anti-immigration and trade

[lemur]

When national governments maintain or intensify exclusionary policies for migrants lacking national citizenship, people can be deported or leave voluntarily to avoid persecution. The question is whether such people should then participate in economic activities that benefit the economies they have been excluded from. Consider, for example, anti-immigrant campaigns against North and South Americans without US citizenship. Is it reasonable for migrants pushed out of the US to seek work in industries that supplies US consumers with food and other products? If people don't want you in "their country," why would you (want to) serve them from outside it?

[Pangloss]

I don't accept the notion that you appear to put forth in your statement that campaigns against illegal immigrants are "anti-immigrant". Just as liberals get angry at being called "unpatriotic", conservatives get angry at being labeled "anti-immigrant". These stereotypes are unhelpful and get in the way of constructive discourse.

 

And I think this reframes your question, too. It's not a matter of immigrants being rejected, it's a matter of them not understanding the argument.

 

And finally, the question of whether workers in any country "participate in economic activities" was never a political one anyway. They're there for a paycheck, not to make an ideological statement. The people who work in Mexican factories producing goods for American markets are not slave labor, lemur, they're a paid workforce chasing their own dreams.

[lemur]

I don't accept the notion that you appear to put forth in your statement that campaigns against illegal immigrants are "anti-immigrant". Just as liberals get angry at being called "unpatriotic", conservatives get angry at being labeled "anti-immigrant". These stereotypes are unhelpful and get in the way of constructive discourse.

 

And I think this reframes your question, too. It's not a matter of immigrants being rejected, it's a matter of them not understanding the argument.

 

And finally, the question of whether workers in any country "participate in economic activities" was never a political one anyway. They're there for a paycheck, not to make an ideological statement. The people who work in Mexican factories producing goods for American markets are not slave labor, lemur, they're a paid workforce chasing their own dreams.

I use the term, "anti-migration" to generally refer to people or ideologies who believe the world should be divided into relatively separated regions. Imo, mobile organisms are naturally free to migrate at will and I don't see why humans should be different. I know that "anti-migrationists" do not all "hate immigrants," as you say. They may just not think that non-citizens have as much right to be in certain places as citizens do. I, however, do. So my point is that regardless of whether US "anti-migration" citizens hate you or not, why would you want to contribute to their economic prosperity if they restrict your ability to migrate and work freely in "their regions?" To use a very different example for analogy, if you got laid off from a company, would you want to work in a restaurant serving your former colleagues who no longer value you as an equal?

 

I understand what you're saying about workers in Mexican factories just doing it for the pay. My point, however, is that everyone works for others in some way and so there are politics to the relationship produced between oneself and the consumers of the fruits of one's labor. This relationship exists whether or not anyone chooses to pay attention to it. When you buy something at a store, some worker(s) somewhere made it for you and brought it to you. The issue is whether they would choose to do business with you if they had the choice, or whether they just serve you because the alternative is more than they can bear to take.

 

 

[swansont]

I use the term, "anti-migration" to generally refer to people or ideologies who believe the world should be divided into relatively separated regions. Imo, mobile organisms are naturally free to migrate at will and I don't see why humans should be different. I know that "anti-migrationists" do not all "hate immigrants," as you say. They may just not think that non-citizens have as much right to be in certain places as citizens do. I, however, do. So my point is that regardless of whether US "anti-migration" citizens hate you or not, why would you want to contribute to their economic prosperity if they restrict your ability to migrate and work freely in "their regions?" To use a very different example for analogy, if you got laid off from a company, would you want to work in a restaurant serving your former colleagues who no longer value you as an equal?

 

 

Aren't they free to boycott products from the company that deported them, should they hold this view? It's pretty clear that in general people boycott products based on political views; there are people in the Middle East (and around the world, I suppose) who won't buy products from US companies because they disagree with our policies.

[lemur]

Aren't they free to boycott products from the company that deported them, should they hold this view? It's pretty clear that in general people boycott products based on political views; there are people in the Middle East (and around the world, I suppose) who won't buy products from US companies because they disagree with our policies.

