War Against White People

[Kristian Joensen]

Sam, I can confirm you understood me correctly. Moving your body from Tijuana to San Diego is no more an evil act than moving it from New Jersey to New York. Here in the nordic countries we have free movement of people and that is a good thing.

I could move permanently to Norway tommorow without asking anyone for permission and likewise for a Norwegian moving here.

I couldn't move in a similar manner to the United States. Neither could an American move here without the paperwork.

Personally I would welcome any American that wanted to move here or anyone else for that matter. I am deligthed by diversity and hanging out with people from all over the world.

[KingsGambit]

Earlier the question was posed about what justification could exist for an immigration law. Even though I'm critical of the current immigration laws, I'd argue there are decent reasons to have them in the first place. Countries may have infrastructure, government support nets, etc. that can only support so many people. This doesn't even go into national security issues which is another can of worms.

[Bill the Cat]

Which is legitimate only inasmuch as it is just. We are not talking only law but the relationship of law to moral action.

Not me. I was talking responsibility to the law. We can discuss moral duties once I get it through to you that it is bad to break a law. It sets an individual's beliefs above the law. Are you really willing to allow that? I'm sure there are a few bakers in Oregon who would love for you to take that approach.

Put gently, that's an absurdity. It's related to but not-quite-like Divine Command theory, where genocide is perfectly good if YHWH tells you to commit genocide. At best, it's obscuring the notions of "good" and "bad" and so requires a very precise defining of terms.

It's how societies work best. Obedience to the law and civil disobedience, a necessary evil, when laws are unjust. And the intent of civil disobedience is not simply to disobey, but to change the law. Hence, the law is the standard.

That doesn't follow from what I wrote: I wrote that it was a mis-identification of the relationship between the law and goodness. Simply stating that it's a "proper understanding of the law" doesn't address the issue of good and bad actions in relation to the law.

Sure it does. The law is the standard. Deviance from the law is in a negative direction. Support is in a positive direction. It's bad to break the law. Were it not bad, there would be no consequences for breaking it.

Directional to violating the law? This is circular: "Breaking the law is bad because it is directional toward breaking the law."

No it isn't circular because you are conflating bad with immoral.

If you attach absolutely no ethical or moral weight to "bad", in this sense, I suppose folks could say "Well, fine ... but who cares? We're talking about right and wrong, good and evil, not 'will this action break some law'."

No we aren't. If you break immigration laws in the US, or any laws for that matter, you will (at least in theory) be punished. That is a bad consequence.

[Bill the Cat]

Sam, I can confirm you understood me correctly. Moving your body from Tijuana to San Diego is no more an evil act than moving it from New Jersey to New York.

Actually, yes it is, if you are doing so against the law.

Here in the nordic countries we have free movement of people and that is a good thing.

So, let's say that you have been working at your job making widgets for 15 years, and have worked your way up to a decent salary. You are able to support your family, take a vacation every now and again, spend money in the local economy, and even put some money away for a rainy day. Along comes a person from a small village in Norway who got training on widget making from a training firm near his home. He tells your company that he can make widgets for half your salary. They agree and lay you off. He works, and sends his money back to his family in the small village for them to spend on their local economy. And you are suddenly out of a job with salary needs well above what an entry level person makes.

Now multiply that times a few thousand. Eventually, it is going to make a huge difference in your area. While the economy is doing well, there is room for this sort of thing, but when it is struggling, that's when it becomes much harder to sustain and recover from.

I could move permanently to Norway tommorow without asking anyone for permission and likewise for a Norwegian moving here.

From what I read, it's more than just the Scandinavian countries.

Source: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/immigrants-in-norway-sweden-and-denmark

Since 1954, we have had a common Nordic labour market (Fischer and Straubhaar 1996), and since 1994, the entire Nordic region has been part of the open European labour market within the EU/EEA area. This means that for more than 50 years citizens from the Nordic countries have been able to freely live and work in another Nordic country, and that this right has largely been extended to all EU/EEA citizens (Norwegian Directorate of Immigration 2013).

© Copyright Original Source

I couldn't move in a similar manner to the United States. Neither could an American move here without the paperwork.

Personally I would welcome any American that wanted to move here or anyone else for that matter. I am deligthed by diversity and hanging out with people from all over the world.

Even when that person takes your job?

[Kristian Joensen]

If someone "takes" my job, where that person comes from doesn't matter to me. If we were to throw half the working population out of the country that too would reduce competition for jobs.

Do you care if a foreigner takes your job or if it is someone from another US state?

If the US were(sp?) to admit every country in the world to the union, that would eleminate illegal immigration. But I bet you are against that. Showing that for you it really isn't a matter of legality.

Legality is easy to fix one way or another: Just change the laws.

Yes it is true that Norway and Iceland are in the EEA and Denmark, Sweden and Finland in the EU. But we are in neither. Someone from the UK would need a work visa to work here.

