Migration is responsible for human habitation outside of Africa. I don't know what reasons one could have for thinking it immoral.

Migration is responsible for human habitation outside of Africa. I don't know what reasons one could have for thinking it immoral. — Michael

Not quite sure that is the latest chronology, but humans did migrate in the past into places where there were no humans, not genociding or displacing other humans, because there were none there.

I think it may be due to "normal life standards" to think like that. Still, I'm not for or against it...

Agree. It shows how humans shifted from pure responsible individualism to pre set standardized socialization. And now we are baffled in between..

Migration may be because of money and currencies! At least, monetary system has changed natural environments and resources...

It's the weather, dude. Fly south in winter, dude.

Is migration moral? How do you find migrants? Is this dislocation of some people possible to be solved? As the population is seemed to be magnetized to certain countries and the rest of the lands on earth are left to some less advocated political powers, isn't it one of the main reasons for environmental changes, poor economy and poverty?
Do you have any suggestion for the people who have the right to live? — phrzn

I see no problem with migration, as long as it is not done to avoid punishment from one place or to transport substances or object which may cause harm to another being.
As for dislocation of people, it depends on what dislocated them. Dislocation because of war and related activities lacks benefit and the victims of such usually suffer; in this sense, it is wrong, but not because of the victims, but rather because they were driven against their desires. Dislocation from lack of employment opportunities may in some cases be similar, but not generally as severe.
The countries that have many citizens departing usually have a reason for doing so, which more often than not reflects upon the governmental system adopted by that nation. This also may be viewed as being unwilfully moved to some extent. In cases where one merely moves to achieve a better lifestyle, versus moving because one literally cannot live in such circumstances would not be a case of oppression, but rather of opportunity. For example, moving to a new city because of a job offer remains beneficial for the one offered the job, as s/he would be able to live more comfortably, and also support the economy in that area to which s/he has moved. The town which has been left may lose an able worker and the economic stimulation provided by that person. In essence, it depends on who's perspective you chose to side with.

Actually, what made me to start the discussion is my own situation living in a region where there is no freedom and economic status is so weak that I can see no future for the hardworking people...
It has been years that I'm thinking, damn, it may not be moral! I may be responsible in this land. If I wanna move to somewhere better so all the people around the globe would see the same right to move ahead, then when should the prosperous lands develop in this world? By this act, we are leaving all the power to corrupted governments...
It's a dilemma! I'm just asking what to do, seems most the people's lives do not matter for world powers. Die here or leave. And then when you leave, you are facing those who 'may' treat you as a burden!
Am I wrong?

By leaving a nation with a corrupted government, if you amass a large populace to depart also, then you would be taking power away from the government by relieving them of your contributions in forms of taxation and reducing the potential for economic growth. No nation can maintain large amounts of power apart from its people. The key, though, is to move with a large group of people.
As for if it is moral or not for you personally to leave your country, that is something that no one else can determine from the information provided. In some cases, I see it very moral, such as those departing from North Korea to protect one's family, taking away from the government, and also sharing actual facts about life behind the border (which would then increase reasons for other civilizations to scorn such a government and be more likely to further reduce interaction).
One way or another, you can help your country and be moral, it is the matter of discovering the best means of reformation. If you have the character and skills to spark a reformation within your nation, then, by all means, do so and refuse to live on the run.
As for being treated as a burden, that would be most likely if one parasitically sucks from a foreign nation while proving no benefit to that nation. And of course, there are always individuals that will hate regardless, but one must learn to ignore voices of that sort.

Moral???
Are you kidding?
We are ALL migrants.

Not quite sure that is the latest chronology, but humans did migrate in the past into places where there were no humans, not genociding or displacing other humans, because there were none there. — tom

Human migration displaced millions of species habitats, rendered countless species extinct, and destroyed native and natural environments.

Human migration displaced millions of species habitats, rendered countless species extinct, and destroyed native and natural environments. — charleton

So did Woolly Mammouth migration. What's your point?

There have been lots of potentialities to live in another country. But waiting and thinking about this BS* made me waste my time.. But I do agree.

Anyway, it's what we come to at the end. Right.

The difference is that we people take everything so serious and personal. The way I did! LOL.

