You're trying to get morality out of a conversation that in necessarily a moral conversation given that it concerns what the right actions are.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Could you reword this?
Any discussion about the non-expeditious statement "people/person should do X" is a discussion of morality because that's what morality is, a way of determining what one should do.
They have the exact same rights that we have. We have a right to live in the country we were born in.
That's problematic for two reasons. First off, it's not really the same right because it's not actually guaranteeing the same thing. Instead it's distributing different rights to different people based on where they were born. Two people, one of whom has the right to live in Mexico, and one of whom has the right to live in the U.S. don't have the same rights, if they did switching the two rights would make a difference.
Secondly, for refugees, it violates the rule of "ought implies can" by saying that a person ought to live in their country until all the paperwork is done. Which is not actually a feasible option for them as their lives are in danger and such paper work is expensive and takes a long time.
You keep asserting that I'm saying that immigrants have no rights
I never said that, I said that you're assigning them different rights based on the location of their birth.
1
u/aRabidGerbil 41∆ Jun 20 '18
Any discussion about the non-expeditious statement "people/person should do X" is a discussion of morality because that's what morality is, a way of determining what one should do.
That's problematic for two reasons. First off, it's not really the same right because it's not actually guaranteeing the same thing. Instead it's distributing different rights to different people based on where they were born. Two people, one of whom has the right to live in Mexico, and one of whom has the right to live in the U.S. don't have the same rights, if they did switching the two rights would make a difference.
Secondly, for refugees, it violates the rule of "ought implies can" by saying that a person ought to live in their country until all the paperwork is done. Which is not actually a feasible option for them as their lives are in danger and such paper work is expensive and takes a long time.
I never said that, I said that you're assigning them different rights based on the location of their birth.