What really surprises me is that, while most Americans seem to agree it's not okay to discriminate based on the colour of someone's skin (because skin colour is something we can't control), they're quite happy to discriminate based on the country of somebody's birth. People have just as little control over their country of birth as they do over their skin colour.
> Is there some special property of the US that makes it immoral to control its territory like other nations?
Whether or not other people/nations do something is not a good arbiter of morality. But that aside, most other countries didn't just impose a large-scale immigration ban like the US just did.
The US has had a huge immigration program (although it has waxed and waned) over many years because settling vast tracts of land requires a lot of human labor. Same story in Australia.
He's pointing out the contradiction people hold in their heads, not saying that it's immoral. Many people believe in mutually incompatible ideas like this. I think it's because they get more satisfaction from fitting in with the crowd or experiencing the pleasure of reinforcing their beliefs than they do from trying to be right, which is emotionally unrewarding.
I think they should be honest and say "It's OK to discriminate against people based on the circumstances of their birth but I make an exception for race because my society told me I must." It sounds kind of stupid, but it is stupid. That's the cost of honesty.
They're also quite happy to discriminate based on the genetic relationship: My parents let my brother and me live in their house, rent-free, and we were even fed! They did not do that for anyone else, even though nobody chooses their parents, so it is discriminatory.
>They're also quite happy to discriminate based on the genetic relationship: My parents let my brother and me live in their house, rent-free, and we were even fed!
But your parents didn't petition the government to prevent kids from the neighbouring town from entering your town.
Every country does that. It is usually tied with citizenship and the rights that goes with that. I cannot imagine there being a single country not doing it.
Before around 2012 Singapore didn't do this; practically anybody could go there if they could get a job. In the early 20th century America didn't do that (apart from banning Chinese immigrants); there's a reason the following is inscribed on the statue of liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
* have been offered terms of employment that are at least on par with those set by Swedish collective agreements or which are customary within the occupation or industry
* have been offered a salary that is at least on par with that set by Swedish collective agreements or which is customary within the occupation or industry
* you must be offered a position that will enable you to support yourself. In order to satisfy this support requirement, you need to work to an extent that will result in a salary of at least SEK 13,000 [around $1500USD] per month before taxes
* have an employer who intends to provide insurance covering health, life, employment and pension when you begin to work."
>The US accepts a lot of immigrants due to hardship or persecution from around the world
During the last three years the US has admitted about as many refugees as Sweden, a country of 10 million people, did in 2015. It wasn't that much higher under earlier administrations. On a per capita basis[1] the US hosts about three times fewer than Russia, and 10 times fewer than comparably prosperous Western European countries like Switzerland or Germany.
Currently by law, immigrants from a given country can only represent 7% of the overall immigration flow into the US per year. That isn't explicit country-based discrimination, but it effectively discriminates against China and India. If China were 10 nations of 150M people, and not 1 nation of 1,500M people, more people from those 10 nations could immigrate to the US than can today from China.
If you have a limit that says "2 people per group" and you have groups with vastly different sizes, it can "seem" like discrimination. E.g. if you're from a group that has 500000 people, your odds of being chosen are much smaller than if you were from a group that had 1000 people. I believe the term is used lightly in that context, more as a point to the original poster's comment.
There absolutely are country based discrimination even if it doesn't say so by having country based quotas irrespective of the population of a country. A country like China or India has the same cap as a country like Singapore for Green Cards etc. This means that two people who are exactly the same in every way except one is born in India vs one who is born in Singapore will have very different length of time to get a permanent residency. This isn't hypothetical, a friend of mine's dad was an Indian working in Iran when my friend was born, his brother was born a few years later in India. The one born in Iran got his Green Card in a few months after application, the one born in India is still waiting.
