Asylum Question

colinsky

Au contraire I think the two are complimentary of each other. The equation could be simplified to the following:

"Controlling whomever enters a national boundary"

But there's a huge difference in who you are controlling, and why.

In a security-based process, you are limiting the movement of those who are specifically wanted, based on warrants issued by the court system. These people are accused of having done something wrong, and are wanted by the government regardless of whether they were planning on travelling abroad. The limits are very specific, and apply top specifc people. These people are alleged to have done something wrong and be a valid danger to society.

In an immigration-regulation system, you are limiting the movement of people non-specifically, based upon national origin. This is a non-specific limitation. Non-specific limitations are, in effect, discriminatory. This is the part of the equation that I find harder to justify.

There's a big difference on your rights being limited based upon something you have done, than on the generic premise that "you're a foreigner, and therefore might do something bad".

Lemming

Originally posted by colinsky

In an immigration-regulation system, you are limiting the movement of people non-specifically, based upon national origin. This is a non-specific limitation. Non-specific limitations are, in effect, discriminatory. This is the part of the equation that I find harder to justify.

Actually, you'll find that control is not based upon national origin * and more upon economic criteria.


* International agreements between specific countries or a person holding citizenship for the nation in question not withstanding