>I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present
I'm sympathetic to this view. But ultimately legal residence doesn't rise to the level of citizenship and will always be 'second class' and subject to changing political winds. A nation should act with the interest of citizens. If allowing non-citizen residents is no longer in service to the interest of citizens, then that's too bad.
But aside from that, the view that once you are physically present in a country you can't be made to leave is dangerous in its own right. This strongly incentivizes closing any and all avenues to asylum or temporary residence due to hardship. If morality dictates there is no such thing as temporary residence, then there just will be no refuge given to the next wave of war refugees. Incentives matter, and your view creates some very unfortunate incentives.
>The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages
This is where ideals clash with reality. If it's not possible to determine views/culture until the person has demonstrated incompatibility (e.g. committing some crime), this burden is now on the existing citizens to absorb some increased level of crime for the sake of the immigrants. I don't recognize this as a legitimate moral duty.
If the credentials are stored for some period of time, then an inspection will reveal those stored credentials within the preservation window. Unannounced inspections will then show with high certainty a legitimate validation process.
The auditor can act as a customer and validate whether phony credentials are rejected.
>Your context changes nothing: it's just one long "the ends justify the means" or "that's the way it is" and fails to address any of the ethics of the statements being made.
Is it asking too much of you to drop these thought ending cliches and actually try to argue your case? Ultimately ethical claims must bottom out at premises that can't be further supported. Here's the ethnical principle at play in my view: the freedom of association is a core principle as is its corollary, the freedom to dissociate. Just as I can exclude anyone from my home in principle, we can collectively exclude anyone from our collective land. This is the principle that justifies a nation discriminating based on citizenship. Of course, scaling from kinship groups to mega societies requires scaling these processes to something impersonal and ideally fair. Laws are the solution to this, but laws just are a representation of collective action and so inherit their justification.
>Why? All immigration systems I know take the person's views into consideration (for obvious reasons).
Yes, nations take stated/purported views into account. The issue is that it is impossible to accurately determine each immigrants personal views at scale. The inherent uncertainty involved is a risk, one that a host nation need not accept.
>They can't do that without disregarding the equality of all humans as a universal principle.
Universal human equality does not trump the right to free association/dissociation. Just because I see you as morally equal to me in principle does not mean I must suffer your presence around me. Of course, interpersonal relationships are different than laws. But laws are inward facing. That is, they create duties to and between people who are part of the same body politic. Outside of that body politic one has limited duties to each other. A right implies an obligation; a positive right is a claim to the effort/resources of others. I deny the legitimacy of universal positive rights. The only legitimate universal rights are negative rights, i.e. freedom from interference, assault, etc. But this doesn't imply freedom of movement across political borders.
>namely the freedom to not be harassed/deported simply because someone believes they are not assimilating "properly" or fast enough
Are these legal citizens of Sweden we're talking about? If not, then they have no right to stay in Sweden beyond whatever courtesy Swedes have decided.
>The secondary local conversation is whether it is discriminatory to treat a whole group the same based on ideas held by some percentage of a subgroup of that group
In isolation that would be unjust discrimination. When it comes to immigration policy, a nation has no obligation to discern incoming immigrants true views for compatibility. They can set whatever policy they want regarding who to let in. If the widespread views or cultural traits of some population renders immigration from that population more risk than reward, that is to no fault or demerit of the host nation. Immigration as policy is exclusively for the benefit of the existing citizens. Anything more is purely at the courtesy of the host nation, to be revoked at will.
>It is arbitrary if you believe all humans should be afforded the same basic human rights and should not be judged simply by the country they come from (rather than the content of their hearts, minds, and character).
So to be clear, you are admitting to the idea that the concept of citizen (and countries and borders) is unjust? That seems to be the inescapable conclusion of your points. At least have the courage to own the logical conclusion of your views.
>Do you believe that if a country can discriminate or harm non-citizens, then it should do that? Is it morally/ethically correct to treat non-citizens less than other persons?
