i apologize, i didn't mean to imply that. but if they should act morally, it is because acting morally is in the best interest of their citizens, not because it is moral.
some people see these as valid reasons.
1. i'm serious...i'd like to know what part of human intelligence is not a naturally occuring phenomenon...i mean, i'd seriously like to hear an argument against human intelligence being unnatural2. wasnt an argument against so i dont see a circularity...you said acts of govt should have legit purposes and i said that, imo, enacting legislation that are in the interests of its citizens is a legit act of govt...where's the circularity?3. i can concede this...but at what point has the innovator "proven" her point? i mean, if i'm not wrong most countries have had some sort of immigration policy for close to 100 years (pure assumption, no research or prior knowledge) so how/what should be done to "prove" the innovation of immigration policy beyond the fact that almost all countries has such a policy?
as far as the "we" and "them"...i dont get it...are you seriously advocating that there is no such thing as a "we" and a "them?" or am i misunderstanding something?
no, citizenships are rather silly. but that's still the way the world is structured.