The Ethics of Migration

[icehorse]

Below is a link to an article that’s critical of a new UN non-binding resolution that - for all intents and purposes - makes migration a human right. This strikes me as a disastrous policy. It got me to asking myself why I had this reaction. (It could be that this thread could also have gone into the philosophy forum.)

== Why Migration Should NOT be considered a Human Right

1 - The math is not sustainable, there are a BILLION impoverished people.
2 - Western society is the best. (see the link to Ibn Warraq below.)
3 - Only the healthy can provide sustained aid. (True at both individual and societal levels.)
4 - All societies have finite abilities to provide aid.

As I’ve thought about why migration should not be a human right, those four premises seem sufficient. But it’s quite likely that I’ve made some logical leaps and done some dot-connecting that’s either wrong or unclear…

UN Member States: Migration Is a Human Right

https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf

The Superiority of Western Values in Eight Minutes | Westminster Institute

 

[WalterTrull]

Migration may well be a human right, So might be fences.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Imagine you have a house and one day you get up and some-one has pitched a tent on your lawn. Would you acknowledge their "rght" to live anywhere they please, or would you have them evicted? Nobody has a "right" to live in my country any more than they have a "right" to live in my garden!

 

[PureX]

This is an issue that is going to have to be faced by humanity in the near future simply because people's ability to migrate in search of a better life is increasing dramatically. On the one hand it's hard to deny that every human should have the right to seek a better life elsewhere. On the other hand, once people have struggle in a place to make a good life for themselves, they should have the right to protect it from interlopers who by their very existence would ruin it.

My personal take on the global wave of immigration is that the people who are running from their homelands to avoid famine, persecution, war, and so on, have a responsibility to themselves and to humanity in general to stay and fight to correct it, rather than running to other countries that have already had to fight the good fight, and have sacrificed much to make their own land livable. I fully understand the impulse to protect one's family by getting them out of harms way, but the sad truth is that instead of creating families and having children when they were living in such a bad situation, those folks should have been fighting to make it a good place for themselves to have families and to live good lives.

I feel the same way about people who live in places where starvation is common. I think they should stop having wars and babies and focus on fixing their food shortage, first. Then they can have their babies when they can feed them, and their wars if they must. And if they can't fix the food problem, they should move somewhere else, permanently.

 

[WalterTrull]

places where starvation is common

Hey, why didn't I think of that? "Hey, you starving people over there! You know who I mean. Just stop it. We won't tolerate starving people! Just stop it! Right now! I mean it! I'm calling somebody."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ah gatestone. Your one stop shop for NWO illuminati conspiracy and casual racism.
Assuming I were to entertain the notion of human rights resolutions to be effective methods of policy formation, which I don't really. (And neither do the UN who said that's not what the resolution was about) Also without pointing out that the resolution in no way suggests lack of vetting, permitting and tracking migrants for security purposes.
1. Migration being a human right does not follow that all impoverished people will leave. That's reductionism, and has never happened barring natural disasters which make an area completely uninhabitable. And even in that case it's extremely unlikely to be billions of people. Rather, a reduction to where resource stabilize to suit the population (such as after the Irish potato famine.) The vast majority of first world nations have naturally declining populations and only see growth with migrant populations, which support many a labor industries.
1(b?). Impirialist blather. What constitutes 'western ideology' as used is neither endemic to nor originating in western civilization and it must over abiguate to not come off as out and out racist. 'I would rather live in Japan than the US or UK.' 'That's because the Japanese listened to the white men. I mean adopted colonialist principals! I mean took on Western ideology! I mean... ****'
2-3. The implication being that people who aren't healthy now will never be or never be able to provide a net gain? Once again, that was certainly a motive for anti Irish discrimination. They saw ships bringing sick and starving poor people as a threat of needing endless aid for no good reason, and declared wholly fabricated limitations on resources.

And to finish off the post, a joke:

<1% global wealth and resources: Knock knock.
>99% global wealth and resources: Who's there?
<1% global wealth and resources: Migrants.
>99% global wealth and resources: Sorry, we have limited resources and you're threatening to overwhelm us. Also you suck byeeeee.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure that the OP reflects a careful reading of the document. From my reading there is nothing that makes migration a human right superseding the rights of nations to enact restrictions and safeguard their borders.

National sovereignty:

The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine
their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction,...

And some of the points themselves:

(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

 

[WalterTrull]

I'm not sure that the OP reflects a careful reading of the document. From my reading there is nothing that makes migration a human right superseding the rights of nations to enact restrictions and safeguard their borders.

National sovereignty:

The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine
their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction,...

And some of the points themselves:

(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

Yeah. Fences.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not sure that the OP reflects a careful reading of the document. From my reading there is nothing that makes migration a human right superseding the rights of nations to enact restrictions and safeguard their borders.

National sovereignty:

The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine
their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction,...

And some of the points themselves:

(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

The UN resolution is inconsistent. On the one hand we can cherry pick ideas that sound good. The article cherry picks ideas that don't sound so good or can be twisted to unfortunate ends.

 

[sun rise]

The UN resolution is inconsistent. On the one hand we can cherry pick ideas that sound good. The article cherry picks ideas that don't sound so good or can be twisted to unfortunate ends.

What you read as inconsistent I read as an attempt to balance conflicting ideas. Part of that document was about improving conditions in home countries to reduce the problem, treating those who want to immigrate fairly and humanely, acknowledging that sometimes there are disasters both natural and man-made which cause refugees as well as preserving national rights.

Balancing all of this in one document is hard. I thought they wrote a decent but not perfect document.

 

[icehorse]

A - Ah gatestone. Your one stop shop for NWO illuminati conspiracy and casual racism.