It is morally correct to treat non-citizens as non-citizens. This doesn't mean they can/should be actively harmed. But this limits the obligation a nation has to non-citizens, i.e. in terms of active intervention to improve their lives.
>Do you hold beliefs that apply to all people regardless of what group they come from or only your own tribe?
My universal moral views are all in terms of negative rights, i.e. the right to self-determination, non-interference, free expression, etc.
>How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
A nation discriminating against non-citizens is not arbitrary, it is the core feature of the citizen classification. What you are implying is that the concept of "citizen" is unjust, therefore the concept of countries and borders are unjust. Of course when its put into these words few people will cop to this viewpoint. That's why there's endless obfuscation in these discussions, to avoid articulating the plain truth of your views.
This is just another example of Americans projecting the unique American context to the rest of the world. As the other commenter stated, immigrants aren't universally an economic benefit to the host country. The particulars of the immigrant and the context are highly relevant to outcomes.
Aside from that, this elevation of economic concerns as paramount is a strange outgrowth of Americas unique position of economic powerhouse with shallow cultural roots. You cannot expect other countries to also see economic growth as the metric that subsumes all other concerns. Harm is multifaceted and is very much up to local sensibilities to determine what they value and how to preserve it.
>To return the facor, the "moral impetus" comes from not elevating your culture as the only origing of truth, goodness, etc.
A country doesn't need to see its culture as an objective ideal to justify protecting its citizens from non-citizens that would victimize, cause discord, or otherwise strain the social fabric and institutions. A government's first and most important mandate is to act in the interests of its citizens. What impetus does a nation have to help non-citizens at the expense of the prosperity and comfort of citizens?
>On the other hand, you treat the negative effects of current immigrant milieus as eternal and innert to their ancestry
A bad faith misrepresentation of the issue. The issue is why should existing citizens have to suffer the backwards views of the immigrant population while immigrants "assimilate over multiple generations"? Why should the host country have to absorb increased crime, feeling less safe, having their culture changed, etc for the sake of the immigrant population? Where does this supposed moral impetus come from?
I appreciate the candid response. It shouldn't be so hard for people to just clearly state the premises that motivate their beliefs.
>the burden should always be on the ones who are stronger to accommodate those who are weaker.
Is this a universal principle? Does this come with any limits at all? A salient example that comes up often: classrooms tend to have a small handful of extremely disruptive students that ruin the experience for everyone else. The current thinking is to not suspend/expel these kids because they are disadvantaged or whatever. But in doing so the other kids suffer greatly, not to mention the teachers.
How do you manage different dimensions of strength/advantage? It is the weakest in society (women, children) that bear a disproportionate burden of allowing large amounts of immigration from third-world countries. Why are the rights of women and children secondary to the rights of immigrants?
That doesn't answer the question. Identity does matter. Because Nazi Germany came to the wrong conclusion does not invalidate every premise used in their justification.
>I’m saying there’s a difference between choosing future immigrants and changing the status of people already legally present
I'm sympathetic to this view. But ultimately legal residence doesn't rise to the level of citizenship and will always be 'second class' and subject to changing political winds. A nation should act with the interest of citizens. If allowing non-citizen residents is no longer in service to the interest of citizens, then that's too bad.
But aside from that, the view that once you are physically present in a country you can't be made to leave is dangerous in its own right. This strongly incentivizes closing any and all avenues to asylum or temporary residence due to hardship. If morality dictates there is no such thing as temporary residence, then there just will be no refuge given to the next wave of war refugees. Incentives matter, and your view creates some very unfortunate incentives.
>The concern should rest on someone’s actual beliefs or conduct rather than with the entire group to which they are born or reside. I’d rather see that addressed directly rather than be inferred from nationality or broad group averages
This is where ideals clash with reality. If it's not possible to determine views/culture until the person has demonstrated incompatibility (e.g. committing some crime), this burden is now on the existing citizens to absorb some increased level of crime for the sake of the immigrants. I don't recognize this as a legitimate moral duty.