Canada and Canadians companies were very picky about my CV. Especially those from a eastern province that has its quirks (which shouldn't have been a problem, as I'm conversational in their language). Well, apparently my CV wasn't being taken seriously there.
At the end I went back to working in the EU and earning more, (paying 5x less for a mobile plan and not having to shove snow in the winter are advantages as well)
Because the pickiness is a stereotype and a form of discrimination.
EDIT - removed the "arbitrary", which I could argue for but for the purposes of the discussion concede. I stand by the rest of the claim despite the downvotes :)
You don't have an inherent right to enter a random country. People living there have to decide, who they allow to enter and who not. Usually, they set up a set of rules to decide, and it is up to them how these rules reflect their values.
And you absolutely don't have the right to threaten me with violence and harm with the aim of blocking me from inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today. Simply because you belong to a majority (or minority) of the citizens of my country, does not give you the right to dictate who I can hire, who I can invite into my home, etc.
For libertarian arguments underpinning this fundamentally moral and human rights issue, see https://openborders.info/
That's true according to some moral systems and not true according to others. What's more important is that we have the power to do so, and we think it's in our interest to do so, so we do it. If you want to convince us not to restrict immigration, you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so. Saying we're immoral according to your chosen moral system will persuade some, and it will be easily rebuked some others, but most will say "It doesn't feel wrong" and ignore you and your whole moral system.
>inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property -- which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today.
That's not really the important status quo of today, though. The problem isn't that people are inviting their non-citizen friends into their homes. It's that some non-citizens are coming here and consuming limited resources that would otherwise be consumed by citizens, especially services funded by taxpayers, and are not providing enough services to the people here to make up for what they're consuming. Many citizens, especially those who are in most direct economic competition with immigrants, are made worse off by the presence of even those who do provide more resources than they consume. The gains they provide are not distributed evenly throughout the population, and neither are the costs they impose.
> That's not really the important status quo of today, though.
On this point, you need to educate yourself more. It's cleared you've consumed the lies of right new media outlets. Immigrants contribute a lot more than they consume. See the National Academy of Sciences report[1], or read some articles from the Cato Institute, or even the short summary of the Libertarian Party's position[3].
The problem is that this country's laws hate and despise skilled and educated immigrants. My company tried for two years in a row, to bring a developer from our Paris office over into the US. A brilliant developer, who had been with us for a year, and proven himself. Someone who had graduated from EPFL (one of the best higher-education institutes in Europe -- the equivalent of CMU/MIT here). Someone who was being offered a $140,000/year base salary. Someone who spoke fluent English. And he was rejected (lost the H1B lottery) twice, thanks to the US skilled immigration policy.
That is the status quo today. Which is a far cry from what is morally right. I don't think even a preference system for educated/skilled immigrants is morally right. The only morally righteous immigration system is one that permits the free immigration of people that are peaceful/non-voilent and who are self-sufficient/self-reliant (i.e. they'll have no access to welfare, and must be able to support themselves).
>Immigrants contribute a lot more than they consume.
Some do. Many don't. And even among those that do contribute more than they consume, it seems very unlikely that the contributions and the drawbacks would be distributed evenly throughout the population. Some people will be made better off by their presence, and others (perhaps even a greater number, but totaling a smaller dollar value) will be made worse off. Do you disagree with that?
>The problem is that this country's laws hate and despise skilled and educated immigrants.
I don't lock my doors because I hate the people outside. I lock my doors because I want to protect the people inside.
>And he was rejected (lost the H1B lottery) twice, thanks to the US skilled immigration policy.
Right, but do you deny that many companies make enormous amounts of money off of the H1B programs and that they can bring down salaries of the local people that compete with their labor? Do you deny that people that come in via H1B are less likely to have loyalty to this country and its people?
>Which is a far cry from what is morally right.
Whether it's morally right or not depends on what moral system you're using to evaluate it. I can pick one that says what I want just as easily as you can.
>people that are peaceful/non-voilent
How do you know their descendants will be peaceful and non-violent, and that their interests and those of their descendants will tightly overlap with the interests of the current population and their descendants?
Why would the current inhabitants want to let people in if they don't have strong reason to believe that the interests of the immigrants and their descendants will strongly align with the interests of the current inhabitants and their descendants?
This is a debate about morality, but one with real world consequences. I strongly believe some moral systems are superior to others.
