Immigration Ethics

Do people actually believe that it is ethical for the USA to say to people entering this territory that they do not have the right to reside here?

1. Our ownership of this land is illegitimate. The Indians were here first. We stole this land by slaughtering not thousands, but millions of Indians.

2. If it is true that somebody has the right to tell people who can and cannot reside here, it is the Indians.

3. I persoally do not believe any nation of any land has the ethical right to tell a person they may not reside within their borders. If a government controls a territory, there is nothing unethical about requiring immigrants to go through a reasonable process for national citizenship status. However, it is completely unethical to tell somebody they may not reside here.

4. There is nothing about this in the Bill of Rights, but it should be included. Anybody entering the land of the USA has the right to a speedy citizenship process.


Q: What makes the USA believe that they have the ethical right to say who can and who cannot reside within these lands that they stole from Indians? Who gave the USA this right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. Now here come some people to rationalise the rank injustice of it all. Their bottom line? 'Might makes right'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The constitution.

The founding fathers of this nation.

The Indians were a diverse group of nations. They fought with each other to take territory, and they were eventually defeated by a superior nation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hehe

 

The Indians came here like we did, they wandered in from somewhere else. The Indians were largely in decline by the time this nation was founded. I admit there were many promises and treaties we didn't keep, and the Indians were treated highly unfairly. That will always be wrong. However, the USA is a nation now, and it's impossible to turn back time.

 

What are you talking about impossible? It is not impossible to give the land back to who it belongs to. Who legitimitely does this land belong to? Does it belong to anybody? I have yet not seen any justification for USA claiming who does and does not have the right to reside within this territory.

 

Many of those Indian tribes that used to inhabit this land no longer exist. Lots of people now inhabit this land, and have done so for hundreds of years. It is impractical to drive all these people out. Legitimacy of the US is conferred by it's recognition by the international community. As long as the US exists to enforce the laws, then the laws will be in effect. Land is now a commodity. Ending this notion will cause a collapse of the economy. You cannot just reform society at a whim, such events are called revolutions.

 

Practical or impractical, I do not see what ethics gives us the right to tell somebody that he is on this land illegally. Us telling somebody else that they have no right to be here is quite bewildering.

 

The right comes from every citizen that lives here that collectively recognizes the legitimacy of these laws. There is no planet-wide authority except perhaps the UN, which does recognize the US.

If someone doesn't want to recognize the law, it should be obvious that they do what they want anyway.

 

The original point of this thread is about the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Every single nation on the face of the planet has a right to make the determination of who they will allow to enter their country - and none are about to give it up. It has nothing to do with "might makes right." It's simply accepted as fact by EVERY country.

Go find some other silly soap box to stand on or get YOUR contry to be the first to change that.

 

they fought over who could hunt where and stuff like that they did not for control of the land for control implies ownership which most natives don't belive that a person can do.

 

I figured it has everything to do with might makes right. They have the might, and so they do whatever they want to anybody they want without any ethical obligation.

 

hahaha i guess that means your land is illegitimately owned as well lixluke!!

Im gonna come squat on your land, and i mean that literally as in take a dump on it cuz you have no right to it either and i can drop a crap where i like

 

I see no proof that anybody has any ethical right to the land they occupy which was stolen from the indians.

 

But the indians moved onto the land and conquered it in almost the same way as the Europeans did. What makes the land belong to the indians when they took it by conquest, too?

And interestingly, is there any land on Earth now that belongs to it's "rightful" owner? Maybe, just maybe, China, but then.....?

Baron Max

 

By whose "ethics"? You act as if ethics is some universal absolute. Ethics is created by humans for humans. What's ethical for you might not be ethical for others .....and yet, here, you're trying to force your ethics onto us all. Why?

Baron Max

 

What's this silliness about "ethical obligation"??? Much as I said earlier, EVERY country has the privilege of determining who they allow inside their borders. The USA - nor any other country" is under ANY obligation of any kind to allow people for other nations to enter. It's just pure foolishness to think so.

And by the way - who gave YOU the right to make any such determination in the first place????????????????

 

Doesn't apply in Iraq, though. Or Afghanisan.

 

Totally - TOTALLY - different subject!

 

Why? Because one involves invading a country on no pretext whatsoever and killing hundreds of thousands, which is somehow a good thing, and the other involves moving to a country to improve your chances of survival by working for the economy, which is a bad thing? People have f*cked up priorities. Or do ethics only apply when you have the upper hand?