willmarch

I have not called you racist anywhere in our conversation. I've simply asserted that a policy may be discriminatory.

I also don’t see how universal human rights leads to “nation-states should not exist". A state can have borders, put limits on immigration, and prioritize citizens while still being limited by due process, equal protection, and non-discrimination.

The part I'm against is treating individuals as suspect mainly because of group averages, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc, rather than their own conduct.

If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).

I think we may be talking past each other a bit here.

I’m not saying countries are inherently unjust or that Sweden must have open borders. I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present (which to my understanding the party being discussed in this thread openly considers, but I could be misunderstanding their position).

I think the private-home analogy does not work in the instance of nation-states. States exercise legal power over people in ways private individuals do not, so due process and equal treatment matter more than an individual's personal preferences.

The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages (based on imperfect polling).

Practicalities matter but so does fairness to individuals.

I believe in universal human rights and equality/fairness in application of laws. You seem like you don't and you're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify discrimination and unethical behavior towards other humans.

Legally 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).

Of course I am talking about people legally in Sweden (if they weren't there legally, this wouldn't be a conversation).

>> "In isolation that would be unjust discrimination."

You could have just stopped there. It is unjust discrimination no matter how you try to justify it (legally, practically, ends support the means, or otherwise).

The discussion isn't about what a person or country CAN do, the discussion is about what is fair and ethical behavior.

I know of no progressive that supports unlimited immigration with no screenings, that is a right wing talking point based on nothing factual.

I do see a lot of people on the right, some conservatives, and some libertarians calling for blanket bans on entire groups of people based on dubious claims and hypotheticals.

It's a hard argument to make that banning an entire country from opportunities/immigration is "treating everyone as an individual".

This gets back to the salient point of this whole post/thread/comments: do all persons residing in Sweden (as citizens) deserve negative rights as you understand them (namely the freedom to not be harassed/deported simply because someone believes they are not assimilating "properly" or fast enough)?

The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group (and ignore individual differences/persons)?

I would call that discriminatory and unethical. What are your thoughts on that (regardless of what laws/citizenship of the persons)? I'm asking in the abstract as an ethical exercise.

It is arbitrary if you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic human rights and should not be judged simply by the country they come from (rather than the content of their hearts, minds, and character).

Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?

Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?

It really does simply boil down to whether or not you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic rights and considerations. The "citizenship" argument is essentially a legal loophole to claim that whatever the law says is the moral/ethical path, which it is not.

Laws can be (and often are) immortal/unethical, so grounding your argument in what is currently legal or not is a bad look (as it has always been); just ask former slave owners about the morality/ethics of the law, and see where that gets you.

The keyword in your comment being "recent".

The Supreme Court historically matches my argument (which is all that matters). The recent controversial rulings do not negate that the US has for hundreds of years extended the protections of the US Constitution to all peoples that are on US soil (including non-citizens).

Change is painful and slow, that does not mean we should give up on change.

If the Pareto principle holds naturally, why are you pushing for laws/policies to gate keep access to opportunities and access to wealth to force inequalities? Why do we need to make policies that discriminate against some, while benefiting others? (Isn't that antithetical to free markets and a denial of the Pareto principles' universality/inevitability?)

Nobody has discussed dividing the wealth of nations (including me, a rising tide raises all ships), but even if such a thing occurred (distribution of global wealth), it would be a hard case to make to call that "ruinous to all our wealth" (Whose wealth? Ruinous to what groups? What history/science is this view based on? Do more people gain in wealth than lose wealth?)

We are a species of ape (and often act like it as can be surmised from the tribalism proudly on display here) but that does not mean we should idolize apes and act as if we are apes in all areas of our existence.

Nature is a poor teacher of morality/ethics, which is why we have religious text and ethical treatises on how to act that does not recognize nature as the ultimate source of correct action, or else assault, rape, and murder would be legal (unless you deny those are worthy areas of thought and guidance?).

I respect evidence and truths, I do not believe the ideology you're pushing is supported by reality or necessity. I believe your ideology comes from fear of change and worries of scarcity, rather than any logical conclusions from first principles.

