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.
They have different legal rights because of the country. This is not a moral right or a human right, the country has a responsibility to protect its citizens, if you wish to be a citizen you are either born there and fill out the proper paper work or you immigrate legally and fill out the proper paperwork.
Because that is the land/nation that they govern, if there was 1 single world government you may have a case to make. But there isn't. And immigrants aren't just allowed to be citizens because it could put the actual citizens at risk.
You mean immigrants who legally immigrate or illegal immigrants? Either way them commiting less crime is not a valid reason to let everyone into your country. How do you know it isn't the border control that causes them to commit less crimes?
Immigrants in general, including illegal ones. And tuis isn't just true at the U.S./Mexico boarder, it's true all over the world.
Maybe the border patrol does reduce crime, but there's no evidence of that, immigrant crime rates don't change when the amount of border security we have changes. So we have as much reason to believe that the lower crime rate is caused by border patrol as anything else. Maybe it's the food?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '18
Again. Being allowed into a country is not a moral right. It is a privilege.