True, but I'm talking about boycotting jobs that add value to US consumer products and make money for US investors and workers. People are claiming that non-citizens take US jobs and drive down wages, so why would someone excluded from US jobs and wages want to work for less abroad and by doing so contribute to greater purchasing power for the people who wanted them to leave?

[rigney]

When national governments maintain or intensify exclusionary policies for migrants lacking national citizenship, people can be deported or leave voluntarily to avoid persecution. The question is whether such people should then participate in economic activities that benefit the economies they have been excluded from. Consider, for example, anti-immigrant campaigns against North and South Americans without US citizenship. Is it reasonable for migrants pushed out of the US to seek work in industries that supplies US consumers with food and other products? If people don't want you in "their country," why would you (want to) serve them from outside it?

 

Since I'm not anti-immigrant minded, I believe my honesty will speak for itself. Now!, what I do mind is a bunch of "soft shoe shufflers" insisting we take in "every" straggler that is found out there. Tell me something, were you born in this country? Are you a natural or legitimate citizen? Your folks? Not trying to be nasty, just wondering why you would take such a stand unless you're not a citizen. That I can rationalize. If you are a citizen maintaining this posture, then I'm very disappointed in your lack of intelligence. Friend, there aren't enough chickens in this country to put one in each pot for more than a week. Fantacy is beautiful, reality sucks! If you are not from here, we can allow some of you in. But thieves sneaking into this country are not welcomed by me at all! And dissidents who think they can change the world, are to be pitied. Edited January 12, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Since I'm not anti-immigrant minded, I believe my honesty will speak for itself. Now!, what I do mind is a bunch of "soft shoe shufflers" insisting we take in "every" straggler that is found out there. Tell me something, were you born in this country? Are you a natural or legitimate citizen? Your folks? Not trying to be nasty, just wondering why you would take such a stand unless you're not a citizen. That I can rationalize. If you are a citizen maintaining this posture, then I'm very disappointed in your lack of intelligence. Friend, there aren't enough chickens in this country to put one in each pot for more than a week. Fantacy is beautiful, reality sucks! If you are not from here, we can allow some of you in. But thieves sneaking into this country are not welcomed by me at all! And dissidents who think they can change the world, are to be pitied.

Them's fightin' words.

 

edit: seriously though. None of what you wrote here is a constructive contribution to a real discussion. Can this post be deleted for doing nothing but propagating uncritical anti-migration assumptions?

 

edit2: besides, this thread isn't about whether migration should be regulated or not and why. It was about whether people excluded from a regional economy because of their (lack of) citizenship should contribute to global trade that benefits the economy they're excluded from. You could look at this another way and ask whether a business that has been boycotted to bankruptcy in one regional economy because it is identified with the US should sell the same products to the same economy as an export for a lower price. If people boycotted your product when you were present, why should you help them profit by selling to them for less after they kick you out?

Edited January 12, 2011 by lemur

[rigney]

Fightin' words? I couldn't agree with you more. When you espouse something that entails nothing more than gibberish; it should be taken off the forum. And after looking at your empty profile, I'm sorry to have made a comment on the subject at all. But, when the 'illegals" get back home, let them do what the hell they feel is to their benefit. Excuse me!

Edited January 12, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

I couldn't agree with you more. What you espouse is nothing more than gibberish. And after looking at your profile, I'm sorry to have made a comment at all. Excuse me.and yes, it should be taken off the forum.

Just please try to remember that where there's anti-migration sentiment globally, everyone is a second-class citizen somewhere. If you're focussed on the US, you may not think about the fact that there are people with US citizenship living in places where other people consider them unwelcome guests. You can tell yourself that it is fair for the world to be divided into regions that rank people into first-class citizens and second-class non-citizens (or even into multiple tiers of citizens AND non-citizens), but the fact is that it is never fun to play second-class to someone else.

