alt Hacker NewsLegally 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).
Replies
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.
>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.