NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's not make this a "Muslims suck" thread, shall we?

Where do you think the right to vote on immigration comes from? The act of immigration includes some of the following: physically moving to a country, doing some form of business with someone there, paying taxes, sending kids to school and so on and so forth.

All of these are essentially relationships with individuals (with the exception of tax, I guess). I move somewhere, I rent or buy accommodation from someone. The same is true for buying food, working somewhere and so on.

Now, it should be quite possible for someone not to rent or sell something to someone for whatever reason. There are rules that require reasons to meet certain criteria, and the merits of these could be debated at length, but let's take it as a given that you can largely choose the people you actually have relations (:p) with.

So if someone doesn't like immigrants, that person would be quite capable of not engaging with immigrants. However, there is a level beyond this, which is the ability to vote for government policies that actually make it impossible for someone to immigrate, even if enough people would have been happy to live with this immigrant and trade with him or her.

Where does the government get its mandate for this from (and let's try something more substantial than "that's the way it is", "that's what the law says" or "because they've got guns")? Why should the electorate as a whole be involved in this? If I would never talk to, do business with or willingly look at an immigrant - but I go beyond that and physically stop them from being in the same country as me, am I imposing a right not to be offended by their mere presence?

Perhaps this applies more generally: why should I have a say on an issue that couldn't possibly impact me in any meaningful way? Why should my vote be equal on this matter to one from someone on whom it does impact?

However, there is a level beyond this, which is the ability to vote for government policies that actually make it impossible for someone to immigrate, even if enough people would have been happy to live with this immigrant and trade with him or her.

Where does the government get its mandate for this from (and let's try something more substantial than "that's the way it is", "that's what the law says" or "because they've got guns")?

well, that's a straight up violation of essential freedoms, so it doesn't have such a mandate (though all these states like to pretend they do). but for the question of how we ought actually manage the running of our open borders, that is inherently a political question for a society as a whole - there isn't a better level to address the question at, short of having essentially infinite variance in such management.

Perhaps this applies more generally: why should I have a say on an issue that couldn't possibly impact me in any meaningful way? Why should my vote be equal on this matter to one from someone on whom it does impact?

define 'meaningful'

Not really sure what to make of your post or even sure of what you're trying to ask. I'll take it a bit further than even you (although probably not along the line you intended) and ask what basis is there even for a concept such as 'immigration'. The word basically means the act of not migrating. It's a concept that's based on exclusion of others. It's an extension of the concept of borders, political division of humanity. Borders are imaginary lines drawn for political reasons that promote or even create the differences between one group of people and another. Now at this late stage of human development it might be impractical to instantly disolve those political divisions but we can make them more transparent and less, well, divisive. What right does any group of humans have to resrict another from freely moving about our common planet in search of a place to simply exist and thrive. "you're different and we don't want your kind around here", "this is our place you're not wanted", "we were here first", those type of childish, selfish arguements have no place in an enlightened world. We should by this stage our evolution be able to get beyond our differences and see the commonality in one another and at least co-exist peacefully. Don't confuse the arguement with talk of terrorism or violence. Were talking about immigration here, which is simply someone wanting to change the place they live. What right really does anyone have to restrict that? It's only an issue because of the imaginary lines we have drawn between where they lived in the past or were born and where they want to build a life now.

I'm not sure about what you're asking...

Why we have democracy and get to vote on issues not directly impacting us? :confused:

That assumes that we have a right to vote in the first place, which frankly we do not. As to when immigration should occur, this should be at the sole discretion of the property owner who the immigrant moves onto, subject to whatever covenants the property owner is under.

So we can assume property rights, but not suffrage?

define 'meaningful'
As in changing my material conditions/physical wellbeing, either actually or potentially.

I basically used it as a qualifier to exclude the rather flimsy relationship I have with someone because I see them on the streets or hear their language on the bus. I know that sort of thing offends some people, but as they say, there is no right not to be offended.

