Countries, borders, and nationality are not sacred things. They are tools for partially solving the problem of human coexistence. A country is not just a random group of people inside an arbitrary line on a map. It is a fragile system of laws, norms, expectations, customs, institutions, trust, language, welfare arrangements, and political legitimacy.
To keep such a system functioning, it matters who is allowed to join it, at what scale, and under what conditions. This is not because outsiders have less human worth. It is because a functioning society is not automatic. Peaceful coexistence is difficult, historically rare, and easy to damage.
Normally we simplify this with ideas like citizenship and nationality: if you are born here, you are part of the political community and the state has special obligations to you; if you are born elsewhere, you do not automatically have the same claim. That can sound cruel when reduced to first principles, but it is also practical. A society has much more ability to shape, educate, socialize, and govern people born inside its institutions than people arriving from very different political, cultural, or economic environments.
Immigration can be good, bad, or neutral depending on numbers, selection, integration, timing, and the receiving society’s capacity. But it is not something one can treat as morally simple. If you move people from one social system into another, some part of the first system comes with them. That does not make them bad people. It just means migration has real effects on the host society and cannot be treated as a purely individual transaction.
Modern first-world countries are, in historical terms, unusually stable and successful arrangements. They are so successful that people risk their lives to enter them. But that stability did not appear by magic. It depends on institutions, norms, trust, enforcement, and a bounded political community.
__________
Well-argued. I would add that mass migration into the West is also a deliberate act of war against the West, an invasion encouraged by traitors in government and outside of government. Mayorkas is a clear example of someone who threw open our borders. He was aided and abetted by Dems and many other corrupt politicians and economic forces. The West must reasonably face its declining birthrates through domestic policies, not immigration. Mass immigration at levels we are seeing today will result in the annihilation of the West within a few more generations. This is killing the goose that lays golden eggs. All aspects of this problem must be faced full on, including declining birthrates. Either accept them and accept a smaller economy or figure out how to have more babies. In 1950, the population of USA was 180 million and the world’s was 2 billion. Everything was fine in USA. Rest of world not so much, but the third world has grown massively since 1950. Another side of this is the quality of immigrants/ invaders. Many of them really are low-IQ and come from clannish societies, so they will never be able to adapt, and evidence for that is everywhere. ABN
American Buddhist Net 