I.e., whom does a country's government serve?
Edit : Sorry addicted, I interpreted your comment as a justification, not as historical account. My bad.
I think GP was giving a causal explanation in terms of political history.
Two parties disagree and eventually one says to the other "if you don't stop it I'll make you stop it."
This is a truth claim that can be honestly verified through physical struggle. If they win, then their might did make them factually correct. If the other side was mightier than the other side proved themselves correct when they said "no you won't."
No?
Edit: human beings since forever have never stopped warring with each other over stuff. It's almost like our M.O. is Argumentum ad hominem, ad baculum, ad infinitum - "argument by beating a man with a stick for eternity"
Are you arguing that two human attributes in particular, race and birthplace, should for some reason be subject to the same level of discrimination in hiring?
Or are you asking a more abstract question? I.e., given any human attribute ${attrib}, what are the principles a government should use when deciding if ${attrib} is a legally protected class?
Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.
So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).
Not on your own. You need to find a country willing to accept you as a citizen. For the vast majority of people in the world, the only countries that would accept them are those where they would be worse off. So the countries that do (successfully) prioritize prosperity of their citizens also effectively lock out most people from elsewhere. The trickle of immigration is just that, a trickle - it is deliberately constrained with various rules and requirements, and it would be a much bigger stream if anyone who wanted to change their citizenship could apply (even if you filtered out, say, people with criminal records and such).
You know that's not true, and other countries have much more strict citizenship processes, some not even allowing full citizenship.
Imagine I'm a cab driver in Pakistan and want to become a cab driver in the US. Can you point me to what form I would fill out in order to apply for a visa?
As far as I'm aware, no such process exists.
Given that certain forms of discrimination are unacceptable, why is okay for any group to discriminate against any other group? Why is it ok for a nation to enforce borders, a company to keep the proceeds of a new idea to themselves, or for a wealthy family to favor their own children?
Many people have asked that and tried to create systems that forbid such discrimination. Unfortunately the result is always disaster. It's simply so counter to human nature that it cannot be imposed without a totalitarian government and the problems that come with totalitarianism are far worse than the problems of inequality that come with freedom.
But perhaps a moral person should still seek to follow such a policy of their own volition? That might be viable, if dealing only with other people who follow a similar policy. But how many people are willing to work for such a system, rather than merely using "equality" as an argument only when it serves their own self interests? How many are willing to make the sacrifice when it's their turn to do the dirty job, to work hard without keeping the proceeds, to share their home with strangers, to fight criminals and tyrants with nothing to gain for themselves?
That's an empirical question and many experiments have been conducted on communes, kibbutzim, ashrams, etc. Experience has shown that the answer is: far too few to make such a system viable. Even voluntary societies of this type are plagued by freeloaders and cliques, and must impose borders to prevent being overrun by outsiders.
So while it certainly seems like a good moral position, and has seemed so to many, many people throughout history, it simply fails to work in practice, over and over and over again.
Same reason you take care of your own kids first. Would that imply that you are discriminating against kids that aren't yours?
Then go to a Ghana forum and critique the right of return law for any black people who want to emigrate to Ghana.