I'm not sure about what you're asking...
I'm asking why immigration is considered to be in the public domain. It doesn't need to be, I don't see the justification for it. Everyone can control for themselves the exposure they get to other people including immigrants, so why do we need democratic decision-making here? Democracy is used to decide on issues that individuals can't decide upon (or rather, put their decisions into practice) - but this just isn't one of those.

Why we have democracy and get to vote on issues not directly impacting us? :confused:
I understand the former - the latter is a question worth asking.

So we can assume property rights, but not suffrage?
There are limits to suffrage. Lots of things are considered outside the public domain or not up for public debate and we don't get to vote on them. The question is what is so different about immigration as opposed to, say, moving within a country.

Are you presuming a libertarian state here?

Are you presuming a libertarian state here?
No.

But if you're going to talk about the welfare state and the like, then that argument doesn't work either. We don't get to vote on whether or not poor people should have children (who are arguably more likely to grow up being poor and taking welfare money), or on how long old people should live and so on.

Why should my vote be equal on this matter to one from someone on whom it does impact?
The "right to self definition" requires the ability to reject people who do not fit the definition your group chooses. If you deny this, the notion of the nation state itself falls down.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

Potential immigrants and known terrorist organizations should vote on immigration rights. This right comes from their opposing bias on the issue of immigration. More bias is good bias.

I'm asking why immigration is considered to be in the public domain. It doesn't need to be, I don't see the justification for it. Everyone can control for themselves the exposure they get to other people including immigrants, so why do we need democratic decision-making here? Democracy is used to decide on issues that individuals can't decide upon (or rather, put their decisions into practice) - but this just isn't one of those.

I would say because immigration has an indirect impact on peoples lives beyond just having to deal with them on a daily basis. It's about how resources are used - from asylum camps to language education, to the cost of measures to ensure integration and to the cost of the criminal immigrants. Immigration has a huge impact on society - for better and for worse - so it's only natural that the citizenry have their say about it through elections.

After all, it's the politicians that decide how immigration will happen and how much immigration there will be.

The "right to self definition" requires the ability to reject people who do not fit the definition your group chooses. If you deny this, the notion of the nation state itself falls down.
Where did that right come from, all of a sudden? First time I've heard about it.

More importantly, how is "self-definition" a thing that needs to be done with collective decision making?

Potential immigrants and known terrorist organizations should vote on immigration rights. This right comes from their opposing bias on the issue of immigration. More bias is good bias.
Every opinion is bias. It's sorta in the definition.

But some people's opinion is more important, given they are actually affected by the change. Does that mean they are more "biased"? In all likelihood, yes.

With regards to immigration though, I don't see how a democratic decision is needed at all, regardless of who votes. The reason is that we can vote with our feet and our dollars, expressing our own opinion and actually implementing it without requiring collective decisions in the process. Whenever this is the case, I don't see the argument for getting government/democracy involved.

I would say because immigration has an indirect impact on peoples lives beyond just having to deal with them on a daily basis. It's about how resources are used - from asylum camps to language education, to the cost of measures to ensure integration and to the cost of the criminal immigrants. Immigration has a huge impact on society - for better and for worse - so it's only natural that the citizenry have their say about it through elections.
I don't think any arguments dealing with criminal/poor/extremist immigrants are really all that valid, since there are plenty of criminal, poor and extremist natives around. We don't get to vote on their presence.

A more valid issue you mention is various government services designed to make immigration easier (ie shelter, education etc). But are these costs really large enough to "buy" such a powerful say in whether or not immigrant X can come into the country? It's likely that X has already paid more in one way or another than you have through the fraction of your taxes that would go to services for X (indeed, it's likely to be larger than anything you paid for all immigration).

As for asylum - strictly speaking, that's not meant to be up to the electorate at all. There are UN rules on that sort of thing which stem from an acceptance of a moral obligation to help people in need. Either way, the proportion of asylum seekers out of the total flow of migration across the world is probably quite small. It just usually gets bigger headlines because most asylum seekers, being extremely poor, uneducated and not having planned to end up in another country, find it a lot harder to fit in, and often don't make the effort. That means they stand out a lot more than the African man from the same country who came over on a regular visa and is doing is best to get used to life in his new home.

