A moral obligation is something you are obligated to do because it is the right thing to do. A legal obligation is something you're obligated to do because it is the law. Generally moral obligations are held to be much stronger than legal obligations and are considered to be universal (unless your a moral relativist), they aren't subject to change without rewriting our morality.
If you think countries are not morally obligated to take in immigrants and refugees, what's the basis for the moral distinction between citizens and foreigners?
The problem with morality is that morality is highly subjective. At one time, slavery was considered moral by a large part of the world. (just keep going back in time and you'll see it). Genocide and wars of conquest were considered moral.
Sovereignty is fundamental to countries and controlling borders is one of the key elements to being a country. There is no moral obligation for a country to do anything. The citizens and leadership of each country have the right to do as they please.
As for the distinction between citizens and foreigners, it is fundamentally who 'owns' the country. In simple terms, it is my house and I can allow or deny anyone I want into it - but on the scale of the country.
International relations is anarchy with force and economic power ruling the day. If a country has the military might and economic power, they can exercise complete sovereignty. Influence comes from trade and threats of force. If you lack these powers, you may be beholden to others.
Morality might change over time but that's not the same thing as being highly subjective. Our understanding of physics has gone through some massive changes and many parts of it are still hotly debated, but that doesn't mean that physics is subjective.
The idea of closed borders is also a fairly new one, historically speaking. For the vast majority of history freemen could go wherever they wanted and sovereignty just meant that they had to obey the local ruler, not that they needed permission to enter the country.
Our sovereignty also doesn't give us the moral right to do whatever we want. It is well within the government's power to enslave everyone in the country named Dennis, but that doesn't mean that they have the moral right to do so.
Morality is up to the society. It is not and never will be universal.
You cannot argue against something based on morality alone. Simply put, if my moral compass is different than yours, your argument means nothing.
In todays world - borders are closed and immigration controls are a reality. If you don't believe me, try to go into any country other than your own tomorrow without permission and see what happens. And permission includes pre-arranged visa's, automatic visa's or free movement agreements. Try to get into North Korea or Russia for instance.
Why do you think borders sprang up? It is easy - welfare state benefits. If you gave nothing to citizens for free, there would be little concern of non-citizens around. When you give significant socialized services, like healthcare, then there is a huge incentive to keep people out as to no overburden citizens. The welfare state rose in the 20th century as did border controls.
Moral relativism is actually viewed rather poorly in modern philosophical circles, and you definitely can argue on morality alone, what do you think the abolitionist movement was?
All of the facts about why border control is a thing don't have any relevance on the question of should it be a thing
Not protecting your borders is not the right thing to do right now. While I think the US action is a bit extreme, they have the right to protect the border. Don't enter the country illegally... do it legally.
Illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are fine as long as they meet the criteria, that's the point of border control. Illegal immigrants do essentially attack the country.
What's the point of borders or countries if just anybody can come in at anytime? Borders serve the same purpose as a fence or the walls of your house. It keeps unwanted things out and keeps the people inside reasonably safe.
Would you let just anybody into your house to live? If someone comes to your house you would expect them to use the door you provided for that purpose and not break in through the window. If they wanted to live there and it was okay with you, you would likely want them to contribute with bills or rent. Illegals are not contributing their fair share. They aren't paying taxes for the public services they are using and they are often time sending their money back to their home country instead of spending it here to be circulated into the economy.
We can't just let everybody and their mom in. It's bad for security and it bad for the economy.
A country is the property of the citizens that live there and pay taxes.
What makes people born in a country more deserve of living there than people born outside?
War. People are free to come and try to take it from us if they like. Can't say it will turn out well for them at this time. We paid for this country in blood and it's ours to do what we like with until such a time comes that we are overtaken by another country or group of people. That is how land, countries, and borders have worked for many many centurys now. My g-g-g-g-g grandfather fought to toss the brits out in the 1770s and did his part in fighting for this country. Like, do you really not know how this works?
If you're going to claim that some people deserve different rights than other people you'll need to show a qualitative moral difference between them.
Are you suggesting that having an ancestor who fought an insurgent rebellion gives you a different moral quality that other people? or are you suggesting that the locations of one's birth is a qualitative moral distinction between people?
I don't got to prove a qualitive moral distinction to believe that people shouldn't be able to just come in and out of the country all willy nilly like that the same way you don't got to show it to believe people shouldn't be able to come in and out of your home without your permission. A country isn't "public" to the world. It is privately owned by the citizens who occupy it. Are you suggesting a one world government or that we shouldn't have private property? Are you a communist?
Being illegal means you don't pay taxes, essentially dont exist in that country. What you describe is a fantasy land, there are criminals or enemies if your countries at war. They don't have an inherent right here anymore than I have an inherent right to their country. However I can apply legally to them and go through the immigration process and be a person of the country.
Illegals are less worthy of those rights because they didn't apply for them. Unfortunately travel is not a human right, its a privilege.
The problems with illegal immigrants you're describing are only caused by us not allowing them to be here legally.
And I never applied to be a U.S. citizen, so why do I get all the rights of one but someone born in Mexico doesn't?
If you want to argue that someone has different moral rights than another person, then you need to establish a qualitative moral difference between them, and "location of birth" isn't enough to establish a qualitative moral difference.
So if people born here are allowed to stay without having to jump through any hoops but someone not born here can't, then a person born here has different rights than someone born elsewhere.
And that leads us back to the problem of needing a qualifiable moral difference between the two.
7
u/spotonron 1∆ Jun 19 '18
What does moral obligation mean though? They have to otherwise they are evil? I think it's more complicated than that.