Sheep Tag Community

Free immigration literally means, "free to immigrate." That doesn't grant you explicit ability to ignore laws, such as taxes, fees, etc. It means you go through a reasonable amount of paperwork to go to any country you wish, with some expected caveats (criminals, etc). Quotas on countries/regions of origins, taxes/fees for immigration filing/transportation beyond reason, long queues, etc, are limits on free immigration.

We have this system implemented already?

I don't care what you all think what free immigration means as long as it means free immigration.

What y'all are talking about is different than free immigration.  I'm not going to toil with you both if you don't want to use correct terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_immigration

Whether you agree or disagree with the definition, that is what you should be arguing for/against. That is what this topic is for.

Strawman. It's not a matter of deserving to be a member, it's a matter of having the right to decide over what's yours once you are a member. You didn't deserve your house more than a poor hard-working person in India, yet it is yours to decide over and not the indian guys.

Just being bornt in a country doesn't morally give you the right to membership, no. We have it that way though because A) nobody would want to live in a country where your children wasn't guaranteed membership and B) because it's one of the most basic things in human nature that the young generation takes over from the older in a group of people.

since it's a matter of deciding over whats yours once you are a member; did the older generation decide for you to be born in swe (and automatically get membership ONLY because of something that noone else in swe had any control/decision over)? noone decided for you to get membership, yet you think you fill criteria for membership just because you're born there.

but since where you're born is essentially random, why shouldn't we apply an equally arbitrary membership qualification for somalians, and automatically give them membership if they think swe is nice? you have to defend the idea that randomly being born in swe is worth more than wanting to live to swe, when deciding who gets membership, and you know that you can't do this. you've basically stated that you can't do this.



i agree that you should have some controll over what's yours. i'm saying that sweden is NOT your property anymore than it's a somalians property, because you're equally entitled to live there, morally/logically. i don't deserve ANY house more than an indian, but i have paid for my house and indians haven't ^^ what have you/all other swedes done for sweden that all somalians haven't, which you think should be a deciding factor over membership? which criteria do you fill that somalians don't? you already said that where your born is/should be irrelevant.

noone gives a **** about "basic human nature" or traditions. your economical case has failed, your moral case has failed decisively, and the logic you apply is invalid.

These rights very much exist in the private sphere aswell, for example I don't have the right to murder you just because you are on my property.

Because you aren't sovereign. This train would suggest that the private sphere is an extension of the public one. But I don't care to debate this point (for the record, it is basically the difference between Hobbes and Locke in their descriptions of natural state).

Sure it's above the private sphere and has authority over it but it in no way has to follow any other moral laws.

No one has to follow moral obligations, it is simply frowned upon. My argument is that the state has an obligation to follow moral codes/guidelines of some type (we can later argue on moral theory). Do you disagree that organizations, including countries, are expected to conform to moral obligations?