.

[rhombot]

stan: victim's rights. e.g. if you're a citizen of a country that's been terrorized or otherwise victimized by a criminal action of the local superpower, you get a free pass into the superpower as compensation.

so...  they're basically suing the US for the right to come here?  why do they get priority?  and when did they prove conclusively that they were victimized?

well, no, because there's no international legal regime that's enforceable. but that's a way it could work if we had international law.

priority over whom?

they haven't proved conclusively they were victimized. we're talking about a hypothetical situation.

[rhombot]

you don't assume states should act morally? how should they act, then?

in the best interest of their citizens.

why?

[redemption]

1. Government is not natural, but man-made.

2. Actions of government (should) have purposes that are legitimate.

3. Immigration policy - once unknown anywhere - is a very recent innovation.

From these comes the burden on the proponents of immigration control to legitimate this policy - to say this land belongs to me, but not to you.

What are the grounds for that legitimation?

[rhombot]

you don't assume states should act morally? how should they act, then?

in the best interest of their citizens.

why?

because that's why they exist.

okay, but gangs exist to promote the wealth and importance of their members. does that mean that that's what they should do?

[rhombot]

so...  hypothetical then.  and in a court and under laws that don't exist. 

priority over other other immigrants.

i'm not arguing for priority over other immigrants.

[redemption]

What are the grounds for that legitimation?

artificial inflation of labor costs, preservation of [missing pronoun] favored social institutions (e.g. language).

Nativist.

What else? (i.e. anything that ISN"T circular)

[rhombot]

i never said the government shouldn't act morally.  i am just saying it's not their function.

you implied it rather strongly earlier in this thread. i thought we were discussing morality, rather than actuality.

[redemption]

1. i disagree...human intelligence is a naturally occuring evolutionary phenomenon, thus any innovation derived from this natural occurence is itself also a natural phenomenon

2. i agree, and enacting legislation that are in the interests of its citizens serves a legitimate purpose

3. i dont get the point...just because an innovation is fairly recent doesnt make it bad so i dont get the point of...well, this point...

1 = So wilfully silly/obtuse I don't know what to make of it. (I'll assume that you're joking)

2. Circular

3. It puts the burden on the innovator to explain why the innovation is a good thing

[rhombot]

maybe the burden can be stated more simply:

immigration laws restrict people's freedoms.

restrictions on people's freedoms require justification.

[philibusters]

SJW is right, favoring social institutions is a legitimate exercise of policy.  Lets remember our government is a republic, when the governments acts legitimately they speak with the will of the people.  I don't want to live in a society that is powerless to regulate behavior.  If I can't take my children to the park (future tense I don't have children yet) cause I can't and the lawmakers can't stop a couple from performing lewd acts in the park, than whats the purpose of living in a society anyway.  Favoring a language for example is legitimate in the same, though the policy behind regulating it would be much more suscept than my extreme example.  Like I said earlier, I think the immigrantion is a policy question not a constitutional question.

Yes restrictions require justifications-in the political process if there was no justification, nobody would take the proposal serious, the justification is national security (a total joke) and the much stronger justification of cultural cohesiveness, and also a quasi-economic justification, which in the words of south park would be "they took err jobbss" or something like that I can't remember the quote to well.