In the moral system of the mid-19th century U.S. South, it was moral and right to have slaves. Human beings could be property. Similarly, in the communist and some socialist moral systems, it is evil and immoral for me to, say, start a company, and make millions of dollars of wealth. I have to share the fruit of my labor with other citizens of my country who did not work hard, and who might have spent the time I was toiling on my startup, playing video games and watching Netflix.
> you'll have to convince us it's not in our interest to do so
Absolutely not. As long as your self-interest doesn't violate the rights of others, I fully respect. But the moment you want to oppress my freedom, for the sake of your self-interest, I say fuck you self-interest. I don't need to convince you of anything. Why?
* Your same repugnant self-interest argument was used by slave owners. It wasn't in their self-interest to lose their free labor. It was economic disaster to relinquish slave labor. To quote, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession, it was "the greatest material interest of the world", c.f. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
* You have no right to dictate to me that I can only associate with you (i.e. whether in employment, friendship, marriage etc). I should be free to hire any one from any country as I see fit. Immigration restrictions are oppressive and immoral, c.f. https://openborders.info/
* If I started a company, and made large amounts of money, and you decided to play video games and watch Netflix all day long while I toiled day and night, then you have no fucking moral right to live on money stolen by taxing the income of hard-working people like myself.
Frankly, I am under no obligation to convince you that you should not oppress my freedom, and threaten me with violence, to further your self-interest.
I believe in absolute objective morality. I don't think there are multiple "fair/just" moral frameworks. I reject the moral framework that upholds slavery. I think communist (and some socialist) moral systems are evil and wrong. Similarly, I think the immigration laws of most countries in the world are objectively immoral, evil, and wrong.
Try to live without violating the rights and freedoms of the others. Thanks.
>I strongly believe some moral systems are superior to others.
What experiment can you perform to decide if a moral system is superior to another?
>In the moral system
What is your point? Are you listing examples where you expect me to sympathize with you and therefore agree? How does my own sympathy for your position prove that those moral systems are inferior to others? What does that even mean?
>But the moment you want to oppress my freedom, for the sake of your self-interest, I say fuck you self-interest.
Yes, and we say fuck what you think is your freedom, except we're powerful enough to actually get what we want.
>I don't need to convince you of anything. Why?
Because it sounds like you want us to change the way we're behaving, and you don't have the physical power to make us. Moral arguments will work on people that are already sympathetic to you, and people whose interests are pretty well aligned with what your moral system prescribes. They don't work so well on people whose interests would be seriously harmed by following them.
>Your same repugnant
I'll save you some time typing: I don't care if you call me repugnant. I don't care if you call me the worst names out there. It's not an argument. It's not going to convince me of anything except that you don't have an argument.
>self-interest argument was used by slave owners
Yes, it was, and so they did it until someone more powerful made them stop.
>You have no right to dictate to me that I can only associate with you
I don't care if your moral system says I do or don't have a right to dictate such to you.
>I should be free to hire any one from any country as I see fit.
That's your opinion, not an argument.
>Immigration restrictions are oppressive and immoral
Oppressive? I guess you could make an argument like that if you defined oppressive in a certain way. Either way, I think they're in my interest. Immoral? That's a matter of opinion.
>If I started a company, and made large amounts of money, and you decided to play video games and watch Netflix all day long while I toiled day and night, then you have no fucking moral right to live on money stolen by taxing the income of hard-working people like myself.
Another matter of opinion.
>Frankly, I am under no obligation to convince you that you should not oppress my freedom, and threaten me with violence, to further your self-interest.
The only obligation would be a self-imposed one. If you want very badly to get what you want, and are not powerful enough to make it so, then you have no choice but to convince those that are powerful enough. That's reality.
>I believe in absolute objective morality.
What is an example of a hypothesis that you can test to determine if something is absolutely objectively moral? How can you test it? What useful information can I get out of such a test? Can I use the result to make a prediction, like in science?
>I don't think there are multiple "fair/just" moral frameworks.
There are certainly multiple moral frameworks. They mostly consider the others unjust in various ways.
>Try to live without violating the rights and freedoms of the others.
Why should I choose to honor the rights and freedoms which are specified by your moral system rather than the rights and freedoms specified by some other arbitrarily chosen moral system?
I'll reply one last time to your philosophical/moral vacuity:
The foundations of libertarianism is a belief that individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.
