> You know what is actually immoral? Forcing individuals that want to make a better life for their children, into staying in a country that "needs help" and they want to get out of.
But that's also true of would be migrants who are most in need of help. In either case you are 'forcing' someone to stay in their home country. The question is, if you don't have an open border policy, which of the would be migrants will you "force" to stay in a rotten country? The sick, elderly, under-educated, or the able-bodied, educated, rich, etc.
> Let people leave and go where they want
Yes absolutely.
> if you want to prevent people from coming into your area, well then let the majority current residents decide.
The controversial question is what constitutes 'your area'. Depending on who you asks it's anywhere from your neighborhood to the entire Earth. Depending on your take on that you could conclude that you have a legitimate right to kick people out of your street or that we should adopt an open border policy worldwide.
>"But that's also true of would be migrants who are most in need of help. In either case you are 'forcing' someone to stay in their home country. "
Not entirely. In the one case, you're simply saying "you can't come here, unless you are X-amounts productive". The other one, which I was arguing-against, was more along the lines of: "You can't come here because you are Y-amounts productive and should stay there and fix your side of this earth."
The net result is not the same. The one prescribes that an individual has to be "X-amounts productive", whereas the other says "if you are more than Y-amounts productive, you are not allowed to come here". With all the upside-down incentives we have going on in the world right now with welfare and progressive taxation, this is the one area where government is still sort of "rewarding" the "productive" or "ambitious".
>"The controversial question is what constitutes 'your area'. Depending on who you asks it's anywhere from your neighborhood to the entire Earth. Depending on your take on that you could conclude that you have a legitimate right to kick people out of your street or that we should adopt an open border policy worldwide."
Well, as a Libertarian, I think borders are pretty damn arbitrary, too. But until we can get to that point, we have to be realistic about what we've decided to share with our neighbors. Ideally, we should be allowed to each decide how our tax money gets spent. If anything, we can restrict it's usage to the level of "openness" we wish to spread it around to. So some would want it only spent in their street, others to a city level, and the rest wish it to be spread equally for the whole world's benefit. That is, if we're talking about actually giving each person a choice, instead of what we call "Democracy".
But that's also true of would be migrants who are most in need of help. In either case you are 'forcing' someone to stay in their home country. The question is, if you don't have an open border policy, which of the would be migrants will you "force" to stay in a rotten country? The sick, elderly, under-educated, or the able-bodied, educated, rich, etc.
> Let people leave and go where they want
Yes absolutely.
> if you want to prevent people from coming into your area, well then let the majority current residents decide.
The controversial question is what constitutes 'your area'. Depending on who you asks it's anywhere from your neighborhood to the entire Earth. Depending on your take on that you could conclude that you have a legitimate right to kick people out of your street or that we should adopt an open border policy worldwide.