After all, it's the politicians that decide how immigration will happen and how much immigration there will be.
Yeah, but that's an "that's just how it is"-argument. I'm looking for a reason why this should be the case. If I want to move to the US tomorrow, then this is really the business of my new landlord, my new employer and a select group of people that I'm likely to spend time or money with. If I wanted move to Houston, why does someone in New York have to vote on whether I should be allowed to do so? If I moved to the southern part of Houston, why should someone from the northern part vote on it? You can keep reducing it until you get a small group of people - and they're already "voting" through the way they interact with me.

Muslims SUCK!!!!

*runs*

I would say because immigration has an indirect impact on peoples lives beyond just having to deal with them on a daily basis. It's about how resources are used - from asylum camps to language education, to the cost of measures to ensure integration and to the cost of the criminal immigrants. Immigration has a huge impact on society - for better and for worse - so it's only natural that the citizenry have their say about it through elections.

After all, it's the politicians that decide how immigration will happen and how much immigration there will be.

The annual Government Budget has a far more direct impact on your life than anything else, especially when it comes to levying taxes.

Now if we put that to a democratic vote what do you think the tax revenues of next year will be?

Quite a lot of questions there and a bit hashish, but I think you are asking why should we be allowed to vote on immigration when it doesn't affect us?

The fact of the matter is, is that immigration does affect all of us and thus we can vote on the party that is best inline with our ideals.

Where do you think the right to vote on immigration comes from?


The simple fact that collective action increases the chances of effective protection of each individual's rights of privacy or association.

There are all kinds of excellent reasons to exclude certain individuals from entry into one's country (lets set aside, at least for the moment, the fact that governments can and regularly do abuse their powers in this arena to racist, nationalist, and other inhumane ends). First and foremost, one probably wants to exclude those who pose more extreme contagious disease risk, until the danger is cured or no longer contagious. This would include animal and agricultural risks as well. One probably also wants to exclude known criminals or fugitives (especially the occasional war criminal who takes refuge in friendly states). These are the primary reasons I would consider legitimate for limiting immigration, although there might be others. The regulation of immigration if a function belonging to the departments of agriculture and health and human services, not to "homeland security" or whatever other Orwellian nightmare.

Of course, a private individual can very well regulate who is allowed on his or her property. A problem arises, however, when two private individuals on adjacent properties have differing policies. Depending on the nature of specific cases, one may produce externalities that affect the other; my neighbor's unsavory friends damage part of my property, or some livestock I acquire turn out to be sick and the disease spreads to my neighbor's livestock.

Naturally, my neighbor and I have an interest in cooperation in order to prevent harming each other in this fashion. Similarly, a small community or village of people share an interest in cooperation. Many, especially "Libertarians," fall back on tort as a solution, but it seems to me that spending all my time in court suing and being constantly sued is an unimaginably huge waste of time and money. Striving to prevent these problems from the start via collective cooperation would be a far better thing to do. Thus gated/private communities, neighborhood associations, community watches, even simple cliques of friends. All mechanisms for regulating the terms of association, or "immigration" if you will.

This need for cooperation, coordination, and regulation thus extends all the way up to the highest level of a particular society. The vast majority of human societies at the present time happen to be states, thus states play a significant role in the regulation of association. Again, injustices, inefficiencies, and other serious problems are extremely common in the regulation of immigration at the state level. As the group becomes extremely large, individual members become increasingly alienated from the whole. Thus, inefficiencies and injustices are probably inevitable and an excellent case is made for decentralization.

But the basic need for cooperation and coordination in ensuring the meaningful and effective assertion of privacy, self-defense (against crime, military aggression, human or other disease, etc.), and right of association ought to be obvious. Each member of such a cooperative group has a stake in this process, and thus a right to a share of control. As such, democratic organization is called for.

