic Income is the only way to make globalisation work for everyone. It's such a shame that Nixon never quite got it onto the statute book!

fyi - from US Conf of Catholic Bishops -

"As Catholic agencies assisting poor and vulnerable migrants in the United States and around the world, we are deeply saddened by the violence, injustice, and deteriorating economic conditions forcing many people to flee their homes in Central America. While nations have the right to protect their borders, this right comes with responsibilities: governments must enforce laws proportionately, treat all people humanely, and provide due process.

We affirm that seeking asylum is not a crime. We urge all governments to abide by international law and existing domestic laws that protect those seeking safe haven and ensure that all those who are returned to their home country are protected and repatriated safely.

Furthermore, we strongly advocate for continued U.S. investments to address the underlying causes of violence and lack of opportunity in Central America. Our presence throughout the Americas has convinced us that migration is a regional issue that requires a comprehensive, regional solution. An enforcement-only approach does not address nor solve the larger root causes that cause people to flee their countries in search of protection.

As Christians, we must answer the call to act with compassion towards those in need and to work together to find humane solutions that honor the rule of law and respect the dignity of human life.”

I think that's a decent statement.

Yeah good luck with that — Wayfarer

If marijuana legalisation continues apace throughout the world and it is seen as "successful" on its own terms then cocaine legalisation will be more likely to be considered. But it would have to follow a very different model - one of harm and use reduction, with just enough supply available to eliminate the motive for criminal production. There is an awful lot to be gained if the appropriate model of legalisation based on expert advice and scientific data can be passed. Not only would many Latin American areas become viable to live in again, I think there would be a drop in cocaine use and addiction. This is what the experts tend to suggest, I believe.