Edited January 12, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

True, but I'm talking about boycotting jobs that add value to US consumer products and make money for US investors and workers. People are claiming that non-citizens take US jobs and drive down wages, so why would someone excluded from US jobs and wages want to work for less abroad and by doing so contribute to greater purchasing power for the people who wanted them to leave?

 

Someone excluded from a job in the US has no choice but to work abroad. I don't see how doing so necessarily contributes to the US economy. But if it does, how would not working help them? That seems to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Trade is supposed to benefit both entities involved in it.

[lemur]

Someone excluded from a job in the US has no choice but to work abroad. I don't see how doing so necessarily contributes to the US economy. But if it does, how would not working help them? That seems to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Trade is supposed to benefit both entities involved in it.

Right, but they could choose to work in an industry that only benefits locals, or do work that benefits exporters to regions that are less restrictive/discriminatory toward them. E.g. If I was treated badly and/or fired at one company, I would probably rather work for its competitor than for another company in its supply chain, just because I would like to see the company where I was mistreated go out of business (this could either be out of spite or just because I wouldn't want other people to have to work for that company that mistreats them).

[zapatos]

Right, but they could choose to work in an industry that only benefits locals, or do work that benefits exporters to regions that are less restrictive/discriminatory toward them. E.g. If I was treated badly and/or fired at one company, I would probably rather work for its competitor than for another company in its supply chain, just because I would like to see the company where I was mistreated go out of business (this could either be out of spite or just because I wouldn't want other people to have to work for that company that mistreats them).

What type of workers are you talking about? Because if you are talking about migrant farm workers or similar types of unskilled labor, I don't think they are viewing their next job opportunity in terms of what benefits accrue to regions that don't share their socio-political views.

[Pangloss]

I use the term, "anti-migration" to generally refer to people or ideologies who believe the world should be divided into relatively separated regions.

 

Okay. I know of no mainstream movement to that effect in American politics.

 

 

So my point is that regardless of whether US "anti-migration" citizens hate you or not, why would you want to contribute to their economic prosperity if they restrict your ability to migrate and work freely in "their regions?"

 

For the paycheck.

 

And I am aware of no restrictions on movement within this country. Nor is the national boundary in place in order to restrict the movement of workers. If you want to talk about whether national boundaries should ultimately be merged to reflect economic realities, fine, we can talk about that, but there is a political context to those boundaries too.

 

 

True, but I'm talking about boycotting jobs that add value to US consumer products and make money for US investors and workers.

 

Like the products I buy that are made in China and benefit a socialist economy?

 

I don't see why I should boycott their products just because I am benefitting their economies. I like their products, I buy them. What's the problem?

[lemur]

Okay. I know of no mainstream movement to that effect in American politics.

It's usually not a conscious-movement as much as realpolitik (if I'm using that word right). It's just a sub-conscious assumption people make about whether it is natural or repressive for the world to be separated and policed into national or other regions.

 

And I am aware of no restrictions on movement within this country. Nor is the national boundary in place in order to restrict the movement of workers. If you want to talk about whether national boundaries should ultimately be merged to reflect economic realities, fine, we can talk about that, but there is a political context to those boundaries too.

Why should people be segregated according to political beliefs? The only reason I can think to actively promote propinquity is to create a concentration of a particular language so that speakers have ample opportunity to use the language. This doesn't mean that non-speakers or semi-proficient speakers should be excluded; just that speakers should be allowed/facilitated to live and interact. What other political reasons would their be for supporting propinquity?

 

Like the products I buy that are made in China and benefit a socialist economy?

 

I don't see why I should boycott their products just because I am benefitting their economies. I like their products, I buy them. What's the problem?

It depends on how you view the situation. I wouldn't be so vague as to believe that every purchase of a Chinese-manufactured good supports socialism or that every purchase of a US-produced good supports democracy. However, I understand people who don't eat meat because it supports animal slaughter. I could also see how people wouldn't want to buy goods produced in child-labor sweat-shops if they think children shouldn't be used for manual labor. If I was mistreated or fired from a company for reasons that I didn't consider just, I wouldn't want to contribute to that company's prosperity. If I was excluded from the US economy because people feel that preventing me from working raises their wages, I wouldn't want to move to a low-wage region and work to produce goods that benefit them by lowering their company's production costs.