B - Assuming I were to entertain the notion of human rights resolutions to be effective methods of policy formation, which I don't really. (And neither do the UN who said that's not what the resolution was about) Also without pointing out that the resolution in no way suggests lack of vetting, permitting and tracking migrants for security purposes.

1. Migration being a human right does not follow that all impoverished people will leave. That's reductionism, and has never happened barring natural disasters which make an area completely uninhabitable. And even in that case it's extremely unlikely to be billions of people. Rather, a reduction to where resource stabilize to suit the population (such as after the Irish potato famine.) The vast majority of first world nations have naturally declining populations and only see growth with migrant populations, which support many a labor industries.

1(b?). Impirialist blather. What constitutes 'western ideology' as used is neither endemic to nor originating in western civilization and it must over abiguate to not come off as out and out racist. 'I would rather live in Japan than the US or UK.' 'That's because the Japanese listened to the white men. I mean adopted colonialist principals! I mean took on Western ideology! I mean... ****'

2-3. The implication being that people who aren't healthy now will never be or never be able to provide a net gain? Once again, that was certainly a motive for anti Irish discrimination. They saw ships bringing sick and starving poor people as a threat of needing endless aid for no good reason, and declared wholly fabricated limitations on resources.

4 - And to finish off the post, a joke:

<1% global wealth and resources: Knock knock.
>99% global wealth and resources: Who's there?
<1% global wealth and resources: Migrants.
>99% global wealth and resources: Sorry, we have limited resources and you're threatening to overwhelm us. Also you suck byeeeee.

Hey @ADigitalArtist ! (I reformatted your post so as to address your points)

A - As always, the claims in the article should stand or fall on their own merit, correct?
B - The resolution is about an ethical stance. I'm questioning the ethics.

1 - Your argument is a false dilemma and also ignores my points. In order to provide aid in the long run, the aid providers must remain healthy. Europe has already seen millions of migrants in the last several decades and their ability to absorb these migrants and remain healthy is showing signs stress.

1b - Not sure what you're referring to here? The Warraq article?

2-3 Not the implication at all. I'm all for providing aid. If I was in charge I'd slash military budgets by 80-90% and I'd increase aid initiatives as far as possible... 10 fold, 50 fold, 100 fold, whatever the math can sustainably support.

What I gather from your 2-3 is that you think immigration and migration are rights? They never have been before. Traditionally, countries have had immigration policies designed to enrich the host countries.

And if your goal is to help as many people as possible, if your goal is true compassion, then you should support providing aid "in place" for 100 times as many people as host countries can absorb. For every 10,000 Syrian refugees the west can absorb, we could feed maybe 500,000 starving children in Yemen.

As for your joke - you should know by now that I'm no fan of the oligarchy. It's perhaps our most pressing problem, as it makes solving all of our other problems much, much more difficult.

 

[Notanumber]

What is the difference between the UN, the EU and Common Purpose?

They are all in it together!

An informational update –

 

[icehorse]

What you read as inconsistent I read as an attempt to balance conflicting ideas. Part of that document was about improving conditions in home countries to reduce the problem, treating those who want to immigrate fairly and humanely, acknowledging that sometimes there are disasters both natural and man-made which cause refugees as well as preserving national rights.

Balancing all of this in one document is hard. I thought they wrote a decent but not perfect document.

I wish I trusted the motives of the UN. I fear that many in the UN are in pursuit of short-sighted, unsustainable, and naive multiculturalist goals. This imperfect document could make such dubious goals a bit easier to achieve.

 

[WalterTrull]

in pursuit of short-sighted, unsustainable, and naive multiculturalist goals.

Yeah, I used to be like that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A - As always, the claims in the article should stand or fall on their own merit, correct?

I addressed the article too. But biases are not irrelevant and the article is clearly misrepresenting the resolution in ways already touched on.

B - The resolution is about an ethical stance. I'm questioning the ethics

I'm questioning the framing of the question. (A sentence describing philosophy in a nutshell if there ever was.)

Europe has already seen millions of migrants in the last several decades and their ability to absorb these migrants and remain healthy is showing signs stress

From my perspective the stress is growing based on rising tribalistic views rather than 'the math' of resource production. Migrant numbers also wouldn't be nearly as concentrated in the UK if other countries with ample resource weren't currently so entrenched in aforementionined tribalism. (With a heavy emphasis on xenophobia in the US' case.)

Not sure what you're referring to here? The Warraq article?

The notion of Western superiority.

Not the implication at all. I'm all for providing aid. If I was in charge I'd slash military budgets by 80-90% and I'd increase aid initiatives as far as possible... 10 fold, 50 fold, 100 fold, whatever the math can sustainably support

I would too. But I also make it illegal to bar migrants from a specific religion or country, would make path to citizenship much more affordable and take less than several years, and use part of that aid money for assisting the naturalization process and assisting with things like language and tax education. And I would highly restructure ICE.
But that's a topic for another non-clinic-shift day.

 

[icehorse]

I addressed the article too. But biases are not irrelevant and the article is clearly misrepresenting the resolution in ways already touched on.

see my post #13.

I'm questioning the framing of the question. (A sentence describing philosophy in a nutshell if there ever was.)

When you have time, I'd like to understand your point here.

From my perspective the stress is growing based on rising tribalistic views rather than 'the math' of resource production. Migrant numbers also wouldn't be nearly as concentrated in the UK if other countries with ample resource weren't currently so entrenched in aforementionined tribalism. (With a heavy emphasis on xenophobia in the US' case.)

Hmmm. (Again, when you have more time.) If you're saying that the migrants coming to Europe could be coming to the US instead, then we're back to the math. It's REALLY expensive to fly someone from Africa to the US. That money could - once again - feed hundreds of starving children.

The notion of Western superiority.

I'm curious to hear what you think - specifically - the Warraq's article?