A "moral" system that deprives people of human rights, is amoral, and not worthy of honor or respect.
By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others. It was justified by the Nazi moral framework.
This is why moral relativism is a bane, and a curse, and the source of many evils.
With regards to immigration, you have no right to demand the loyalty of others towards you or anyone else, or make it a precondition to alleviating the deprivation of their rights.
You have no right to restrict who I can engage in commerce with, or really to restrict any sort of interpersonal relationship I can have. You trying to prevent me from doing so is a violation of my freedom.
Visa restrictions are similar to banning interracial marriage. Interracial marriage means X race has more competition from people Y, Z races. Great.
I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.
> Either way, I think they're in my interest.
I think I told you in my parent comment, that I give zero fucks about your self-interest, as long as you pursue your self-interest in a manner that respects the rights of others.
> ... the physical power to make us .... Yes, it was, and so they did it until someone more powerful made them stop
You're basically saying, I will continue to violate the rights of others, enslave others, oppress others -- until someone more powerful stops me.
In other words, your moral framework can be summed up in three words: might is right.
What a terrible moral framework.
Well, I don't believe in the Nazi-Darwinian crap. I believe in basic human dignity (as mentined in the EU Charter[1]), and in the inalienable rights of man, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence[2].
Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? No. I would fight against it, and with violence -- if necessary.
> If you want very badly to get what you want, and are not powerful enough to make it so, then you have no choice but to convince those that are powerful enough
Or I don't try to convince you under your depraved moral framework, and instead I get my gun, and shoot you and kill you.
All I'm asking for is that you respect my basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, I am justified in using violence against you, in self-defence, as I try to defend myself and others against the violence you try/wish to inflict upon me and others.
Things do get to the point of violence, in a situation like this, when parties can't agree on what is morally right. One party is willing to deprive the rights of others to forward their self-interest. The other party believes in respecting the rights of all human beings. When such a strong disagreement on such a fundamental moral issue occurs, violence ensues. I can't convince a slave owner that their self-interest won't be affected by them losing their slaves. Similarly, I'm not going to make a self-interest-based argument with you. This is about funamental human rights, which you seem to despise.
>The foundations of libertarianism is a belief that individual rights and human rights are supreme.
Trust me, I don't need a lecture on the foundations of libertarianism. I've read enough Rothbard and company to get a pretty good feel for it.
>I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.
I know what you believe.
>A "moral" system that deprives people of human rights, is amoral, and not worthy of honor or respect.
It's up to you to decide what you think is worthy of honor and respect, and up to me to make the choice for myself.
>By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others. It was justified by the Nazi moral framework.
Hitler may have had the power to do those things. I'm not sure where you think I suggested he had a moral right to do them.
>This is why moral relativism is a bane, and a curse, and the source of many evils.
I agree with you that moral relativism is a bad ideology for a society to be founded up, in terms of achieving stable, wealthy, and peaceful societies. That said, it is a question of fact whether there is actually some absolute objective morality, and as far as I can tell, one does not exist.
>With regards to immigration, you have no right to demand the loyalty of others towards you or anyone else
I'm not sure why you're still telling me what I have the right to do or what I don't have the right to do. I know what your preferred moral system says I have a right to do. As it happens, I don't demand loyalty of people, I'd just rather that the people around me be loyal to me, and it's quite clear that certain human beings are more likely to be loyal to me than others are, and that there are policies that can discriminate on that characteristic and so achieve the result I desire.
>Visa restrictions are similar to banning interracial marriage.
I'm not sure why you're still listing things you think I will think are horrible in order to get me to agree with you. As I said, even if I sympathize with you on some point, it doesn't make your system universal.
>that I give zero fucks about your self-interest, as long as you pursue your self-interest in a manner that respects the rights of others.
I'm not sure why you would bother to write something like this. You do give zero fucks about my self-interest when I pursue it in a manner that doesn't respect what you think are the rights of others, and it's clear that's what we're talking about here.
>You're basically saying, I will continue to violate the rights of others, enslave others, oppress others -- until someone more powerful stops me.
I said that as a matter of fact that is what certain people did.
>In other words, your moral framework can be summed up in three words: might is right.
Might determines what happens is reality. I acknowledge and embrace that reality. You seem to want to yell your head off at anyone that won't absolutely accept your preferred moral system, as though that will get you what you want. I assure you, it will not.