 

It's like if I pay you $5/hour and then fire you and deport you to a region with factories where I can pay you $2/hour, why would you gladly give up half your wages so I could make more money? Wouldn't you just say, "screw you, I'll work to support an economy that won't deport me?"

 

 

[rigney]

Personally, I love this type of rhetoric, since it makes no sense at all. For instance, if I can pay you a nickel an hour as compared to your couterpart in China making fifty cents an hour, why shold it matter to me? As an entrepreneur, I try maintaining the status quo? A short time ago the shoe was on the other foot. China, for years had been making that nickel an hour. You; on the other hand or someone of your ilk, was making the $.50 cents an hour. Can it be any plainer than that? I don't like calling it a tit for tat, but until the end of time, that's what will be happening constantly. Now, how the hell do you spell, "gentleman industrialist" in modern speak?

Edited January 13, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

edit2: besides, this thread isn't about whether migration should be regulated or not and why. It was about whether people excluded from a regional economy because of their (lack of) citizenship should contribute to global trade that benefits the economy they're excluded from. You could look at this another way and ask whether a business that has been boycotted to bankruptcy in one regional economy because it is identified with the US should sell the same products to the same economy as an export for a lower price. If people boycotted your product when you were present, why should you help them profit by selling to them for less after they kick you out?

 

They can if they want to. Just because they got kicked out of one country doesn't mean that they should be excluded from certain jobs in their own country, nor that they have to hate the country that kicked them out, nor anything like that.

 

As for your sentiment, how would you feel if people decided to walk into your home and live there, without your permission? Why should any government have to allow people they don't want on their land but you want to forbid people you don't want on your land?

 

Right, but they could choose to work in an industry that only benefits locals, or do work that benefits exporters to regions that are less restrictive/discriminatory toward them. E.g. If I was treated badly and/or fired at one company, I would probably rather work for its competitor than for another company in its supply chain, just because I would like to see the company where I was mistreated go out of business (this could either be out of spite or just because I wouldn't want other people to have to work for that company that mistreats them).

 

Maybe these poor, discriminated against people just don't care about that issue as much as you do.

 

Since I'm not anti-immigrant minded, I believe my honesty will speak for itself. Now!, what I do mind is a bunch of "soft shoe shufflers" insisting we take in "every" straggler that is found out there. Tell me something, were you born in this country? Are you a natural or legitimate citizen? Your folks? Not trying to be nasty, just wondering why you would take such a stand unless you're not a citizen. That I can rationalize. If you are a citizen maintaining this posture, then I'm very disappointed in your lack of intelligence. Friend, there aren't enough chickens in this country to put one in each pot for more than a week. Fantacy is beautiful, reality sucks! If you are not from here, we can allow some of you in. But thieves sneaking into this country are not welcomed by me at all! And dissidents who think they can change the world, are to be pitied.

 

You're being unnecessarily rude and are also at least somewhat wrong. There's about 2 billion chickens in the US, and about 100 million families, so that would last for 3 weeks at 1 chicken per family per day, without imports nor reproduction. Also, insults and presuming things about someone is rather inappropriate. And there's no law requiring self-interest.

[Pangloss]

It's usually not a conscious-movement as much as realpolitik (if I'm using that word right). It's just a sub-conscious assumption people make about whether it is natural or repressive for the world to be separated and policed into national or other regions.

 

Uh huh. What you really mean is that some people ascribe motives to their statements and actions that may or may not accurately reflect the accused.

 

I believe in a secure border, and I'm not going to accept responsibility for someone else deciding erroneously that I am opposed to immigration. That's a YP, not an MP.

 

 

Why should people be segregated according to political beliefs?