Here is a truth for you: The world has benefited greatly from the sharing of information and resources across borders (including human resources) and trying to deny hundreds of years of enlightenment progress flies in the face of all available evidence that the world is becoming more prosperous, more wealthy, more open, and providing more opportunities than was afforded by the protection closed nation-states that came before.

If you're not claiming entire nations think and act the same way, then what you're describing (a blanket ban on entire nations of people because of some arbitrary numbers in a theoretical poll) is, without a doubt, discriminatory.

How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?

That's exactly my point. No group is a homogeneous whole, so why are you trying to blanket ban certain nations (which discriminates against individuals based on "polling" on topics). Shouldn't we determine this based on the individual, not arbitrary groupings based on "polls"?

But okay, let's get specific then. Which country are you talking about and what views?

It's a little befuddling that you are pretending there are countries where every person in that country share the exact same thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Where is this mythical place?

Are we determining an individual's potential, liberty, rights and character based on group population polling now, or do we believe in individual autonomy and potential?

Anyone claiming an entire country holds one singular view (on any topic) is not truly discussing in good faith.

Because we don't live in a perfect world... yet. But we should always be working towards more prosperity for all, greater access to resources/services, more sharing of knowledge/assets, and improving the lives of all people on the planet (not just our preferred groups/tribes). Don't you think?

Are you saying the population in Africa should not be provided healthcare? I fail to see your point here. If your argument is economic scarcity, then that can be solved eventually (and should be).

What state policies are you referring to? Laws/rights should apply equally to all people or else they are not really rights (are they?).

No, Enlightenment principles come from the idea that rights and laws belong to all people (citizen or otherwise) and the founders believed that to be "self-evident" and "unalienable" to all humans. The US Supreme Court has ruled as such again and again (non-citizens have protections of the US Constitution), and Enlightenment thinkers (and any decent person) would agree.

Your entire argument (and everything after) can be ignored because your premise is not just flawed, it is entirely incorrect (false) and goes against any principle of human rights that I'm aware of.

I said it was "discriminatory" (which it is), I never said "racist" (but that case could easily be made).

How are you determining this group that holds these views? What criteria? Because I don't know any group that matches that description exactly. Could you be specific?

I think a human is a human and is deserving of the same rights as any other person. I don't believe this position is radical in any way; it is what most doctrines of fairness are based upon.

Again, who are these people? How are you lumping them together (their views or their religion or their race?) because no large group is a hegemony of exactly the same ideas or views; all groups have a diverse set of individuals and ideas among them (both progressive and regressive).

I think judging any group of individuals as if they are all a single entity (be it through the lens of a particular majority view or a particular race) is discriminatory to the individual (hence discriminatory overall).

In your example (with made up numbers), if 20% are being denied citizenship and opportunity simply because they once resided in the same geographic region as another 80% (with different views), then that is discriminatory because they are not being viewed as individuals but are guilty by simply existing as part of a larger group that they have no choice over.

This is why we screen individual applicants, view each person as a single human with their own thoughts and needs, and judge everyone as an individual and not as a group; to avoid the wrong of discriminating against entire classes of people.

Ask the people they plan to deport for not acting and expressing themselves in a certain way.

Oscar: "Look it doesn’t take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. shakes head Go ahead, name a country that doesn’t have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?"

I think it's fun

The Sun is bigger than the Earth which is bigger than the Moon.

Why would there be no meaning?

How did they get bailed?

If they didn't warn about the new capabilities of these models (by asking for fair standards/regulations) they could open themselves up to potential liabilities and heavy criticism from the public about not doing enough to prepare the world for the new technology.

They're in a sort of damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. Their motivations can be endlessly speculated about, but they are being pulled in many different directions by many powerful groups that want wildly different things from the new tech (along with the obvious financial motivations as well).

Of course it was retaliatory.

You just can’t stop.

And you just keep going… unbelievable.

You really can’t stop with the insults and name calling. Can you blame a person for not wanting to engage with your abusive style of “conversation”?