Right, so what's the state policy you advocate here?
Import 1 million people, 800,000 of which are racist, sexist, homophobic and militantly conservative -- and you'll do that because the policy to prevent it is, as you say, "Racist" ?
You may think these imports are on your side for now, because of the cross you've nailed yourself to -- but be assured, as you see today in the US, their cultural conservatism comes out when their social position is safe.
You are importing the very people you claim to despise : racists, sexists, misoginsits, and the like. And you're doing it why?
I said it was "discriminatory" (which it is), I never said "racist" (but that case could easily be made).
How are you determining this group that holds these views? What criteria? Because I don't know any group that matches that description exactly. Could you be specific?
I think a human is a human and is deserving of the same rights as any other person. I don't believe this position is radical in any way; it is what most doctrines of fairness are based upon.
Again, who are these people? How are you lumping them together (their views or their religion or their race?) because no large group is a hegemony of exactly the same ideas or views; all groups have a diverse set of individuals and ideas among them (both progressive and regressive).
It’s a little befuddling that you are pretending it’s not possible to simply observe the nature of the countries from which these people arrived and make high probability conclusions about the mean views on, say, women’s rights. Is your belief that any particular view can and does get patched like software when someone passes through customs and stamps their passport?
It's a little befuddling that you are pretending there are countries where every person in that country share the exact same thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Where is this mythical place?
Are we determining an individual's potential, liberty, rights and character based on group population polling now, or do we believe in individual autonomy and potential?
Anyone claiming an entire country holds one singular view (on any topic) is not truly discussing in good faith.
No one has claimed that. You're the only one claiming a border immigration policy needs to correctly quantify over the universal non-citizen class.
No state in the world today, nor in all of history, has that view. Nor is it, on the face of it, even really coherent. There is nothing to be said about the "All" of the others. Only that we don't owe them much.
If you're not claiming entire nations think and act the same way, then what you're describing (a blanket ban on entire nations of people because of some arbitrary numbers in a theoretical poll) is, without a doubt, discriminatory.
How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
>How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
A nation discriminating against non-citizens is not arbitrary, it is the core feature of the citizen classification. What you are implying is that the concept of "citizen" is unjust, therefore the concept of countries and borders are unjust. Of course when its put into these words few people will cop to this viewpoint. That's why there's endless obfuscation in these discussions, to avoid articulating the plain truth of your views.
It is arbitrary if you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic human rights and should not be judged simply by the country they come from (rather than the content of their hearts, minds, and character).
Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?
Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?
It really does simply boil down to whether or not you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic rights and considerations. The "citizenship" argument is essentially a legal loophole to claim that whatever the law says is the moral/ethical path, which it is not.
Laws can be (and often are) immortal/unethical, so grounding your argument in what is currently legal or not is a bad look (as it has always been); just ask former slave owners about the morality/ethics of the law, and see where that gets you.
>It is arbitrary if you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic human rights and should not be judged simply by the country they come from (rather than the content of their hearts, minds, and character).
So to be clear, you are admitting to the idea that the concept of citizen (and countries and borders) is unjust? That seems to be the inescapable conclusion of your points. At least have the courage to own the logical conclusion of your views.
>Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?
It is morally correct to treat non-citizens as non-citizens. This doesn't mean they can/should be actively harmed. But this limits the obligation a nation has to non-citizens, i.e. in terms of active intervention to improve their lives.
>Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?
My universal moral views are all in terms of negative rights, i.e. the right to self-determination, non-interference, free expression, etc.
This gets back to the salient point of this whole post/thread/comments: do all persons residing in Sweden (as citizens) deserve negative rights as you understand them (namely the freedom to not be harassed/deported simply because someone believes they are not assimilating "properly" or fast enough)?
The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group (and ignore individual differences/persons)?
I would call that discriminatory and unethical. What are your thoughts on that (regardless of what laws/citizenship of the persons)? I'm asking in the abstract as an ethical exercise.
>namely the freedom to not be harassed/deported simply because someone believes they are not assimilating "properly" or fast enough
Are these legal citizens of Sweden we're talking about? If not, then they have no right to stay in Sweden beyond whatever courtesy Swedes have decided.
>The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group
In isolation that would be unjust discrimination. When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility. They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation. Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will.
Of course I am talking about people legally in Sweden (if they weren't there legally, this wouldn't be a conversation).
>> "In isolation that would be unjust discrimination."
You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it (legally, practically, ends support the means, or otherwise).
The discussion isn't about what a person or country CAN do, the discussion is about what is fair and ethical behavior.
Legally in Sweden means they fall under the protections of Sweden's legal system and should be granted protections under the law, so it is a distinction without a difference.
Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
>> "When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility."
Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
>> "They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation."