The fact of the matter is, is that immigration does affect all of us and thus we can vote on the party that is best inline with our ideals.
That's a statement. Where's the support?

The simple fact that collective action increases the chances of effective protection of each individual's rights of privacy or association.
But this doesn't include the immigrant and even with regards to natives, I'm not sure your statement holds water.

...These are the primary reasons I would consider legitimate for limiting immigration, although there might be others.
So would you support similar measures for people born in the country?

Fact of the matter is that deporting everyone with a contagious disease or a criminal record is not considered acceptable. So there is something specifically about an immigrant which makes it okay in this case - what is it?

As for fugitives...well, ultimately whether someone is a fugitive because of a crime committed here, or somewhere else, should make little difference to how they're treated.

...Naturally, my neighbor and I have an interest in cooperation in order to prevent harming each other in this fashion. Similarly, a small community or village of people share an interest in cooperation.
You're building up from a micro-situation to make a macro-argument. The question is then why doesn't the argument apply in that micro-situation? If a new neighbour moves in next door, I don't get asked and the community doesn't vote on it, even though the potential disagreements and externalities are in all likelihood not only greater, but also more noticable than in the case of someone from Ghana moving to Perth, with us never meeting each other all our lives.

Many, especially "Libertarians," fall back on tort as a solution, but it seems to me that spending all my time in court suing and being constantly sued is an unimaginably huge waste of time and money. Striving to prevent these problems from the start via collective cooperation would be a far better thing to do.
That same argument could apply to lots of other situations. In many cases however we think that a right to disagree is a given, making court judgements necessary. We don't try to prevent all disagreement no matter what the cost, and we certainly don't do it for people who are moving within a country.

Thus gated/private communities, neighborhood associations, community watches, even simple cliques of friends. All mechanisms for regulating the terms of association, or "immigration" if you will.

This need for cooperation, coordination, and regulation thus extends all the way up to the highest level of a particular society.
In its current form, that's a non sequitur, really. Where is the jump between clique of friends to national government? The externalities caused by the immigrant don't change because the society gets bigger, nor do they apply to more people. If I play loud foreign music, then that's my neighbour's business, regardless of whether we live in a nation of millions or there's just the two of us. So why now do millions get a say as well as the person that I might actually associate with on some level?

But the basic need for cooperation and coordination in ensuring the meaningful and effective assertion of privacy, self-defense (against crime, military aggression, human or other disease, etc.), and right of association ought to be obvious.
Not at all. Either this need exists, in which case it applies to everyone regardless of their location or where they were born, or it doesn't. In neither case can we tell why someone from 200m north of the border can move freely throughout the US, while someone from 200m south has to climb over a fence and face the threat of being jailed, sent back or even shot at. And even if we could tell, it's not at all clear why Mrs X from Seattle should be taking part in making these rules.

Each member of such a cooperative group has a stake in this process, and thus a right to a share of control. As such, democratic organization is called for.
I'm not convinced that I do have a stake in who enters this country. My neighbourhood, yes. My workplace, yes. But all of Australia? I don't see what changes for me whether that Ghanaian dude lives in Perth or not.

well i don't think it has anything to do with any belief or ethnicity or anything like any of that. its really just politics and wedge issues, and really, there's NO moral justification to closing any border to any unarmed civilian at any time under any circumstances. not at any point, not in any direction. ever. period.

and to close a nation's borders and then try to call it a free country, is just plain bald faced lying.

=^^=
.../\...

But this doesn't include the immigrant and even with regards to natives, I'm not sure your statement holds water.


It doesn't have to include the immigrant as an equal. The immigrant is the one applying for admission to the community. The actual decision belong to the community, not the applicant.

Otherwise, I could, for instance, just walk into any place of employment, declare myself a hired employee, and write my own paycheck. My job search would be over, but I'd have stepped all over all kinds of people's toes.


So would you support similar measures for people born in the country?


We do isolate the dangerously ill and imprison the duly convicted, do we not?