 

The political context I was referring to is highlighted by the need for national defense, which answers your question. If you want to talk about that perception being in error, we can do that. I'm not really interested in a discussion about idyllic utopias, though.

[swansont]

Right, but they could choose to work in an industry that only benefits locals, or do work that benefits exporters to regions that are less restrictive/discriminatory toward them. E.g. If I was treated badly and/or fired at one company, I would probably rather work for its competitor than for another company in its supply chain, just because I would like to see the company where I was mistreated go out of business (this could either be out of spite or just because I wouldn't want other people to have to work for that company that mistreats them).

 

Don't they have that option, if it's that important to them?

 

Why should people be segregated according to political beliefs? The only reason I can think to actively promote propinquity is to create a concentration of a particular language so that speakers have ample opportunity to use the language. This doesn't mean that non-speakers or semi-proficient speakers should be excluded; just that speakers should be allowed/facilitated to live and interact. What other political reasons would their be for supporting propinquity?

 

Because that's the historical reason for borders, it still applies even if there are now economic pressures to remove them, and people are resistant to change. Proximity isn't the only reason for borders; the sun never set on the British empire at one time. It's about controlling your fate, be it religion, way of life, and/or something else.

[lemur]

They can if they want to. Just because they got kicked out of one country doesn't mean that they should be excluded from certain jobs in their own country, nor that they have to hate the country that kicked them out, nor anything like that.

Who's saying anyone HAS to do anything? My point is that if I was working as a janitor for a company making $5/hour and the company laid me off and contracted (out-sourced) janitorial services to an external company that paid its janitors $2, wouldn't I rather avoid taking the exclusion and pay-cut and do some other work for a company that wouldn't exclude me, even if I was getting the same $2/hour? In other words, the issue wouldn't be losing the $3/hour as much as it would be seeing that money go to the people whose wages went up because they cut mine. Take another example: what if after cutting my wages to $2 and raising their own, those people offered me overtime work cleaning their houses during the day before cleaning their offices at night? Should I really be grateful for the opportunity to make more money by serving them more at a lower wage?

 

As for your sentiment, how would you feel if people decided to walk into your home and live there, without your permission? Why should any government have to allow people they don't want on their land but you want to forbid people you don't want on your land?

Is this the typical nation=house metaphor? I disagree with this analogy because there is a fundamental difference between public and private property, imo. It's not a question of whether any government "should allow" migration but whether governments should protect the rights and culture of certain people more than others. Yes, people deserve to have public space where they are free from discrimination and where they can speak their language(s), but why would providing this require excluding others unless they were abusing their freedom and harassing others or something like that?

 

Maybe these poor, discriminated against people just don't care about that issue as much as you do.

You don't think people who are poor and discriminated against care about it? I suppose it depends on the extent they are conscious of it and to what extent they legitimate it. Probably there are nationalist migrants who accept anti-migration and they are just doing what they can to build up wealth so they can exclude people from their region and exploit people in "foreign economies." Different individuals have individual motives, interests, and perspectives.

 

You're being unnecessarily rude and are also at least somewhat wrong. There's about 2 billion chickens in the US, and about 100 million families, so that would last for 3 weeks at 1 chicken per family per day, without imports nor reproduction. Also, insults and presuming things about someone is rather inappropriate. And there's no law requiring self-interest.

Beyond being rude, it's just naive to think that if more people moved to the US than current food- or other industries can sustain, that resources couldn't be increased. For example, if everyone in Canada or Mexico wanted to be US American (or vice versa), the national regions could simply be merged. Of course, national identity and other political reasons cause people to resist merging governments and regional territories, but this is mostly status-quoism, the same as people resist dividing regions into multiple smaller regions.

 

Uh huh. What you really mean is that some people ascribe motives to their statements and actions that may or may not accurately reflect the accused.

I don't know what this means. I really meant that I think dividing the world into national regions and relegating and separating people according to national identity is just as artificial as any other human cultural institution. It's no more natural for the world to be nationalized as it is for men to wear their hair short while women wear it long. It's just a cultural habit that many people have grown accustomed to and accept. Restricting migration is like restricting men for wearing their hair long or women from cutting it short.

