A Question for Immigration Restrictionists
The current refugee surge into Europe has caused a lot of my friends who are immigration restrictionists to say this proves that I am naive.
During the Cold War, we (including most Conservatives) considered it immoral that Communist countries would not let their people leave (Berlin Wall, etc.). Now, however, it is argued by many of these same folks that it is imperative that the Western democracies build walls to keep people out.
So here is a question -- not of practical consequences, but of pure morality. Consider this picture of people being prevented from crossing the border.
Explain to me why this scene is immoral if the wall and police forces were put there by the country at the right (the leaving country) but suddenly moral if the same wall with the same police force were put there by the country on the left (the receiving country). Don't they have exactly the same effect? Same wall -- How are they different?
It's hard to believe that you're sincere in needing further explanation but I'll provide it in good faith. The location matters because, in the one case, the crowd is fleeing from an authoritarian regime preventing their departure. In the other, the enforcement is by the authorities of a regime that has (in principle) created a situation that is satisfactory to the residents who don't want it upset by people coming in without an invitation. Of course, there's a huge amount of nuance as indicated by the comments above, but the distinction between prison guards vs. event security is obvious.
It sounds like you're saying that it's justified for government to make certain restrictions on migrants with the goal of improving society. I don't see why that doesn't apply to both sides of the fence.
East Germany did not want workers and doctors and academics fleeing - that would deprive East Germany of their labor, their skills, their ingenuity, and would deprive the state of draft-eligible young men who could be soldiers. There were good arguments for the socialist state to stop emigration without permission, in order to improve East German society.
If you look at cities like Detroit and Cleveland, or thousands of ghost towns and dying farm towns, you'll find lots of examples of places ruined by too many people leaving. If the government in those places could've stopped people from leaving then I'm sure many of those towns would've tried it.
So if restrictions are justified to protect society, why does that apply any differently to emigration than immigration?
Because prison is different than a bank vault.
Seriously? This has to be the least intelligent post I've ever seen on Coyote Blog.
Does your house lock from the inside or the outside? Can you really not distinguish morally between the two? If so, I think your moral compass is broken.
When I was a kid, people would say the difference between the Soviet Union and the U.S. was that they had a fence to keep people in and we have a fence to keep people out.
The wave of immigrants from the early 1900's partially destroyed what may have been the greatest libertarian state of all time when total government spending at all levels was around 5% of GDP and we've been losing freedom ever since. Fortunately, technological advances have overwhelmed the negative effects of losing freedom and our civil society.
If Coyote gets his way, the job will be finished and the USA will be another moribund fascist state like Argentina, another example of a nation whose classically liberal institutions were overrun by immigrates voting for free stuff over freedom.
Open border libertarians are more dangerous to our freedom than socialists. That's why I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over Warren Meyer, even though I agree with Meyer on about 97% of the issues. The difference is that I actually want freedom, not pats on the back from the left-wing fascist establishment.
}}} But the question is why is it okay to exclude peaceful refugees, so any analogy that adds in crime or violence is non-responsive.
Because we choose to, and there is no claim or right on their part to be violated by doing so. WE are under NO obligation to them.
And it's becoming clearer that a lot of these are probably terrorists as much as "refugees".