Sister is having a debate on "immigration should be a human right" with what's happening right now in paris, and syria, I was wondering what does /pol/ think, should it be a right?
>>56715616
Here's a good 3 minute explanation why the current migration policy is insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnjEhsXWsY
The video also offers a simple policy proposal on how to fix the system, that is described in more detail here:
http://www.ebpforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8457&sid=676abd83a1a9b009dc7790c8b94dbf03
>>56715616
How about this?
Lets make national census for each country regarding immigration policies. Those in favour of more migrants in, pay to sustain them and give them homes to live in. those against will not pay anything
watch as anti-immigration rises to 99%
Yes, living where you want, as long as you don't occupy another persons property, is in my opinion, a human right.
But that is not what this "refugee crisis" is about. It is a crisis of the welfare state.
Getting the government to steal other people's stuff, and give it to you, is not a human right. It is theft.
Welfare states all crumble eventually. The migrant are just quickening the process.
>>56715616
Does I have the right to emigrate to the emirates or to S.A. and to have my share o the oil money?
>>56715616
National citizens of a country inherits the land. Being pro-immigration is saying "I do not believe in personal property".
>>56716944
So when Norwegian girls get raped for being in the presence of foreigners and following the slippery slope for the sake of the argument, one day sharia law gets implemented it's all good, i mean, at least no one's property is occupied.
Merit based only.
No, immigration is not a right. No one is entitled to citizenship of any country.
Human rights are not even rights. You can say somebody has a right to live or some government has an obligation to protect them, but it simply is not true. What protected right does a man drowning in the ocean have? Where is a soldier's right to life when he is killed in a war?
At best, people have a right to work toward their own survival.
the option to immigrate legally exists, these people are illegal immigrants
>>56715616
The only human right in reference to immigration is the right to leave your country without your government interfering. There's no right or guarantee to be allowed in another.
>>56717612
That isn't a recognized right. If you have obligations to the state, you are held accountable for them no matter how much you reject your citizenship to that government.
If you renounce citizenship in Finland you're still obligated for military service and to pay taxes to the state.
>>56717179
No. This should be obvious, but since you seem to be somewhat dim, I will explain.
To immigrate into a society which fully respects private property rights, one has to be invited.
In such a society, immigration would be lower than it is in Europe today.
>>56717179
Some more explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ugv9-cYvHc
>>56715616
Human rights don't exist.
>>56715616
I think immigration is immoral in every single form. Race-mixing, multi-culturism and dissimilation aside, even in seemingly benign cases where you're simply an unskilled sad excuse of a human being, you are still a burden on your host country and its native inhabitants, and if not, you're a traitor to your own country of origin. It's ALWAYS a zero-sum game.
>>56715616
It should be a felony.
>>56718320
This.
Immigrating from places is a human right, immigrating to places isn't.
>>56715616
From a utilitarian perspective, no immigration is not a right, because if it were then there could never be any "safe zones" at all.
>>56715616
What makes people want to emigrate?
>conditions in their country are terrible
>religious persecution, poverty, crime, war, dictatorship
>no opportunity for self betterment
What factors result in people wanting to immigrate to a country?
>wealth of country, peaceful life, lack of crime, ability to better ones self
Now, imagine all countries are brought to the same third world level somehow, a nuclear disaster, whatever.
Overtime, some areas of the world would end up better than others mostly randomly (depending on how the people in each area work together or fight, we're talking enough time to establish communities and farms, not directly after the apocalypse)
Who is responsible for the success of the community?
Morally, are those people allowed to protect their successful community?
>>56716404
OP here, coincidentally enough I watched this about an hour ago. I then searched for Paul Collier's other debates and found him to be not such a great debater, pro-immigrants shredded him.
I'll watch the other video you provided