 

I believe in a secure border, and I'm not going to accept responsibility for someone else deciding erroneously that I am opposed to immigration. That's a YP, not an MP.

Some people find the idea of ethnic-segregated restrooms offensive, but they find it just as offensive to de-segregate restrooms and allow both sexes to use either restroom. In other words, traditions have emotional inertia beyond the rationality that people attribute to them.

 

The political context I was referring to is highlighted by the need for national defense, which answers your question. If you want to talk about that perception being in error, we can do that. I'm not really interested in a discussion about idyllic utopias, though.

Why is there a need for national defense but not for state-militias or racial policing and governing? I'm not saying that there is or isn't; just pointing out that the national level is just one level of political territorialization among many so why is it elevated above others in importance? When you say you're not interested in a discussion of "idyllic utopias," does that mean you would prefer to discuss oppressive dystopia? Politics is always a discussion of directions for the future, or at least it should be.

 

Because that's the historical reason for borders, it still applies even if there are now economic pressures to remove them, and people are resistant to change. Proximity isn't the only reason for borders; the sun never set on the British empire at one time. It's about controlling your fate, be it religion, way of life, and/or something else.

Yes, but what gives people the right to institutionalize collectivism and control of a "collective fate?" What given any two people the right to determine the fate, religion, culture, etc. of a third person? Isn't that bullying and disrespect of individual freedom?

 

 

 

[Pangloss]

I really meant that I think dividing the world into national regions and relegating and separating people according to national identity is just as artificial as any other human cultural institution.

 

Pretty much. I guess it's a shame that not all people share the same core values, which might allow the removal of those borders. You can wax philosophical all you like, but you go right on ahead and remove those borders and then you can figure out how to deal with the Taliban.

 

Not everyone wants to just get along.

 

 

When you say you're not interested in a discussion of "idyllic utopias," does that mean you would prefer to discuss oppressive dystopia?

 

False dichotomy. Those are not the only two types of society in existence today.

 

 

 

I note that you haven't responded to my point that there are no mainstream political groups in the United States that are opposed to immigration.

[lemur]

Pretty much. I guess it's a shame that not all people share the same core values, which might allow the removal of those borders. You can wax philosophical all you like, but you go right on ahead and remove those borders and then you can figure out how to deal with the Taliban.

 

Not everyone wants to just get along.

No, but why isn't this used as a reason to subdivide existing regional territories then? Also, why do political allies such as NATO members need migratory restrictions among them?

 

False dichotomy. Those are not the only two types of society in existence today.

Utopias and dystopias are types of societies. They are types of ideologies/visions for the future. You mentioned "idyllic utopias," which means an optimistic vision for future life. Since you said you didn't like "idyllic utopias," I asked if you preferred "oppressive dystopias," i.e. visions of a future in which oppression increases and intensifies.

 

I note that you haven't responded to my point that there are no mainstream political groups in the United States that are opposed to immigration.

It is simply social realism to many people that nations and borders exist and that it's natural for people to live within the national borders of their citizenship. Personally, this seems inconsistent with US ideologies of freedom, which should naturally refer to global freedom, imo, but many people do exactly the opposite and assume that US ideologies of freedom only refer to citizens and to the bounded regionalities of the 50 domestic states.

 

Look, there's no reason to debate the realism of nationalism. For people who take it for granted, it is unthinkable to question it. It just so happens that I have an anthropological perspective that views nationalism and national institutions the same way I would view any tribal ideology practiced throughout history. It's as hard to get national-naturalists to view nationhood as merely an institution as it would be to get cavemen to recognize that their cave paintings of hunting game are just a ritual to validate their hunting and not the supernatural reason that the gods send animals to them in the first place.

Edited January 13, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

Yes, but what gives people the right to institutionalize collectivism and control of a "collective fate?" What given any two people the right to determine the fate, religion, culture, etc. of a third person? Isn't that bullying and disrespect of individual freedom?

