Comments on: A Matter of Justice

By: Human Rights Quote (149): Immigration Restrictions « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:34:45 +0000

[...] Human Rights Quote (149): Immigration Restrictions December 18, 2009 Filip Spagnoli Leave a comment Go to comments Showing that increased immigration tends to benefit natives reduces resistance on the margin, which is worth doing. But, in my experience, laying out clearly the immense benefits to the immigrants is extremely powerful. It highlights the needless misery caused by the heartless status quo. Even then, it is more powerful still to illustrate clearly how the status-quo system of borders, passports, visas, and citizenships systematically violates basic human rights to free movement and association. Will Wilkinson (source) [...]

By: angelia110

angelia110 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:32:47 +0000

Costs For Uggs--What It Costs?

-->Are you lusting after a few (or even more) Ugg boots and if so, you're in good company, as girls and women of all ages, especially with the simple, slipper-like design of these sheepskin ugg boots sale , which are relatively easy and very comfortable to wear. And they appear to be affected. Some men are also jumping on the trend and luxury UGGs? Australia, the brand also offers a range of contemporary styles for them.

By: Burn the Enlightened!

Burn the Enlightened! — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:26:16 +0000

If you were keeping your hypothetical Honduran exclusively on your own property, you might have a point. However, I strongly doubt that is your intention.

Try this one on for size: my family and I have decided we'd like to have a Bengal tiger. No one should have the right to tell us whether or not we should be able to keep a tiger on our private property.

One small thing: as we are very busy, my family and I will be keeping the tiger on our property between the hours of 9:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. The remainder of the time, the tiger will be allowed to roam through the city, where everyone else can enjoy it. Or not.

By: pushmedia1

pushmedia1 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:37:34 +0000

On the topic of the original post: is this comment thread evidence pro or con for the claim that ditching cost/benefit analysis for moralizing is the right rhetorical move in the immigration debate?

Also, I think Tim misreads the evidence at least in respect to gay rights. My recollection is that support for gay marriage, for example, goes down when gay folks go the courts to plead for their rights (or at least when people hear about such cases).

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:13:37 +0000

Let's see Steve. Let's round up and call 40% of 109 million 45 million. The population of the United States was 226 million in 1980 and 304 million now. That's over 70 million more people! Where did we put them?!

By: stevesailer

stevesailer — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:00:36 +0000

There are approaching 7 billion people in the world, with, at last count, 5,043,000,000 living in countries where the average income is lower than Mexico's. To get some sense of the implications of that: Two recent surveys in Mexico (population 109,000,000) found that over 40% would move to America if it were legal.

Where are you going to put them when they get here?

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:48:02 +0000

I don't think it will work. Mostly because look at how much support torture enjoys. Torture.

Excluding and hurting brown people (and most of the fear is brown i.e. Hispanic or Arab or S. Asian) is going to be a feature not a bug to a bigger number of people than you think.

By: zaph

zaph — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:14:10 +0000

The coffee cooler argument that I can't seem to overcome here at work is the idea that illegal immigrants are “breaking the law”. People will cede that they live in dire straits, but because the “broke the law” and are “criminals”, they should be punished. Until the law is changed, so say my co-workers, they shouldn't come here. I've appealed to the more open immigration of the past, the fact that they are obviously filling jobs, to no avail. It's just my office that I'm drawing this biased sample from, but the idea that a law is being broken is what I hear more than loss of jobs, national security, etc.

By: decklap

decklap — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:11:46 +0000

simonkinahan,

First of all let me say that I currently sponsor a newly legal immigrant from a Muslim country yet and Im quite proud to do it. To that end I've become much more familiar with the inefficiencies in our current immigration system than I'd like to be and as such we would probably agree on any number of specific immigration reforms.

But Will isn't talking about reforms, he's asserting, albeit stealthily, that national borders are inherently illegitimate viz-a-viz individual rights and that citizens of a given country have no standing to manage immigration regardless of how sound their policies may be. Now I disagree with that on the merits but beyond that the idea that this approach is going to move immigration reform towards a new and benighted day is stunningly shortsighted.

By: simonkinahan

simonkinahan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:21:12 +0000

decklap – Fine, so what responsibilities would those wanting to enter the US legally have to shoulder in order to be allowed to the right of residence, and thereby the ordinary civic rights that go with it? I appreciate that the rights that go with citizenship are another thing again, but the rights we're talking about here – the right not to be arbitrarily detained, the right to retain your earnings and worldly goods, the right not to be shot on sight, the right not to be deported away from your family and friends – are quite ordinary things, not very onerous.

I say this as a legal immigrant to the US who is very happy to be allowed to live here, but well aware of the facts that the grounds on which it is allowed (special abilties, since you ask) are frankly spurious. The guy who mows my lawn has skills that are valuable to far more people that mine are. Mine just have higher social status. The whole thing is shameful.