Fact of the matter is that deporting everyone with a contagious disease or a criminal record is not considered acceptable.


Right, because that would be horrifyingly unjust and unnecessary. I would assume that only the very most serious crimes would justify denying immigration (I used the example of a war criminal for a reason...). Likewise for contagious disease; I didn't say "people with only a cold can still enter the country" because I figured something so simple was plainly obvious. I would even be perfectly happy to grant access to the dangerously ill seeking treatment so long as the authority regulating immigration ensures that proper safety measures are adhered to.

There is more to regulating immigration than simply "Granted"/"Denied" decisions. Given all I have said, my ideal border would still be essentially open.


So there is something specifically about an immigrant which makes it okay in this case - what is it?


It's the same something that grants the individual the right to deny others access to his or her property. "Immigration" occurs when a group of individuals coordinate this activity among themselves.


You're building up from a micro-situation to make a macro-argument.


I'm simply noting how the same essential concern and activity manifests itself at different levels.


If a new neighbour moves in next door, I don't get asked and the community doesn't vote on it...


Communities can and do self-regulate. I've already given examples. Granted, one's ability to actually evict a neighbor from a community is probably highly limited (and rightfully so; the exercise of any coercive power should be subject to limitations for obvious reasons), but it's hardly impossible.


We don't try to prevent all disagreement no matter what the cost, and we certainly don't do it for people who are moving within a country.


Obviously. I would certainly agree that the vast majority of reasons people have come up with for limiting immigration are complete nonsense.


Where is the jump between clique of friends to national government?


I don't mean to imply a causal "jump." I mean only to observe that the same basic behavior or aim, the regulation of one's associations, manifests itself in various ways from the single individual all the way up to national governments. The specifics of each are very different in many ways, but all are united by the essential and necessary implications of freedom of association.


The externalities caused by the immigrant don't change because the society gets bigger, nor do they apply to more people.


You misunderstand. I mean that the problems one rightfully cites in criticizing the regulation of immigration are largely caused by the fact that the group of people we are dealing with is too big. I simply believe that reduction in the size of the effective political community ("decentralization") would actually reduce the amount of regulation necessary while making the remaining regulation more effective. But one cannot reduce it all the way down to individual property owners, as the problem of externalities becomes to great at that level.


So why now do millions get a say as well as the person that I might actually associate with on some level?


Because there are, in fact, dangers and concerns that can affect a group of millions of people, and they need to be addressed. No, loud music doesn't affect millions of people. Crime, military, and health threats can and do.

Again, I would personally prefer to reduce the size of political communities greatly in order to make efforts to defend against legitimate threats far more effective and just. But, for the moment, we've got what we've got (I know you didn't want this kind of answer. But that's life. Deal. :D )



...while someone from 200m south has to climb over a fence and face the threat of being jailed, sent back or even shot at.


I don't understand why anyone has to do this either. I find such a situation incredibly unjust and inhumane. But I don't subscribe to your false dichotomy, so I know that recognizing the need for regulating immigration doesn't require that I support implementing such draconian measures. What you describe is the product of patently flawed (and racist) policy designed to stop immigration. This has nothing to do with regulation.


And even if we could tell, it's not at all clear why Mrs X from Seattle should be taking part in making these rules.


Because the sorts of potential problems that justify regulating immigration spread quickly. Especially in a highly developed country where people, agricultural goods, and other products can be rapidly transported from the border to Seattle.


I'm not convinced that I do have a stake in who enters this country. My neighbourhood, yes. My workplace, yes. But all of Australia? I don't see what changes for me whether that Ghanaian dude lives in Perth or not.


For centuries, explorers, conquerors, and travelers have been introducing their diseases, non-native species, and other real and potential problems into other lands, very often to the direct harm or demise of the indigenous people living there. The specific nationality, ethnicity, culture, origin, or destination of the traveler is entirely irrelevant. What is of concern is what they, whoever or whatever they are, bring with them.