Mammoths do not have a moral code, yet humans' moral codes ofter are said to include considerations as to the health of the ecosystems and environments.
When humans colonise, areas as yet uninhabited by humans their impact of other creatures as a moral element.
Even if Mammoths do have a moral code does not change this consideration.

Mammoths do not have a moral code, yet humans' moral codes ofter are said to include considerations as to the health of the ecosystems and environments.
When humans colonise, areas as yet uninhabited by humans their impact of other creatures as a moral element. — charleton

When the Sun goes supernova, of a massive asteroid destroys the Earth, who is going to preserve biodiversity?

irrelevant

Yes, I know that frustration of overthinking something, only later to find it was a silly thing to keep pondering. :P Hope you can come to a good conclusion.

According to some, borders are "the vanity of nations"; we should be citizens of the world.

Fine and dandy, except we are not yet.

People are driven out of their homelands by war, drought, tyranny, poverty, corruption, rising sea levels, multiple crop failures, and other ills. Their survival is, of course, paramount to the migrants. Civilized people recognize survival as a critical tipping point between optional and necessary migration.

There are, however, no empty and suitable lands into which migrants can go. All the good lands are already occupied. Do people "in place" have a right to maintain and defend their culture, economy, resources, etc. against any wave of migration, or do migrants have priority over the culture in place?

One gut feeling (or emotional response) is that I would not want my small world to become the destination of thousands of people who bear a much different culture, set of values, religion, and so forth. On the other hand, a weaker emotional response leads me to feel suffering people should be helped.

The problems which uproot people and put them on the road are going to get much worse, and there will be many more refugees, migrants, immigrants, displaced persons, vagrants, and so forth, pressing up against borders and personal and community boundaries.

Proactive intervention could stop some of the problems that send people onto the roads elsewhere, but certainly not all of them.

I suppose the only effective thing that people "in place" can do to preserve their status quo is make sure their borders are fenced and guarded, and waves of migration are sent somewhere else.

Maybe we should take all comers, but supposing that everyone will welcome all migrants to an orgy of diversity celebration seems pretty unlikely.

A compromise position might be, "Yes, come –– temporarily. We will help you settle for now, but don't get too comfortable. When your homeland is more or less stable again, back you go.

All nations are comprised of migrants, or descendants of migrants.
The most successful of nations are those in which migration has been recently encouraged. Countries with walls do so at their peril and there are examples where this can be shown to cause stagnant ways of thinking.
In the UK there are moves to control and even reverse immigration. This, is, by and large just primitive xenophobia. Immigrants predict high for being employed, for being single, for paying taxes. They predict low for being unemployed and claiming benefits.
There is a shortage of nurses in the UK, which has markedly accelerated after the vote for Brexit. Employees in the NHS no longer feel welcome, and many suffer from racist abuse, are leaving to return with their new skills to their original homes abroad, or other foreign lands that are attracting them with better conditions rather than staying here and contributing their great work.

In a time of so-called "austerity" where the government fails to invest in infrastructure, pressure can be directed to immigrants rather than on government policy who are playing the "no alternative" card of economic irresponsibility.
Hitler came to power in wave of racial hatred, but the solution to Germany's economic crisis was not in expelling and incarcerating jews and slavs (which alone made things worse), it was the rejection of austerity by spending their way out of a hole with careful investment in industry.
There is a lesson here for us in the UK today.

I don't say yes or no. What you said was the reality we face now. All it shows is a huge discrimination between people, since some are poor and rejected due to the place they live. Geography rules?
And the solution is to accept the destiny, since they have no political power in between. It's so sad. It's not just.
This disagreement leads to war, no way. But there should be a way, man!

Hmm, the solution lays in economic ideas and sciences. I think politics could never provide the nations with true developmental steps. It's based on relative values. Politicians should always be accompanied with philosophers, since they alone can do nothing without pure reason and logic.
What we need is scientific outlook towards the current issues. We can no longer "comment" and "criticize".. That's why problems are getting more serious!

Nah! You can't run a country with a slide-rule. People use their own cultural logic and you ignore it at your peril.
Your way lies Soyent Green.

I mean the nations should be governed not only by politics but by science and economic science..
I doubt if any "culture logic" exists. Pure logic is free from any relative values, whether it be culture or religion or whatever. "Culture logic" is just a pretext to act biasedly.

The current refugee crisis is Europe is caused by America's endless wars in the Middle East. You can't separate the migration problem from US foreign policy.