Edit:

From the treaty establishing the European Communities, Article 299:

6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs:(a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands;

[Sam]

Not me. I was talking responsibility to the law. We can discuss moral duties once I get it through to you that it is bad to break a law. It sets an individual's beliefs above the law. Are you really willing to allow that? I'm sure there are a few bakers in Oregon who would love for you to take that approach.

Responsibility to the law is a moral duty. If you're talking about responsibility to the law, you're no longer talking merely about law. If you're arguing that disobeying an unjust law is justified because it's the "lesser evil", you're agreeing that an individual's beliefs can be set above a law. You're making incoherent arguments.

It's how societies work best. Obedience to the law and civil disobedience, a necessary evil, when laws are unjust. And the intent of civil disobedience is not simply to disobey, but to change the law. Hence, the law is the standard.

But you're not arguing that law is a good standard. You're arguing that any disobedience of any law is "bad", a "necessary evil" and, at best, "the lesser evil". You are conflating, as I've said before, the Law with any particular law.

Sure it does. The law is the standard. Deviance from the law is in a negative direction. Support is in a positive direction. It's bad to break the law. Were it not bad, there would be no consequences for breaking it.

"Deviance from the law is in a negative direction" is, again, assuming your conclusion, as is the blanket statement "It's bad to break the law." You've defined "bad" two ways: as an "evil" and as merely violating the law. The first isn't supported and the second is a meaningless tautology.

No it isn't circular because you are conflating bad with immoral.

It's circular. "Breaking the law is bad because it is directional toward breaking the law" is equivalent to saying:

P1: Breaking the law is directional toward breaking the law.
P2: Breaking the law is bad.
C1: Therefore breaking the law is bad.

One need not introduce morality at all, though you have done so yourself in previous posts.

No we aren't. If you break immigration laws in the US, or any laws for that matter, you will (at least in theory) be punished. That is a bad consequence.

You're not arguing that there will be negative consequences to an action. You're arguing that the action itself is negative, bad, evil. And, yes, I think it's clear that the rest of us are talking about this within a moral/ethical framework and you are skipping in and out of that framework, lacking a clear and consistent definition of the term "bad".

[Leonhard]

Leave when he was old enough to. ... Actually, yes [he should have emancipated himself and gotten himself deported]. That would be the right thing to do.

Why?

[Leonhard]

Must be nice. I've had no advantages, and in fact, have been DISadvantaged in several areas.

This is a statement, not an argument. You have plenty of advantages being white, and you're put in a favorable position for anything from education, to job opportunities.

It's race shaming. And that is wrong.

What's shaming about it? Its raising awareness first of all about the realities of our history, second of all of the priviledges we're not all aware of having, and that we might have to watch for.

[Leonhard]

Because it's illegal.

Like choosing not to bake a cake for homosexuals, I consider that law unjust. There's no reason why he shouldn't be considered a US citizen.

[seer]

This is a statement, not an argument. You have plenty of advantages being white, and you're put in a favorable position for anything from education, to job opportunities.

Nonsense, how is it that Asians do so well in this country? Is that Yellow privilege? Perhaps a lot of this has to do with a 70% out of wedlock birth rate among blacks. And single parenthood where there is no father in the home.

[Leonhard]

Nonsense, how is it that Asians do so well in this country? Is that Yellow privilege?

Red herring fallacy: If Asians in America are in a priviledged position that does not show that Whites aren't.

[Bill the Cat]

If someone "takes" my job, where that person comes from doesn't matter to me. If we were to throw half the working population out of the country that too would reduce competition for jobs.

But you'd have no business deporting actual citizens. Your island is a bit more complex because it is so small, and the economic impact of events is much harder to localize. So, you can't understand from a personal level how this would work.

Do you care if a foreigner takes your job or if it is someone from another US state?

Yes. Especially MY job working for the US Army.

If the US were(sp?) to admit every country in the world to the union, that would eleminate illegal immigration.

But it would complicate nearly every other thing the country cares about.

But I bet you are against that. Showing that for you it really isn't a matter of legality.

It's impractical.

Legality is easy to fix one way or another: Just change the laws.

For what reason? They are fine as they are, if we enforce them properly.

[Bill the Cat]

Why?

If your parents gave you a car and you found out it was stolen by them, would you turn it in or keep it?

[Bill the Cat]

This is a statement, not an argument. You have plenty of advantages being white, and you're put in a favorable position for anything from education, to job opportunities.

If you knew anything about my life, you'd know just how absurd that statement was. I could give you 5 concrete examples where my race DISadvantaged me in a major way.

What's shaming about it? Its raising awareness first of all about the realities of our history, second of all of the priviledges we're not all aware of having, and that we might have to watch for.

Did they do one for the advantages other races have in other areas? Or were whites singled out because it's the "cool" thing to do now?

[Bill the Cat]

Like choosing not to bake a cake for homosexuals, I consider that law unjust. There's no reason why he shouldn't be considered a US citizen.

You will have to be more specific. I don't know to whom you are referring.