I don't think any arguments dealing with criminal/poor/extremist immigrants are really all that valid, since there are plenty of criminal, poor and extremist natives around. We don't get to vote on their presence.

I agree that it shouldn't be valid, but it has, unfortunately, become valid in the cost/benefit analysis of immigration, due to the fact that (in the western world) immigrants are disproportionately represented in criminal statistics.

A more valid issue you mention is various government services designed to make immigration easier (ie shelter, education etc). But are these costs really large enough to "buy" such a powerful say in whether or not immigrant X can come into the country? It's likely that X has already paid more in one way or another than you have through the fraction of your taxes that would go to services for X (indeed, it's likely to be larger than anything you paid for all immigration).
Well, yes. The cost per immigrant accumulates, and it's not certain that the immigrant will cover the cost that he or she incurs on the society - especially considering that it won't just be him or her, but also their families that will come.

Immigration has a deep economic impact on a society, for better or worse, so it's only right that the citizenry get to voice their opinions through a general election.

As for asylum - strictly speaking, that's not meant to be up to the electorate at all. There are UN rules on that sort of thing which stem from an acceptance of a moral obligation to help people in need. Either way, the proportion of asylum seekers out of the total flow of migration across the world is probably quite small. It just usually gets bigger headlines because most asylum seekers, being extremely poor, uneducated and not having planned to end up in another country, find it a lot harder to fit in, and often don't make the effort. That means they stand out a lot more than the African man from the same country who came over on a regular visa and is doing is best to get used to life in his new home.
Well, a couple of things:

Many countries have supplementary rules, meaning that people who don't qualify for asylum may get a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The number of such permits given each year is something the voters may want to influence - especially since it seems like it has an effect on the flow of asylum seekers. (The more liberal rules, the more asylum seekers show up.)

Asylum seekers and refugees are costly for the society, and the flow of refugees can be manipulated through changes in policy.

Secondly, many try to abuse the asylum system due to the extra rights it grants. Should such people be allowed to just stay on afterwards, or should they be expelled? Also a question of policy which have a lot of strong opinions for and against.

Thirdly, many of the asylum seekers come from countries which would make them ineligible to even get a work visas and the likes from the host country, so it can be difficult to compare the two as you did above.


Yeah, but that's an "that's just how it is"-argument. I'm looking for a reason why this should be the case. If I want to move to the US tomorrow, then this is really the business of my new landlord, my new employer and a select group of people that I'm likely to spend time or money with. If I wanted move to Houston, why does someone in New York have to vote on whether I should be allowed to do so? If I moved to the southern part of Houston, why should someone from the northern part vote on it? You can keep reducing it until you get a small group of people - and they're already "voting" through the way they interact with me.
Because, like all politics, it's about the principles and the general policy. If you want to turn it around - Why should someone in New York have to pay through their taxes to make sure that you actually do arrive at the employer that you've said you wanted to work for, and live where you've said you wanted to live? And when you want to bring your family over? A family that lives on welfare and thus costs the New Yorker even more? There's more than enough examples of people abusing the system just to get into the country - for an infinite number of reasons.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any reason to restrict immigration. Alas, the world isn't perfect. And as any abuse, misuse or even regular use will have wider repercussions, it is a matter for the general public to have an influence over.

The annual Government Budget has a far more direct impact on your life than anything else, especially when it comes to levying taxes.

Now if we put that to a democratic vote what do you think the tax revenues of next year will be?

I don't know about you, but that's something I do vote on. Every four years.

I don't know about you, but that's something I do vote on. Every four years.

You vote for your Government's annual budget every four years? :confused:

There should be a poll...

But, I dont have a problem with Immigration, as long as its done right...

They should learn English, all the other immigrants do it, we have more asians here than anything besides white and black, and they learned English...

But, really, it comes down to making sure theyre being paid fair wages, Most come over here illegally so they can get a job, which is fine, except for the fact that theyre being paid well below Minimum wage, which causes wages in general to go down, What i like to call 'Wage Slavery'...

