Nation states are one of those things that links totally different people together. Even the rich and the poor. — ssu

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.

Immigration reform is needed, the question is: what should it look like? What problems are we trying to solve? — Relativist

A better question is "how should the world be in the long term?". This then provides the long term goals of planning. If we do not address the long term requirements then we can never break free of historical chaos. This is true of all spheres of economic and political life it seems, where few are prepared to look beyond short term "problem solving" - (let's not call it short term "planning" because political goals are rarely stated, even short term ones)

Nation states have historically allowed large "safe spaces" for technology and trade to develop and flourish, generally refocusing human concern away from fear and violence, as Pinker so convincingly relates in his History of Violence book. But looking at our present era it seems as if they are becoming an impediment to furthering the betterment of humanity as a whole. Nations are like guns....the world would surely be a hugely better place in the future if they didn't exist.

Nation states have no moral goodness associated with them if morality is about caring about human beings in general. Nation states are about "us" and "them", you'd have to be a fantasist to think otherwise.

I fail to see how nation states represent anything morally good. If ever "one world" becomes a reality, then surely its denizens will look upon the era of nationhood with considerable horror.

However nation states is what we have right now, but only some are successful and some are failing badly. Who can blame folks from fleeing the horror and poverty of the worst nation states? Anyone who is not sympathetic to their plight could easily be said to be immoral by anyone else who cares about human beings.

But fully open borders is not a sustainable policy as long as the world is so unequal. One day there will be no borders or nations, I hope, but the task of moral people in successful nation states today is to show respect and offer support for people who cannot flourish in their own locale. This can be done by encouraging policies that help other nation states and their citizens to become successful - even if this incurs some material sacrifice. Not to do so is immoral if morality is about caring about other human beings.

If such caring was crafted creatively and constructively it could make a big difference. For example, would be migrants to the US, say, who would not normally qualify for entry, could be entered into a lottery, where there is a small but not impossibly remote chance each year of obtaining US citizenship provided they do not attempt to enter illegally. Each year, if their number doesn't come up they would be entitled to a modest lump sum of dollars , or perhaps their community would get it. These small beer policies aimed at helping individuals and small communities abroad should be employed alongside the bigger aid and trade initiatives aimed at helping failing countries become successful. To have this vision requires notions of self sacrifice and sharing.

I think the media, including the entertaiment media, have acted as a positive moral influence in terms of the rights' movements. It has championed and then normalised previously marginalised or oppressed groups of people. Trump is a master of normalising immoral behaviour - he knows that dragging the goalposts works and the media may not be strong enough to stop him. It seems like he understands a few human biases and then does them to death.

I don't think there is a principled difference between the consequences over time and any other consequences - for example the consequences over all people/the environment and so forth. Any formula has to be as accurately predictive as possible over all consequences.

one person will be deprived of all this and live in misery and squalor, and this miserable life is the essential learning tool through which everyone else's wonderful life is sustained. — unenlightened

That certainly sounds emotionally unappealing. I can't imagine it is difficult to translate into a very large negative amount in the calculus.

"Can a utilitarian calculus ever be devised"? Yeah easy. You just need a formula that simplifies to a function of one variable.

"Will that formula reflect my emotional view of a situation?".
Firstly, it is unlikely that my emotional view is very clear. Hell! At least a formula can make a decision!
But if I do have a clear emotional view, then that could be factored in to the formula to make it more "accurate". If the formula is allowed to be a computer program with lots of ifs and buts, then such factors can be accomodated provided they are consistent.