As a “feminist and civil rights activist”, you should know by now that the whole basis of the liberal theory of human rights is that we should deal with people as individuals, by reference to the characteristics that we know them to possess, and not as exemplars of a group, by reference to stereotypes that we attribute to the group.
Declining to promote an employee who has a very high rate of absence due to illness? Fine. Declining to promote an employee because she is a woman, and women as a class have a higher rate of absence due to illness? Not fine. (And, note, it doesn’t become fine even if it is objectively true that women have a higher rate of absence due to illness.)
It’s not difficult to see how this principle plays out when applied to immigration decisions rather than promotion decisions, and when applied to nationality rather than gender.
So, you can sell out the values that underpin your standing as a feminist and civil rights activist, or you can affirm them. I hope you’ll do the latter.
Waitaminute. A religion is defined by what its proponents believe and the actions they take, and these people can choose to change their attitudes if they so desire. These are both substantial differences that separate religious affiliation from nation of origin and race (and gender, and sexuality, and any number of other things one can generally be called a bigot for). In order to be a Muslim (or a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Jew) you have to accept certain core tenets of a religion. You have to adhere to that religion’s faith, and practice at least some of its core.
And yes, I will proudly stand up and say that the culture we have cultivated throughout the USA, Canada, and most of western europe is just straight-up better by any reasonable metric than the culture that permeates the middle east and many majority-muslim countries. A culture that allows women to vote is better than a culture that doesn’t. A culture that sees homosexuality as equal under the law is better than one that throws gay people off buildings. This is not just idle speculation or baseless moralizing; by any reasonable metric, these societies are simply better for those involved in the society. When dealing with the well-being of people, there’s just no question.
I won’t disagree with this. I just disagree that passing extra scrutiny to those who freely and without hesitation adhere to an ideology like Islam, to ensure that the version they practice is the “No Beer, No Bacon” variety (akin to our “Easter and Christmas” christians) rather than the “Niqab and anti-gay bigotry” variety. That’s sort of the rub to me - it’s not bigotry to reject those who freely choose to be intolerant towards others for things they cannot choose.
Perhaps you should ask yourself: Do Moslems universally accept the ideas that you find unacceptable, or is it a subset of Moslems who do? If the latter, then the policy you are advocating is a bigoted policy.
But it seems that you’re being selective in applying this. Would you be in favor of asking Christians if they’re the “help the poor variety” or “keep the women barefoot and pregnant” type? There are plenty of blatantly sexist Christian denominations out there.
Let’s assume a hypothetical United Jesus Republic where 75% of the women belong to churches where they are forbidden from working, can’t drive, and require the permission of a male to say get their hair cut. The other 25% belong to other churches that are more mainstream with worldwide gender roles. I think it would still be wrong to put extra scrutiny on immigrants from UJR and ask them which flavor of Christianity they practice. If we have religious freedom, we have it for everybody or we have it for nobody. If we have it for everybody, then we just cannot care and cannot and must not ask what faith a person has who wants to enter the country.
Nonsense. Everyone has a right to be here. Border controls and immigration restrictions of any sort are a crime against humanity and a human rights violation.
Sorry, but this is only true in the minds of dreamers. The reality has always been that there were borders or areas that not all humanity was free to enter any time they chose. It’s not a crime against humanity, it’s human nature itself.
Because the First Amendment is part of those “American Values”?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Point of fact, a significant number of people immigrating from Muslim countries are trying to get away from those countries because of how they treat women and other groups. So it seems odd to me that you would want to ban them.
The reality is that the King was absolutely sovereign. Until he wasn’t.
And borders aren’t the same as property lines. Let’s nip that in the bud. “Our laws extend to this line here” does not mean you cannot cross it, just that you’ll be subjected to our laws once you do. And for that matter, letting in whoever wants to move to our country does not mean they’re allowed to move into your house and take over your remote control. Property rights are still a thing in a world where people are allowed to move. In fact, more so. I own an apartment I would like to rent out. Who are you to tell me who I can or cannot rent to?
Not really true at all. Borders have existed yes, but most restriction tended to be with respect to the movement of goods not persons. Passports in their current form date from WW1. WHen people were restricted it typically embraced circumstances like tribes migrating. Border did not typically give two shits about an ordinary Joe, Yusaf or Josef entering or existing border zones.
Except whether it was a king or a president we have always had and probably always will have borders. The poster I was responding to said that the entire world was for humanity and that any borders or restrictions were crimes against humanity. That’s bullshit based on our own natures and history. Even the restrictions and qualifiers you are putting on here are against what that poster was saying. If the world is for humanity, why should your laws bind me? There are no borders, right? Why should your property laws restrict me…the world is for humanity after all.
Are you seriously contending that humans didn’t have territories that they defended from outsiders before WW1?? That the ONLY restriction, throughout human history, was on movement of goods and not persons?? :dubious:
The current situation is not ipso facto just or correct. Do you understand that I’m making a normative claim? Do you know what the word “normative” means?
There’s no such thing as “human nature.” This is literally Anthropology 101-level stuff.
Defense against an invading army != a ban on moving. These are two separate things that anti-immigrant folks like to conflate to their advantage. Borders have existed forever for the purposes of protecting an area from invasion, and for enforcing a nation’s laws.
The idea that you can tell me who I can and can’t sell or rent my house to (or employ) based on the buyer’s (or employee’s) national origin is a very new one, however, in comparison.