The politiciansll lie to you, saying that theyll take jobs Americans wont take, bull shit...

They take PAY Americans CANT take, because you cant live on the pay those guys take...You can if you live in a one bedroom apartment, with 8 people, but thats not how the majority of Legal Citizens live....

But, if you enforce the Wage laws and put strict penalties on businesses that hire Illegals and Pay Illegal wages, then all the sudden itll be about who can do the job the best, not wholl take the lowest pay...and there will be no advantage to hiring Illegals, ending the Enslavement of Immigrants in this Country...

There are limits to suffrage. Lots of things are considered outside the public domain or not up for public debate and we don't get to vote on them. The question is what is so different about immigration as opposed to, say, moving within a country.There are limits to private property too. In fact you cannot build whatever you wish on your private property - first of all you will need planning permission from the local authorities.

The main problem with migration is that the state is territorial entity. Even moving within a country isn't simple. The state has various bits of bureaucracy in place to keep tabs on its citizens. This way it can attempt to plan for the future. Free immigration mixes a degree of uncertainty into the situation that the state doesn't like. It's interesting to note that some countries in the EU are suffering from the effects of free immigration. Most notably Poland which is suffering from a lack of skilled labour as people emigrate.

That said I would prefer a world with free migration. Partly because I think it's unfair to have free movement of capital, but not labour. Such a system unfairly advantages those with capital. Still the sudden introduction of free migration in such a distorted world would cause many problems.

Let's not make this a "Muslims suck" thread, shall we?

Where do you think the right to vote on immigration comes from? The act of immigration includes some of the following: physically moving to a country, doing some form of business with someone there, paying taxes, sending kids to school and so on and so forth.

All of these are essentially relationships with individuals (with the exception of tax, I guess). I move somewhere, I rent or buy accommodation from someone. The same is true for buying food, working somewhere and so on.

Now, it should be quite possible for someone not to rent or sell something to someone for whatever reason. There are rules that require reasons to meet certain criteria, and the merits of these could be debated at length, but let's take it as a given that you can largely choose the people you actually have relations (:p) with.

So if someone doesn't like immigrants, that person would be quite capable of not engaging with immigrants. However, there is a level beyond this, which is the ability to vote for government policies that actually make it impossible for someone to immigrate, even if enough people would have been happy to live with this immigrant and trade with him or her.

Where does the government get its mandate for this from (and let's try something more substantial than "that's the way it is", "that's what the law says" or "because they've got guns")? Why should the electorate as a whole be involved in this? If I would never talk to, do business with or willingly look at an immigrant - but I go beyond that and physically stop them from being in the same country as me, am I imposing a right not to be offended by their mere presence?

Perhaps this applies more generally: why should I have a say on an issue that couldn't possibly impact me in any meaningful way? Why should my vote be equal on this matter to one from someone on whom it does impact?

How do immigration policies not affect you in any way? If you all of a sudden let your population triple in three years would not the country be more crowded? Would not there be environmental problems?

You vote for your Government's annual budget every four years? :confused:

No, I vote on tax policies which then leads to the annual budget. Just like how I vote on the general policy on immigration, which leads to the rules regulating whether or not an immigrant can migrate into the country.

No, I vote on tax policies which then leads to the annual budget. Just like how I vote on the general policy on immigration, which leads to the rules regulating whether or not an immigrant can migrate into the country.

You live in Switzerland or something? You vote on issues rather than leaders?

Question:

I know that a property owner cannot discriminate in the US when it comes to renting property.

That is, if a particular minority is despised by the property owner, they have to rent the property to that minority if they have the money and are creditworthy.

You can establish conditions on the rental, but they cannot include race, gender, religious belief, etc.

So my question is, can you discriminate on the basis of immigration status? Or are you ok as long as you ask each and every prospective renter for their proof of citizenship/immigration status? With the idea of not renting to illegal immigrants?

Question:

I know that a property owner cannot discriminate in the US when it comes to renting property.