>Well, I don't believe in the Nazi-Darwinian crap.
What does that even mean?
>What do I do?
My recommendation would be to convince other people that it's not in their interest to support slavery, and do what you can to change reality so that it's not in their interest to support slavery. Don't expect making people go against their interests by telling them they're horrible to be an effective or sustainable solution. If you convince them you're right about how horrible they are, and they go against their own interests, then what you've just done is harm the material interests of people that are predisposed toward listening to moral arguments, and effectively selected against trait.
>If you can't do that, I am justified in using violence against you, in self-defence, as I try to defend myself and others against the violence you try/wish to inflict upon me and others.
I think that's probably a bad idea, and not just because you'd lose the fight. The people you're fighting to allow into this country are not very likely to be sympathetic to your moral arguments, or even to your well-being.
> And you absolutely don't have the right to threaten me with violence and harm with the aim of blocking me from inviting my non-citizen friend from staying at my house, in my property
I'm not. The sovereign is. By the definition, the monopoly to use the violence belongs to the sovereign, which in this age is in a form of a democracy or republic.
For you that means, that the majority of your co-citizens decided on some rules and if you break them, yes, violence may ensue, until you stop breaking them.
> which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today.
As you were told in the sibling comment, your moral system and moral systems of others may be different.
> Simply because you belong to a majority (or minority) of the citizens of my country, does not give you the right to dictate
Yes, the majority has that rights. Again, the common name for that is democracy.
If you do not agree, use the first three of four boxes of liberty.
> who I can hire,
The majority definitely has this right. The labor market doesn't belong to you, you just participate there.
> who I can invite into my home, etc.
Fortunately for you, the majority in most countries consider tourism to be a good thing, where just the security of the others need to be taken care of. Tourist tend not to use social security, health care or other services, that were funded by your co-citizens and not your guests.
> For libertarian arguments underpinning this fundamentally moral and human rights issue
Libertarianism is just one of many ideologies in this world. It doesn't have a status of the only truth. Other ideologies or world-views have their own arguments.
Here I return to one of the box of liberty mentioned above, soapbox. For communication and discussion it is important not only to present your arguments, but also listen to the arguments of the others, who you might not agree with, and correctly embed their points and worries into your position. If you do not, it's you who will get ignored, as there would be no point of discussion.
> Yes, the majority has that rights. Again, the common name for that is democracy.
I believe individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.
By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others.
What a terrible moral framework.
> who I can hire
No, restricting who I can engage in commerce with, or really any sort of interpersonal relationship, is a violation of my freedom. I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.
> ... one of many ideologies in this world. It doesn't have a status of the only truth ...
> For you that means, that the majority of your co-citizens decided on some rules and if you break them, yes, violence may ensue, until you stop breaking them.
Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? Fuck that. I would have fought against it, with violence, if necessary. All I'm asking for is that you respect basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, honestly, I am justified in using violence against you, to defend myself against your acts of violence against me.
> I believe individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.
You didn’t define these individual rights and human rights yet. Every few years someone invents a new ones. Should we have something so vague as a foundation of our system?
> By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Polet, and others.
You are conflating several things. The Germans weren’t acting in their jurisdiction, they invaded others. They were no longer keeping theirs whats theirs, they were taking from others.
> What a terrible moral framework.
If you say so. I’m still avoiding the judgement of yours, despite having a suspiction of confusion of ideas.
> No, restricting who I can engage in commerce with, or really any sort of interpersonal relationship, is a violation of my freedom. I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.
If you do not intend to respect the law of the land, you can still move out. Well, if someone other will accept you. You might find that the other countries are not as open as you think they are and you might be a subject of same or more restrictions.
And again, we are back to inventing a new “rights”. Why should be your “right” something, that possibly damages communities in your existing jurisdiction?
> Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? Fuck that. I would have fought against it, with violence, if necessary. All I'm asking for is that you respect basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, honestly, I am justified in using violence against you, to defend myself against your acts of violence against me.
At the time, your moral values would be different and you would do zilch. You still do not have objective criteria to define them, they are formed by the current prevailing ideology. Unsurprisingly, in different parts of the world, they are different. The adage “every nation deserves the government is has” is unbelievably true on many levels.
