"Should we condemn them" - manipulatively dramatic language imho. Sometimes we have to step up and take on a burden we might prefer not to - it's done to improve a situation. You want the country's strong to abandon the country and its weak? Or do you want the whole population of every poor country to migrate, should they want?
I'm just considering a not unlikely scenario where a smart, capable person wants to get away from a country ruled by a corrupt or oppressive government. What if the majority of the people continually vote for such a government and this smart (strong, as you put it) person sees no chance of that changing in the foreseeable future, should that person be forced to live there even if they don't want to?
"forced to live there" is exactly the same manipulative language being used shamelessly here. You should really consider avoiding such use as it detracts from your argument.
On the other foot, should we be "forced" to accept people from corrupt nations? What is the test of character we give these incoming people to prevent the same "corruption-tolerant" people from ruining our own system of government?
"forced to live there" is exactly the same manipulative language being used shamelessly here. You should really consider avoiding such use as it detracts from your argument.
Fair enough. What would be another way to say that a person is denied living in any country other than the one of their origin?
The natural result of having borders? If you think people should be able to live wherever they want then where do you draw the line? Can I come live in your house and sleep in your bed whenever I want?
Did you just compare countries with houses ? Do people still use this tired argument ? The line is pretty obvious, it's called property of usage, you can't be denied what you actually need to live a decent life as defined by your society, but arbitrary borders based on the arbitrary, random fact that someone was born at a random place in earth is one of the worst criteria we can use
Instead of grasping on semantics of his language, why don't you try understanding the meaning? At the end of the day what you propose limits human freedom for a greater collective "good". Good luck with that.
One man's freedom is another man's slavery. If having private property and, by extension, state borders is an infringement on freedom then I think we have larger ideals to collide than this small one we started with.