 

We have rights, and they are recognized in many countries. In other cases, if you don't get your way, you can vote with your feet. In the past the rights simply weren't recognized.

[rigney]

Who's saying anyone HAS to do anything? My point is that if I was working as a janitor for a company making $5/hour and the company laid me off and contracted (out-sourced) janitorial services to an external company that paid its janitors $2, wouldn't I rather avoid taking the exclusion and pay-cut and do some other work for a company that wouldn't exclude me, even if I was getting the same $2/hour? In other words, the issue wouldn't be losing the $3/hour as much as it would be seeing that money go to the people whose wages went up because they cut mine. Take another example: what if after cutting my wages to $2 and raising their own, those people offered me overtime work cleaning their houses during the day before cleaning their offices at night? Should I really be grateful for the opportunity to make more money by serving them more at a lower wage?

 

 

Is this the typical nation=house metaphor? I disagree with this analogy because there is a fundamental difference between public and private property, imo. It's not a question of whether any government "should allow" migration but whether governments should protect the rights and culture of certain people more than others. Yes, people deserve to have public space where they are free from discrimination and where they can speak their language(s), but why would providing this require excluding others unless they were abusing their freedom and harassing others or something like that?

 

 

You don't think people who are poor and discriminated against care about it? I suppose it depends on the extent they are conscious of it and to what extent they legitimate it. Probably there are nationalist migrants who accept anti-migration and they are just doing what they can to build up wealth so they can exclude people from their region and exploit people in "foreign economies." Different individuals have individual motives, interests, and perspectives.

 

 

Beyond being rude, it's just naive to think that if more people moved to the US than current food- or other industries can sustain, that resources couldn't be increased. For example, if everyone in Canada or Mexico wanted to be US American (or vice versa), the national regions could simply be merged. Of course, national identity and other political reasons cause people to resist merging governments and regional territories, but this is mostly status-quoism, the same as people resist dividing regions into multiple smaller regions.

 

 

I don't know what this means. I really meant that I think dividing the world into national regions and relegating and separating people according to national identity is just as artificial as any other human cultural institution. It's no more natural for the world to be nationalized as it is for men to wear their hair short while women wear it long. It's just a cultural habit that many people have grown accustomed to and accept. Restricting migration is like restricting men for wearing their hair long or women from cutting it short.

 

 

Some people find the idea of ethnic-segregated restrooms offensive, but they find it just as offensive to de-segregate restrooms and allow both sexes to use either restroom. In other words, traditions have emotional inertia beyond the rationality that people attribute to them.

 

 

Why is there a need for national defense but not for state-militias or racial policing and governing? I'm not saying that there is or isn't; just pointing out that the national level is just one level of political territorialization among many so why is it elevated above others in importance? When you say you're not interested in a discussion of "idyllic utopias," does that mean you would prefer to discuss oppressive dystopia? Politics is always a discussion of directions for the future, or at least it should be.

 

 

Yes, but what gives people the right to institutionalize collectivism and control of a "collective fate?" What given any two people the right to determine the fate, religion, culture, etc. of a third person? Isn't that bullying and disrespect of individual freedom?

 

Lemur, since you and Dr. Skeptical have denounced me as being uncooprative and disrespectful, how should I go about kissing your backsides to make you feel better? Are either of you American citizens?!!! If not, then shut it up. If so, then grow a pair and identify yourself as someone with a cause. What we don't need are interlopers from the outside dictating our problems. We have enough as it is. C'mon! Come out and identify your 'sneaky" displeasures. As long as people like me live, people like you will have to eventually bring your problems to the floor. Cowards hide. The brave persevere.

[Pangloss]

No, but why isn't this used as a reason to subdivide existing regional territories then? Also, why do political allies such as NATO members need migratory restrictions among them?

 

Like I said, you and your fellow utopian residents can argue that point with the next Taliban soldier who points an AK-47 your way after waltzing across an open border and shoving Sharia Law in your face. Good luck.

