What's the morality behind immigration? Should they be let in? Should they be kept out? Are open borders right or wrong?

>should they be let in?
Only those who can be useful as workers and traders.and want to integrate peacefully and lawfully and yes, there´s people like that
I´m ok with students too
>should they be kept out
unskilled people should be kept out
>are open borders right or wrong
it should depend on national interests

>No nation has any ""responsibility"" to let people in, no matter how desperate they are.
That's a stupid argument. No nation, state, organization or group has any responsibility that they don't take up themselves. There's no inherent responsibility any government has, they actively decide what their responsibilities are.

it doesn't matter if its right or wrong, they are all potential voters , the party that doesn't see that will be left in the dust

People have been migrating around the planet for literally thousands of years, the only reason people want to stop it now is because their good times are coming to an end and they want someone to blame.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being not evil at all and 10 being literally Hitler, how evil is Japan?

>unskilled people should be kept out
Why though? If they want to work and integrate why should they be kept out?

geopolitical borders have existed for thousands of years as well
its just that now we can actually enforce them

because educating them costs you money and the governement needs to think about their own poor unskilled fucks

Ok so you'd be ok with mass immigration if a law was passed that said state funded scholarships can only be given to people that were born in a said country. Right?

Hypothetical problem solved they now have to pay their own college education.

WTF I love rapefugees now!

So would you be ok with immigration if laws pertaining to rape were moire strictly enforced in regards to refugees and punished with deportation after jail time should they be found guilty?

no, I would prefer the state sponsoring education programs in their home countries

Because we really don't need any people who aren't highly educated. Humans as manual labor are basically obsolete, the way we donkeys pulling plows are obsolete in farms.

Why? Do you just not want immigrants here and this whole "educating them" nonsense was just an excuse to cover up that fact as you feel xenophobia weakens your argument?

Completely untrue, especially for farms but that's beside the point. If they live in the country they immigrate to and aren't starving they've clearly found a means of employment, if not someone will find a means to make them produce as is the way of capitalism.

Punishing them after tye deed is done is fucking dumb. It's not like they give a shit. They should be pre-emptively kept out in the first place.

Do not consider morality. Instead, consider the hedonic.

Specifically: this image makes me very, very happy.

>punishing people for committing a crime is stupid
>we should punish them before they do it
How about no.

>If they live in the country they immigrate to and aren't starving they've clearly found a means of employment
Do you know where these "refugees" travel? To countries where the welfare state is strong. Do you know who will pay for their welfare? The natives.

>Let's keep the 7 billion people who might potentially commit a crime outside of our country
Who's left, vegetables?

It's pretty common for a refugee here in Nordic land to commit acrime so he lands in jail to prevent deportation. That's why it's stupid. Besides, preventing violent crime from happening in the first place is a more moral approach to dealing with crime.

Remittances make up a massive chunk of the GDPs of the poorer countries.

And so why are you not advocating for a change in welfare laws?

I mean if your problem isn't with immigration but the unrelated impact of it surely that's what you would do correct? Rewriting of welfare laws so immigrants put more into a system than they take out.

A "nation" didn't necessarily mean a state. It's a group of people with common ethnic/cultural distinction, hence the term "nation-state."

A nation-state of say, Japanese Shintoists, would be ripped apart if there were a sudden influx of 10 million North Korean refugees.

There is no moral responsibility and no sense if allowing large enough numbers of people without loyalty to your nation into your nation-state. It's a disaster waiting to happen. It's mortgaging the stability of your country. It's a clear moral hazard.

Migrations do not end well for the receiving peoples. It's a pretty common theme in history. Heck, a lot of the steppe invasions with a few notable exceptions were peoples just being pushed in one direction or the other.

>to commit acrime so he lands in jail to prevent deportation.
Why would that prevent deportation? Doesn't it make more sense to try and close up that loophole then to punish throngs of people for something they didn't do?

>preventing violent crime from happening in the first place is a more moral approach

Yes, if you're a mind reader or Tom Cruise.

>we really don't need any people who aren't highly educated.
lol
as long as some of the salaries for inexperienced laborers are above minimum wage, and certainly if any of these salaries are above those of professions that require years of education and training, you could use a lot more people who aren't highly educated.
econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/how_can_there_b.html

Literally impossible approach because it would wreck the social cohesion of my country, would lower the living standards for everyone, not just immigrants. Vesides, what difference would it make? Some refugee tourist fuck would still come here to squat on the land even if this country was an AnCap dream come true, because we reaide in Europe and Europe is the continent of gibsmedat for them.

>Migrations do not end well for the receiving peoples.
Irish, Polish, German and English migrations to the Americas. The Native population only really got the shit end of the stick in the United States and that's because their government was especially aggressive.

Secondly, these migrations when detrimental are also typically not ended, ever, without military force and even then they tend to continue by some other group (or the descendants of the same group) later down the line so what do you suggest? Kill them all?

>reform welfare laws so a certain group is productive in order to receive benefits
>Literally impossible

Why? Did that pop your safe space bubble in which everyone on the left is some screaming emo hippy?

Because of equality before the law is a thing you dumbshit. Modifying the rules that govern welfare like that would create an inequal situation.

Better way to deal with refugee crises is to make sure they don't happen in the first place. Refugees put an unnecessary strain to the population that is forced to deal with them.

>Because of equality before the law is a thing you dumbshit.
Do teens have access to senior pensions too? There's always ways of wording things that seem illegal so as to make them perfectly legal.