Undocumented Students Denied College Admissions: What Do You Think

[galoisien]

<p>

You just stated that it would be a positive development if 1 billion Mexican and Candian people were to arrive in the US at the same time! How was I supposed to take that?

</p>

<p>I dunno. You’re in Princeton – I used an extreme example to illustrate the principles really at stake. The point is, most immigrants, while requiring investments, are future economic returns…</p>

<p>The libertarian argument doesn’t have to buy into any of zoosermom’s funny outdated ideas about being tied down to one’s place of birth by “economic duty” or whatever.</p>

<p>

Yes, economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human and financial capital across national borders for the purposes of trade. But notice that nothing was said regarding US citizenship for all of these people.

</p>

<p>Which includes the labour market! Comparative advantage! Why do cost of living differentials continue to exist across borders? The ultimate goal of libertarian globalisation is one global citizenship, where one is judged by one’s willingless to work and contribute, not by place of origin.</p>

<p>Did you not read post #333?</p>

<p>

Oh please. They also didn’t have taxes, organized crime, market saturation in certain fields, or any of that jazz. A nation without borders is indeed no nation at all. How, then, do you define a nation? Simply a group of people living in the same general area who, in this case, are not even united by language or culture?</p>

<p>The Kurds are not a nation. Chechnya is not a nation. WTH are you trying to say?

</p>

<p>Don’t tell me you’ve never really thought about the quintessence of nationhood before? Nations and societies can exist without Staes. The Kurds are a nation without a State – they even have their own regional government? WTH?</p>

<p>Also the idea that taxes didn’t exist is inaccurate – many American Indian nations did have levies (for several purposes, such as combining together to fight the colonists).</p>

<p>

Simply a group of people living in the same general area who, in this case, are not even united by language or culture?

</p>

<p>No – you can have a nation of people spread out across a world, but if they have close economic and political relationships, then they arguably form a nation. The nations of the future will overlap each other. A nation is essentially a group bound together by a social contract … which is why one may be a member of several nations, as one may be a member of several social contracts, and one may have a fellow countrymen who is also a member of a nation you are not part of.</p>