This is a very dumb straw man attack. Stop it.
There is obviously a difference between citizenship and race... the entire purpose of a government is to service its citizens. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a Star Trek utopia where there is free movement of all people. If one country were to allow this first, they’d just be harming themselves, which would be against the interests of its citizens. You look out for your own citizens first. That’s just a government fundamental.
Maybe it's worth examining why would that be from time to time.
Why does it cause such an emotional reaction for you?
Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe)
1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher)
2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option.
3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p...
The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration)
So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well.
Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.
1. At a time when blacks were not citizens of the United States, many people argued that giving blacks basic freedoms would screw the whites that the government represented. I hope we all agree that according to basic human decency 101 that was not a compelling argument.
2. This is true even if it would indeed screw over whites by say pushing down their wages from, oh I don't know, absurdly high to only moderately high.
3. Which freedoms are privileges and which are rights? The freedom to not be a slave, a component of which was working for whomever you wanted, seems to be a right. The freedom to rent an apartment from a willing landlord irrespective of your skin color seems to be a right. But the freedom to work for Oracle for less money than you'd like if I was born in the wrong country seems not to be one. I'd appreciate a civics 101 lesson on why.
The basis of most of them is citizenship, which is basically people born in the right place or from the right parents. If you are born in Germany you have the ‘right’ to move anywhere in the EU. If you have Japanese parents you have the ‘right’ to work in Japan.
The same way wealthy foreigner will have the means to buy these ‘rights’ and become citizen.
https://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/equal-citizenship-rig...
Or this kind of thinkpiece going basically in the same direction.
https://forestshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/citizensh...
I’d be really interested if you could point me to what you were refering to.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/Nationality.aspx
> The right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.
> States shall introduce safeguards to prevent statelessness by granting their nationality to persons who would otherwise be stateless and are either born in their territory or are born abroad to one of their nationals.
> States shall also prevent statelessness upon loss or deprivation of nationality.
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/migration/pages/migrationand...
> It is increasingly clear that a lack of human rights-based migration governance at the global, regional and national levels is leading to the routine violation of migrants’ rights in transit, at international borders, and in the countries they migrate to.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration
> The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. [...]
It is very interesting that it’s a right to have _a_ nationality, with nothing more really.
It makes sense for all the issues described in the doc , and it also anchors the notion that except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality and who doesn’t, or how it deals with migration.
It reminds me a lot about rules in EU countries forbiding from evicting people from their home during the winter, or more broadly rules requiring to provide help to someone in situation of danger.
Now, seriously, don't you think America (as it is currently) gains a lot from its diversity? Since when did it abandon its "melting pot" culture?