 

 

Utopias and dystopias are types of societies. They are types of ideologies/visions for the future. You mentioned "idyllic utopias," which means an optimistic vision for future life. Since you said you didn't like "idyllic utopias," I asked if you preferred "oppressive dystopias," i.e. visions of a future in which oppression increases and intensifies.

 

Ok, we're cool, and if you want to tilt at windmills you go right ahead, I'm just letting you know that my interest here is limited. I'm sure there are some here who will be happy to go there with you.

 

 

I note that you haven't responded to my point that there are no mainstream political groups in the United States that are opposed to immigration.

It is simply social realism to many people that nations and borders exist and that it's natural for people to live within the national borders of their citizenship. Personally, this seems inconsistent with US ideologies of freedom, which should naturally refer to global freedom, imo, but many people do exactly the opposite and assume that US ideologies of freedom only refer to citizens and to the bounded regionalities of the 50 domestic states.

 

Look, there's no reason to debate the realism of nationalism. For people who take it for granted, it is unthinkable to question it. It just so happens that I have an anthropological perspective that views nationalism and national institutions the same way I would view any tribal ideology practiced throughout history. It's as hard to get national-naturalists to view nationhood as merely an institution as it would be to get cavemen to recognize that their cave paintings of hunting game are just a ritual to validate their hunting and not the supernatural reason that the gods send animals to them in the first place.

 

That's fine, I understand where you're coming from and appreciate your addressing my question. I think you're in denial a bit about why those borders exist, but hey, more power to you.

 

Lemur, since you and Dr. Skeptical have denounced me as being uncooprative and disrespectful, how should I go about kissing your backsides to make you feel better? Are either of you American citizens?!!! If not, then shut it up. If so, then grow a pair and identify yourself as someone with a cause. What we don't need are interlopers from the outside dictating our problems. We have enough as it is. C'mon! Come out and identify your 'sneaky" displeasures. As long as people like me live, people like you will have to eventually bring your problems to the floor. Cowards hide. The brave persevere.

 

Tone it down, please. There's no reason to be rude here. You can make your point without being that way. He has a right to his opinion too.

[Mr Skeptic]

Who's saying anyone HAS to do anything? My point is that if I was working as a janitor for a company making $5/hour and the company laid me off and contracted (out-sourced) janitorial services to an external company that paid its janitors $2, wouldn't I rather avoid taking the exclusion and pay-cut and do some other work for a company that wouldn't exclude me, even if I was getting the same $2/hour? In other words, the issue wouldn't be losing the $3/hour as much as it would be seeing that money go to the people whose wages went up because they cut mine. Take another example: what if after cutting my wages to $2 and raising their own, those people offered me overtime work cleaning their houses during the day before cleaning their offices at night? Should I really be grateful for the opportunity to make more money by serving them more at a lower wage?

 

You do whatever you like. But not everyone agrees with you. Maybe you could start a union in mexico that boycotts jobs that benefit countries that deport people. Just don't expect it to be very popular.

 

(oh, and what if the person in that analogy used a fake ID to sign up for his original job, but then was allowed to work with his real ID at a lower wage?)

 

Is this the typical nation=house metaphor? I disagree with this analogy because there is a fundamental difference between public and private property, imo. It's not a question of whether any government "should allow" migration but whether governments should protect the rights and culture of certain people more than others. Yes, people deserve to have public space where they are free from discrimination and where they can speak their language(s), but why would providing this require excluding others unless they were abusing their freedom and harassing others or something like that?

 

Altruism is nice but don't expect everyone to share your sentiment. Are you really surprised that people don't want other people taking their jobs and getting benefits paid for by their taxes, due to entering their country without permission? The government should do the will of the people, and the will of the people isn't the will of lemur. American public property is the property of the American public, just as your house is your property. If you want to go start a country in Antarctica or in the oceans (which are international territory, unowned by any countries/people groups), be my guest.