They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle. And no, it very much is the fault of the nation/people making a discriminatory policy, not the fault of those being discriminated against because of that policy.
>> "Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will."
Is that an ethical/moral position? Does that conform with belief in universal human equality?
You just made a bunch of statements about what they can do and failed to address if the behavior is moral/ethical or otherwise... so it isn't even worth engaging with in a discussion since you just made a bunch of statements with no ethical rationale surrounding them.
All you're saying is "this is how it is or should be" which tells me nothing about whether those positions are discriminatory/unethical (but it seems clear they are unjust and arbitrary discrimination and unethical).
The reason you are having a hard time understanding these points is because you genuinely don’t believe that nation states should exist. You may not think this explicitly, but that is the logical conclusion of the moral/ethical haranguing you are doing. What are you expecting as an acceptable counter argument here? Someone to develop the justification of the nation state from first principles? Your argument is that there is a universal principle of equality which disallows countries discriminating in favor of their own citizens. This is unworkable because the whole point of the nation state is to discriminate in favor of its own citizens.
I believe in universal human rights and equality/fairness in application of laws. You seem like you don't and you're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify discrimination and unethical behavior towards other humans.
Yes we’ve established what you believe and how you return to screaming “you’re a racist” instead of actually contemplating the logical end state of your bewildering moralizing for longer than ten seconds.
I have not called you racist anywhere in our conversation. I've simply asserted that a policy may be discriminatory.
I also don’t see how universal human rights leads to “nation-states should not exist". A state can have borders, put limits on immigration, and prioritize citizens while still being limited by due process, equal protection, and non-discrimination.
The part I'm against is treating individuals as suspect mainly because of group averages, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc, rather than their own conduct.
If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).
>I believe in universal human rights and equality/fairness in application of laws. You seem like you don't
This is the same thing and you know it. I've already explained how your position is unworkable at scale.
>If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).
That's the whole point of a government! If a government lets a group of people in, and they misbehave, they can and should kick this group out. It is not more complicated than that.
Respectfully, in my opinion, you have not explained anything. You've just made a series of statements without qualifiers, which is not convincing. Are you a pure utilitarian or do you believe in principles that go beyond that? Do you believe governments have restraints on their powers towards persons under their care regardless of citizenship status?
The point of government is universally debatable and changes based on new knowledge or new principles/needs; governments are continually evolving and there are many different types of governments. If a government has jurisdiction over persons and those persons misbehave, that government is still responsible for those persons and does not get to discard them without violating human rights as they are understood today (and most constitutions and courts subscribe to the position I am describing).
You keep iterating your belief in how governments should work but you have not defended that belief in a convincing way (with either historical examples or justifying the seeming abuses other than saying "they can do this"). I believe governments should and/or do support universal human rights and defend human rights (as enlightenment thinkers believed).
What you're describing, if I understand correctly, is in violation of those universal principles of human dignity (some persons are lesser than others under the law, which is not true no matter how you try to justify it).
The whole reason we have international courts is countries can violate the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. Your claim that governments can do whatever they want to non-citizens, flies in the face of that idea. Are you against international courts that try to protect persons from the governments that have jurisdiction over them against abuses?
>Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
Is it asking too much of you to drop these thought ending cliches and actually try to argue your case? Ultimately ethical claims must bottom out at premises that can't be further supported. Here's the ethnical principle at play in my view: the freedom of association is a core principle as is its corollary, the freedom to dissociate. Just as I can exclude anyone from my home in principle, we can collectively exclude anyone from our collective land. This is the principle that justifies a nation discriminating based on citizenship. Of course, scaling from kinship groups to mega societies requires scaling these processes to something impersonal and ideally fair. Laws are the solution to this, but laws just are a representation of collective action and so inherit their justification.
>Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
Yes, nations take stated/purported views into account. The issue is that it is impossible to accurately determine each immigrants personal views at scale. The inherent uncertainty involved is a risk, one that a host nation need not accept.
>They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle.
Universal human equality does not trump the right to free association/dissociation. Just because I see you as morally equal to me in principle does not mean I must suffer your presence around me. Of course, interpersonal relationships are different than laws. But laws are inward facing. That is, they create duties to and between people who are part of the same body politic. Outside of that body politic one has limited duties to each other. A right implies an obligation; a positive right is a claim to the effort/resources of others. I deny the legitimacy of universal positive rights. The only legitimate universal rights are negative rights, i.e. freedom from interference, assault, etc. But this doesn't imply freedom of movement across political borders.
I think we may be talking past each other a bit here.
I’m not saying countries are inherently unjust or that Sweden must have open borders. I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present (which to my understanding the party being discussed in this thread openly considers, but I could be misunderstanding their position).
I think the private-home analogy does not work in the instance of nation-states. States exercise legal power over people in ways private individuals do not, so due process and equal treatment matter more than an individual's personal preferences.