I would be very, very careful with inciting violence. The chances are, if you cannot persuade others about your ideas using communication, you definitely won’t persuade them using violence.
It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine.
So it's not at all a given that the current system with tightly regulated borders, visas, conditions of residence etc will still be in place in 100 years.
>Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century).
When prior to industrialization would mass migration (especially of another ethnic group) have been seen by the current inhabitants as anything other than an invasion?
>Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine.
The immigration restrictions of the late 19th/early 20th century were a reaction to immigration numbers having risen beyond the point that the current inhabitants were comfortable with. Yes, controls were lax before then but that was a reflection of 1) the relatively low degree of conflict over resources (a result of industrialization), 2) the similarity of ethnicity/culture between the current inhabitants and the immigrants (they were predominantly Christians of European ancestry -- Chinese immigration was not viewed so favorably), and 3) comparatively low numbers of immigrants before ~1870, and especially before 1850.
> Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine.
The great land border lockdown between the United States and Canada or Mexico really started after September 11, 2001. The current border controls are extremely excessive by comparison, and the current US president's proposals are completely insane by 20th century standards. Many people born in the 1990s do not realize just how unusual the current border lock-down situation is.
To add an anecdote, the most unusual Canada/US immigration story I know is an acquaintance, US citizen by birth, who had illegally immigrated to Canada and was an undocumented under-the-table cash worker for almost a decade by the time I met him in 2010. One of his American grandparents originally came from Canada by literally swimming across a lake in the 1930s to immigrate to the United States.
With immigration you will definitively focus on highly educated people, people who have skills needed in the respective industries and who are likely to fit in well culturally.
I'd open up all the borders without restriction. It would be a madhouse for the first decade but then the world would be much better off in the long run.
It would be the first step in a united planet rather than the pettiness we suffer now with individual competing states.
Uhh, how about instead, we let Europe do that. And then us in America and Canada can see how that works out for them.
The beauty of countries is that different countries can try vastly different things, and then we can look at the results afterwords and see which countries made good decisions and which made bad decisions.
Well, the United States is a living example of a country that tried that, and um ... hasn't failed because of it.
Until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, there were no restrictions on immigration. And after that, the immigration of white people was still completely unrestricted, until the Immigration Act of 1921. And after which, it was still relatively easy for citizens from Western European countries to move to the US (thanks to the "National Origins formula", up until the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed.
>Well, the United States is a living example of a country that tried that, and um ... hasn't failed because of it.
When did the US A) allow unrestricted immigration of people of non-European origin, B) actually have significant numbers of immigrants of non-European origin, and C) not quickly move to restrict that immigration?
Unrestricted immigration of people of European origins is not the same thing as opening up the borders without restriction.
Sure. Back in the day, every new immigrant was one more able body, able to help colonize the rugged expanse, as well as work the farms, factories and railroads.
These days, we don't need any more able-bodied factory workers. We are no longer an industrial-labor economy. We need service and skilled labor, instead.
> Back in the day, every new immigrant was one more able body, able to help colonize the rugged expanse, as well as work the farms, factories and railroads.
You need to stop relying on television shows for understanding history and read more. There was no "rugged expanse," there was an ongoing Native American genocide. Geronimo died in 1909. The Indian Wars did not end until 1924. As to how much laborers were really needed in factories, Sinclair's The Jungle (published in 1906) is a good illustration.
The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
the selection criteria it's not arbitrary and is based on the factors Canada considers important. It's like saying asking for a job applicant to have a certain skillset is "discrimination based on arbitrary stereotype".
I see a lot more negatives with allowing unchecked open borders than putting standards in place. Most of the negatives boil down to people not being able to live in whatever arbitrary place they want.
I don't think personal preference should carry a whole lot of weight in the context of setting policy on who gets to cross your borders. Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.
> Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.
Why do you think this? I personally believe the opposite and think world wide semi-open borders would be for the best. (By semi-open I mean that you still need to pass background checks etc). You could also disqualify people from accepting welfare if they have recently moved into the county.
What you end up then is "pushy" cultures become the norm, and "more open" (from a lack of better term, I know that's not really accurate) get phased out.
Essentially, everything will be China given long enough (I'm obviously exaggerating). There might be a few people of middle eastern descent too. Maybe.
The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm not saying all immigrants are net-consumers, I'm specifically asking about the subset of immigrants that are net-consumers.)