That is, if a particular minority is despised by the property owner, they have to rent the property to that minority if they have the money and are creditworthy.

You can establish conditions on the rental, but they cannot include race, gender, religious belief, etc.

So my question is, can you discriminate on the basis of immigration status? Or are you ok as long as you ask each and every prospective renter for their proof of citizenship/immigration status? With the idea of not renting to illegal immigrants?
Interesting question, despite the intentions behind it, DK.

I don't know about the US, so I'll tackle it from the Canadian perspective. Most grounds for protection from discrimination are 'inherent' traits, things that can't be changed, or shouldn't be required to be changed (political belief, religion). It's been argued that citizenship is not an inherent trait...as you can apply to get it. In our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is specific allowance for discrimination based on non-citizenship in s.6, which are mobility rights...you do not have the unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada without citizenship. S.15 equality rights also do not generally apply to citizenship status...it's only once been successfully argued as an analogous ground in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, and that case was very narrowly confined to the facts.

Provincial humans rights legislation (dealing with the actions of private individuals such as landlords) is modelled on the Charter, and unless there is specifically a provision protection non-citizens, it is unlikely in the extreme that someone could successfully appeal a landlords refusal to rent to an irregular migrant.

If someone had a work visa, or some other valid right to be in Canada, however...I'm unconvinced a landlord could discriminate on those grounds...but I don't know of any situations where it's been challenged. Generally 'income' is used to weed out the undesireables.

Question:

I know that a property owner cannot discriminate in the US when it comes to renting property.

That is, if a particular minority is despised by the property owner, they have to rent the property to that minority if they have the money and are creditworthy.

You can establish conditions on the rental, but they cannot include race, gender, religious belief, etc.

So my question is, can you discriminate on the basis of immigration status? Or are you ok as long as you ask each and every prospective renter for their proof of citizenship/immigration status? With the idea of not renting to illegal immigrants?

I don't think so, since the discrimination laws include national origin as a protected class.

Interesting question, despite the intentions behind it, DK.

I don't know about the US, so I'll tackle it from the Canadian perspective. Most grounds for protection from discrimination are 'inherent' traits, things that can't be changed, or shouldn't be required to be changed (political belief, religion). It's been argued that citizenship is not an inherent trait...as you can apply to get it. In our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is specific allowance for discrimination based on non-citizenship in s.6, which are mobility rights...you do not have the unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada without citizenship. S.15 equality rights also do not generally apply to citizenship status...it's only once been successfully argued as an analogous ground in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, and that case was very narrowly confined to the facts.

Provincial humans rights legislation (dealing with the actions of private individuals such as landlords) is modelled on the Charter, and unless there is specifically a provision protection non-citizens, it is unlikely in the extreme that someone could successfully appeal a landlords refusal to rent to an irregular migrant.

If someone had a work visa, or some other valid right to be in Canada, however...I'm unconvinced a landlord could discriminate on those grounds...but I don't know of any situations where it's been challenged. Generally 'income' is used to weed out the undesireables.

Here in the US, it is legal to discriminate in housing against illegal immigrants.

In the town where I live, it's against the law to rent to an illegal immigrant.

Here in the US, it is legal to discriminate in housing against illegal immigrants.

In the town where I live, it's against the law to rent to an illegal immigrant.

Since an irregular migrant has no legal status in the country, I don't see how refusing to rent to one would trigger human rights legislation. The exception, I would think, would be if the irregular migrant is in the process of a refugee or other application.

You live in Switzerland or something? You vote on issues rather than leaders?

No, I'm not Swiss.

And don't you vote on issues? I couldn't care less about the leaders, I care about their politics.

irregular migrant
Oh you politically correct person you! :p

The exception, I would think, would be if the irregular migrant is in the process of a refugee or other application.
I don't think they would be classified as irregular migrants. Well, those applying for asylum wouldn't, I don't think - and their stay is usually (always, after the convention? I'm not 100% sure but I think so) deemed legal while their application is being processed.