The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages (based on imperfect polling).
Practicalities matter but so does fairness to individuals.
>I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present
I'm sympathetic to this view. But ultimately legal residence doesn't rise to the level of citizenship and will always be 'second class' and subject to changing political winds. A nation should act with the interest of citizens. If allowing non-citizen residents is no longer in service to the interest of citizens, then that's too bad.
But aside from that, the view that once you are physically present in a country you can't be made to leave is dangerous in its own right. This strongly incentivizes closing any and all avenues to asylum or temporary residence due to hardship. If morality dictates there is no such thing as temporary residence, then there just will be no refuge given to the next wave of war refugees. Incentives matter, and your view creates some very unfortunate incentives.
>The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages
This is where ideals clash with reality. If it's not possible to determine views/culture until the person has demonstrated incompatibility (e.g. committing some crime), this burden is now on the existing citizens to absorb some increased level of crime for the sake of the immigrants. I don't recognize this as a legitimate moral duty.
I'm not saying that non-citizens have identical political rights to citizens or that temporary residence can never end.
What I'm saying is that persons legally present in a country should not be penalized as a group based on nationality, religion or any other broad cultural polling/averages rather than individual conduct and due process of the law.
Citizenship can allow for some distinctions but it does not make non-citizens mere guests whose rights can be revoked at will. A state can regulate immigration but it still has the moral/ethical and legal duties to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of all persons under its jurisdiction, especially toward people it has already admitted lawfully.
There should never be 'second class' persons under the law and rights should not be "subject to changing political winds" as you seem to be suggesting, because that would mean there are no such thing as universal human rights which would put all persons (citizen or otherwise) in danger of losing their rights at the whims of the state or the majority.
Why are you continually making up a strawman to argue against? If a country has regressive views that are one standard deviation more regressive than the mean view on that topic in Europe, and you allow 1 million people from that country to migrate, has Europe gotten more or less regressive in it’s views on that topic? Has it stayed the same? Notice that I am not making a claim that 100% of the population hold only 1 view, and no one else is making this claim either, but that these view exist on a distribution that has been repeatedly modeled.
Your views about individual autonomy etc are, while probably good rules to live by in your personal interactions, not really relevant to migration at the population level.
That's exactly my point. No group is a homogeneous whole, so why are you trying to blanket ban certain nations (which discriminates against individuals based on "polling" on topics). Shouldn't we determine this based on the individual, not arbitrary groupings based on "polls"?
But okay, let's get specific then. Which country are you talking about and what views?
This is a weird argument, because it presupposes that there is a positive right a priori to migrate to a country, and that it’s on the target country to come up with a reason to keep someone out. Setting aside for a moment that this is not how it works today, nor is this ever how these rights have been managed, and also setting aside the lack of a mechanism to screen for this (are you making everyone take a lie detector test or something), how about Pakistan?
Also, we are not saying the same thing at all. I am making a claim, which is true and very very visible, that when you allow large scale migration the country being migrated to begins to resemble the country being migrated from. And this is unsurprising. How could it not? There is no magic passport stamp that updates someone’s views and attitudes upon entry. As a meta comment this whole debate is really fucking strange because my position is the nominal position throughout basically all of human history, and yours is an extreme version of the blank slate hypothesis. Strange to encounter, to say the least.
I'm not saying we should have unlimited immigration or open borders. Countries can and do have immigration rules. My problem is with using nationality as a stand-in for a person's personal/individual character, beliefs, or ability to live/assimilate in a society.
Just because there are differences in public attitudes between groups or nations does not mean you can look at one applicant and assume they personally believe whatever the average person in that culture believes.
Most immigrants are not a random sample of the country they come from, they may be educated, secular, religious minorities, political dissidents, LGBT themselves, liberal, etc.
If you're worried about a particular belief or ideology then make that the standard for the applying individual and do background checks, interviews, security screening, civic knowledge, etc, rather than a blanket country of origin ban.
It is inherently discriminatory to take group-level generalizations and turn them into blanket exclusions of individuals.
As for the "destination country becomes like the origin country", that is far too simplistic and reductive of a take. Selection effects, institutions, education, intermarriage, generational change, laws/culture of the host country, all matter in shaping behaviors of immigrants in society. Immigrants affect a society but the society also affects immigrants.
Import 1 million people, 800,000 of which are racist, sexist, homophobic and militantly conservative -- and you'll do that because the policy to prevent it is, as you say, "Racist" ?
You may think these imports are on your side for now, because of the cross you've nailed yourself to -- but be assured, as you see today in the US, their cultural conservatism comes out when their social position is safe.
You are importing the very people you claim to despise : racists, sexists, misoginsits, and the like. And you're doing it why?