Humane or inhumane behavior has nothing to do with economic circumstances.
You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards.
>You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards.
Would these "subjective morality standards" be any different from the ones that you use to define "humane or inhumane behavior"? In any case, I'd like to see a subjective moral framework where citizens of their own country don't have a right to the infrastructure that they and their ancestors created. What incentive is there to have made our society a better place by the time we die than it was when we were born, if our descendants don't even have a birthright to what we intend to leave them?
You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards.