In my view it's not moral to control which geographic areas people can choose to travel to, to settle down in, etc. I don't object to private property wholesale, and I don't object to all restricted areas, but there should be plenty of public property in any area, and people should be allowed to freely move about it as they wish.

I'm not against screening for wanted criminals and people for whom there is good reason to believe that they're risks re terrorism. But that's it, really.

Ideally, I'd prefer the entire world was just one country.

Interesting fyi - from US Conf of Catholic Bishops.
I say that because our reporters on the ground, traveling with the folks coming from the south to the USA, have been organized, guaranteed safe passage to the USA border, food, places to rest, medicine and support by the catholic churches. The folks that have been part of the separation of families that took place 6 months ago are being dropped off by the hundreds at churches here in the Valley. ICE is transporting them to the churches because the 21 day time limit has run out and these folks need somewhere to go. They are dropped off at the churches and from there they can contact family members across the country and are given a bus ticket or a plane ticket to get them there. One church being interviewed said they normally receive 10-15 immigrants a week and are now receiving people by the hundreds. The first day, of the first wave, of released immigrants cost the church over 2k in medicine, personal hygiene supplies and basic needs.
These churches are not equipped to handle the influx of immigrants they are receiving but they will not say no to anyone.
When I consider the validity of what is being said and what I am actually seeing, I am almost 100% convinced that the churches are the ones encouraging the migration through other countries to get to the USA.

looks like about 4 or 5 corporal acts of mercy in that post.

Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize The value of their lives, as they define it. This freedom should only be limited by the inherent conflicts of similar freedoms in others. The nature of a particular political border may or may
not be a moral entity to the extent it is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates. — Rank Amateur

The border of any country is not "moral" or "immoral" the border of the country "is". How it is respected by those within its' "border" and those outside of its' "border" may at times seem to be perceived as "political" but that waxes and wanes with time, at most countries borders do.

To apply whether or not a countries border "is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates" one needn't look far to see whether or not that works over the long term. My state of residence is one that shares a countries border, in addition to its' state borders within the nation of the United States. Likewise, the residents of Mexico share a border with the USAs' nation states of Texas, Arizona and California as well as the USA's country border. When our (both the USA and Mexico) nations' borders are respected we can handle the daily flow of people and commerce between our nations.

Our (both the USA and Mexico) ports of entry used to be able to process both of the countries citizens through on a daily basis with the likely delay being the person in front of you having to empty their pockets as they walked through the guarded turn style. Residents of both countries know both the benefits and the drawbacks of having each other to trade with, cooperate with lawfully and orderly.

We (both the USA and Mexico) have done it for decades which means we have experienced borders being tested by those who do not reside in a countries border state trying to govern the respected borders. I am speaking of both of "us", both sides of each nations' borders. When the light is not shinning on who is governing the countries' border that we share and there is regular flow of transactions both legal and illegal, the border works. It doesn't work legally nor morally but it works for the humans involved.

It works for the self appointed border possessors, both the Zeta and Sinaloa associations, who have their own laws of safe passage that must be followed. It works for the residents of the USA because our nations' border is functioning as a guide, so those who wish to cross either way, at a legal point of entry, can and be processed in a reasonable amount of time.

Neither of our individual nations' borders cannot handle the influx of a large amount of people at once. I do believe that Mexico and the USA, in a governmental alliance not tried before (that I have witnessed) are trying to respectfully handle all humans involved. We are not sure how to handle the sheer numbers but we are trying to find the best way possible, knowing there is no perfect way to do it. We both know how to do it orderly but again, neither country can handle the sheer number at once. Who is morally at fault? Neither of our countries, we are all doing the best we can, with what we have.

The network of churches encouraging these travelers, providing food and comfort, recognize our nations' borders and also acknowledge that they themselves cannot handle the sheer number of people wanting to come in at once. The churches along the way to the USA are handling those traveling, not final destinations. The final destination for many travelers is not within Mexico but within the USAs' nations' border and that involves the churches of the USA finding permanent places simply for survival. But once here, the ability to thrive becomes limited because of the legal status of the traveler and that is where the church falls out of grace.

Can an organization claiming religious status simply be laundering people through our nations' without any future lined up for them?

What position does that leave the traveler in? In a country that is ruled by laws, but in being in either country, without that countries permission leaves the traveler vulnerable to any personal crimes as they cannot report to the authorities of that country because of the ramifications of being 'found'. Does that equate to "is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates"?

Is the church acting morally when it does not inform the travelers of the known obstacles that those they are encouraging and guiding are going to encounter?

looks like about 4 or 5 corporal acts of mercy in that post. — Rank Amateur

I am sorry, could you please point to the act of mercy that says I am willing to lead you into a place I am unwilling to travel to and leave you there.

I have reason to believe based on anything at all that would count as evidence that the Catholic Church is engaged in some type of conspiracy to bring immigrants into the US.

I think the one thing I can tell you that is an important point in these discussions, is that the Church does view these people as individuals, with individual needs and circumstances. And with certain inherent human rights. I can also tell you when faced with individuals in need the Church should do what is within its power to aide and assist them.

While the Church recognizes boarders, and acknowledges their need, it does not see them as superior to human rights.

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff I have reason to believe based on anything at all that would count as evidence that the Catholic Church is engaged in some type of conspiracy to bring immigrants into the US. — Rank Amateur

Sorry should have been I have NO reason to believe.....

Sorry should have been I have NO reason to believe..... — Rank Amateur

Freud?

While the Church recognizes boarders, and acknowledges their need, it does not see them as superior to human rights. — Rank Amateur

Whose church decides what church is going to support the human rights of all looking for refuge?
The church knows that the word is easily spoken but deed is quite another undertaking. Who is carrying out to the masses, the words that are promised in the church of the people?

I, and I thought we, were only discussing the Catholic Church here

Doesn't the Vatican have a huge display of wealth? If the Vatican were to do everything in its power to help refugees, wouldn't that also include selling off its ornate decorations to assist the refugees? That display of wealth is there so the Vatican can impress people with its power, not to assist the needy.

for the forensic accountants - The Catholic Church in the States publishes their books. Here they are:

http://usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/upload/financial-statements-2016-2017.PDF

For the readers digest version:

Income is about 245 M/yr
Expenses about 238 M/yr
of which
directly to immigration - 96m
indirectly to other charities - 102M

Salaries and Management - about 14M

Rank Amateur: An income statement just references income for a specific period, while a balance sheet tells us the actual wealth present.

sure you won't believe this - but will tell you anyway. FYI the church does not consider its art work as their assets - the belief is they are the property of the world. While the Pieta may reside in a church, the Vatican does not rightly consider it the property of the Church. The church is the steward of these treasures - that they believe belong to the world - and as such they have no right to sell them.

Sure if you dig you can come up with some anecdotal instant that could be in conflict with this, but in general - this is the view.

Doesn't the Vatican have a huge display of wealth? — LD Saunders

I know this is the conventional wisdom. And while the Catholic Church is a huge organization, and takes in vast amounts of money, and has great financial holdings, it also has great costs, the largest of which by far are charitable in nature. The Church, in general, about breaks even.

If it makes you feel any better, by any objective measure there is no bank that has suffered from more corruption over the last 20 or so years than the Vatican bank. It has been an absolute mess.

Rank Amateur: I'm not trying to insult all Catholics here, I know many great Catholics. I'm also sure that the Vatican does do some charity work that we can admire. I was just under the impression that the Vatican isn't exactly poor, and that not all of its money is used for charitable work.

I think I have more of a distrust against all forms of organized religion, per se, as opposed to individual believers. I think some of the morality gets lost in the hierarchy, and I'm not saying that the Vatican is solely guilty of this by any means.

here is an old Jesuit joke.

A Jesuit novitiate is at his first house celebration of the Feast day of St. Ignatius. There are drinks, very good wine, steak, lobsters, all the fixings - brandy and cigars to end. The Novitiate turns to the priest next to him at the table and says - If this is poverty - bring on chastity

Rank Amateur: That's a good one. I never heard it before.

" I do think as human beings we have certain inalienable rights - simply due to our humanness"
Let's get one thing straight - rights are not immaterial, infinitely extendable things. They're awarded to you by other human beings because those human beings made a cost-benefit judgement on whether or not you and everyone else should have them, correctly or incorrectly.
Rights are very much physical. They are dependent on resources and the ability of other members of society to coordinate violence (law enforcement). All rights come at a cost to somebody, some rights have low costs to everyone, so we have them. Other rights would come at a huge cost to everyone and a benefit to a tiny minority, so if we're rational, we don't have them.

all due respect, I could not possibly disagree more.

Could you tell me specifically what with and why?

They're awarded to you by other human beings because those human beings made a cost-benefit judgement on whether or not you and everyone else should have them, correctly or incorrectly. — Hallucinogen

I do not think my right to life, my right not to be enslaved, my right not to have violence done to me, my right to use my talents and efforts to improve my life, are awarded by other humans, I believe i have these rights simply by being human.

are awarded by other humans — Rank Amateur

should be "are not" awarded ....

So why does your right to do those things change when you go from one country to the next?

my whole point is they should not - If your point is, that these inalienable rights can be ignored, not respected, and abused by other humans - I have no argument against that - there are thousands of years of empirical evidence for that.

I agree that some rights should be conferred to everyone (based on the consequences). I wouldn't use the word inalienable though, because they're not. They should be based on a cost-benefit analysis inclusive of everyone who is affected by them.

I have no clue what that last post means.

There is nothing in terms of linking people that a nation state has to offer that cannot be acheved by less destructive means. For example people support league sports teams very ardently - often from another nation state. — Kippo

So you think that being fans of sport teams can replace the nation state? Or perhaps we could relate to those liking Star Wars and those being in the Star Trek camp as obviously these aren't so evil as "fans" of nation states, the ugly violent "nationalists". That gives us enough social cohesion for our societies to work?

How do you approach democracy then?

Would you assume the World would be better if basically the Han Chinese and Indians and their politicians, if only they could get together, would decide how much taxes you have to pay to them? Because likely these two groups would dominate if the World would truly come together and democracy would mean elections on a global level where every man and woman (and other, let's add that for political correctness) would have one vote.

To view the nation states as inherently evil and worthless simply doesn't at all think about how our societies are and have been formed and takes every positive aspect as simply given. Just like if one would be totally against globalism here in this forum, but then not giving any thought that one sharing your ideas with theoretically with anyone in the World that can write and understand English fluently enough not to be thrown out of this site.

The border of any country is not "moral" or "immoral" the border of the country "is". How it is respected by those within its' "border" and those outside of its' "border" may at times seem to be perceived as "political" but that waxes and wanes with time, at most countries borders do. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nordic countries have totally open borders to each other. Nordic people can cross them freely, there are no major problems between Nordic countries, but the borders surely do exist. (Btw, for Americans to immigrate to the Nordic countries is very difficult)

If I move to let's say to Oslo in Norway, the only thing I have to do is to inform the Postal Service that my address has changed. I don't need any work permits, visas or green cards from any authority. I can buy a house Oslo and put my children into school there and start immediately using the Norwegian health care services. Tax officials will later automatically notice that I've moved to Norway and I'll start paying taxes to Norway.

If crossing the border is so easy, that doesn't mean that there doesn't exist a border between Finland and Norway. Once in Norway I've left behind the EU, entered a NATO country and a multitude other things have happened, so not only the currency has changed, but the language and even the culture has somewhat changed. Above all, now I'm a foreigner living in Norway. If I want to vote in elections, then I have to apply to citizenship, which likely puts me in line with a mass of Syrians, Pakistanis, Eritreans etc. waiting for their application to be handled.

The idea that borders are bad as they constrain the individual is naive ignorant thinking or just a narrow viewpoint only focused on the individual. Similar is the idea that nation states are inherently bad. Open borders work perfectly, if the countries don't have a huge differences in prosperity or overall safety.

The fact is that humans fall into groups known as different people, talk different languages and have different cultures. That people form societies around these kind of things is not inherently bad. Just as the Nordic countries show, nation states aren't inherent hostile against other states just as people aren't inherently hostile to others.

Btw, for Americans to immigrate to the Nordic countries is very difficult — ssu

Why is that? Do Nordic countries use the Merit system? Is there a limit to how many immigrants are allowed in annually? What happens when someone does enter a Nordic country without permission?

The way you speak of traveling with ease within Nordic countries is how United States citizens move throughout the states of our nation and our districts (D.C. and our territories Puerto Rico ect) with the currency, laws and protected rights remain the same for citizens. The states themselves offer up a diversity in religion, food and traditions native to their state. The greeting you would get from @Hanover in Georgia would be VERY different than the greeting you would receive at our ranch here in the Desert Southwest. From attire to manners, dialect to burying traditions, our state are very different cultures.

I am not sure of what the size differential is between the Nordic countries and United States of America, which leads me to wonder if it wouldn't be a fair correlation between the two as far as mobility within the defined borders. Maybe Nordic countries collectively are what the States are of the Union represent? Would that be accurate?