Why is it morally acceptable for a country to prioritize the prosperity of its own citizens, but not for whites to prioritize the prosperity of fellow whites?
You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though. And it's not just America, you'll run into these restrictions in every country, often times more strict.
> You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though.
Not on your own. You need to find a country willing to accept you as a citizen. For the vast majority of people in the world, the only countries that would accept them are those where they would be worse off. So the countries that do (successfully) prioritize prosperity of their citizens also effectively lock out most people from elsewhere. The trickle of immigration is just that, a trickle - it is deliberately constrained with various rules and requirements, and it would be a much bigger stream if anyone who wanted to change their citizenship could apply (even if you filtered out, say, people with criminal records and such).
I'm having trouble understanding which level of abstraction you're trying to discuss.
Are you arguing that two human attributes in particular, race and birthplace, should for some reason be subject to the same level of discrimination in hiring?
Or are you asking a more abstract question? I.e., given any human attribute ${attrib}, what are the principles a government should use when deciding if ${attrib} is a legally protected class?
I'm just engaging in common-sense ethical reasoning. It seems wrong to require that all whites employ a much higher bar for hiring blacks. And, I have the same intuition about requiring all Americans employ a much higher bar for hiring foreigners.
Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.
So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).
s_y_n_t_a_x|7 years ago
int_19h|7 years ago
Not on your own. You need to find a country willing to accept you as a citizen. For the vast majority of people in the world, the only countries that would accept them are those where they would be worse off. So the countries that do (successfully) prioritize prosperity of their citizens also effectively lock out most people from elsewhere. The trickle of immigration is just that, a trickle - it is deliberately constrained with various rules and requirements, and it would be a much bigger stream if anyone who wanted to change their citizenship could apply (even if you filtered out, say, people with criminal records and such).
an_cap|7 years ago
DoofusOfDeath|7 years ago
Are you arguing that two human attributes in particular, race and birthplace, should for some reason be subject to the same level of discrimination in hiring?
Or are you asking a more abstract question? I.e., given any human attribute ${attrib}, what are the principles a government should use when deciding if ${attrib} is a legally protected class?
an_cap|7 years ago
Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.
So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
rhizome|7 years ago
addicted|7 years ago
an_cap|7 years ago
Edit : Sorry addicted, I interpreted your comment as a justification, not as historical account. My bad.