Let's say I stumble upon some California company's website, see a link named "Opportunities"...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

...click on it, see a vacancy I like, establish conversation with the people there, and they say "you're what we want. You're hired."

What moral right does the US government have to prevent me from jumping into a plane and start working there?

Would I be "weakening the cohesion of the nation-state" or something?

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. Unless the government has you in custody, no moral right,

there is more to this story, right?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. I am a Brazilian. I lived in Brazil all my life.

In case you're wondering, no, I'm not seeking overseas work. This is a hypothetical.

[annabanana]

3. So you would be emigrating (in this hypothetical)

.. you know..
Planning to stay, settle down, apply for US Citizenship, the whole 9 yards?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Stay and settle down, surely. My point is, if an employer wants to hire somebody

AND follow labor laws, anybody should be able to apply.

This isn't about people who just cross the border without the foggiest idea of what the hell they'll do next -- or poised to work at 1/3rd of minimum wage.

[annabanana]

5. I see no problem. . . n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. ANOTHER, SIMILAR HYPOTHETICAL: Tourist visas.

Anybody who goes to the US to visit receives a temporary visa that expires one, two, three or whatever months after. No problem with that.

Now, let's say that, while strolling through the streets of Miami, our tourist sees a "help wanted" sign in the front of a store. She goes in, introduces herself, the store manager likes her and wants to hire her.

I say our prospective saleswoman should be able to just stay and start working, while she fills the immigration paperwork. No undue hoops should be placed.

What say you?

[ThomWV]

7. I Can Say No and I Can Give You A Reason Why

This is just for argument's sake - it is not my opinion. So don't jump down my ass about it, but here goes.

No, I will not let you come here to take advantage of that opportunity. This is why. You did not contribute anything to creating that opportunity. I did - in the sense that I am a member of this greater community, the USA, bounded artificially my lines at the north and south and by oceans east and west. I contributed when I built the transportations system that brought the company its raw materials and allowed its workers to commute. I built the communications system that is vital to its existence. I made and enforce the laws under which the company operates and I educated its leaders. I give it a stable currency with which to trade and I protect its patents. You contributed nothing to any of this but I and my fellow taxpayers did over decades create this opportunity. I, speaking for all of us who have built this opportunity had decided to reserve the fruits of our labor for our own. You have no standing to ask for what we have built, although we may give it freely if we so choose.

If its opportunity that you want build it yourself where you live and within the constraints of the system where you live and if you find that system deficient then it is you who need to fix your system, not leave it for what I have built.

Like I said, its not my argument but I do not think that it is an invalid argument.

[NashVegas]

8. Along Those Lines

If the Cali company wants to play the game of being a Cali-based, US-based business, it must adhere to the rules that entails.

The rules are not unchangeable. The company can hire visa'd workers, the company can lobby to ease immigration restrictions.

That goes for the individual as well.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. That's what you'd tell me. What would you tell the company?

To make the job easier, let's break down the reasons the company wants to hire me and not an American:

"We tried, really. For longer than we'd like. Then, up comes this fellow from Brazil who fits in just nice. You say we have to keep looking? Why do you want to hurt an AMERICAN business?"

"We have this bunch of CVs here, this guy's is the best so far, and we have to fill the position yesterday. You say we have to settle for second best? Why do you want to hurt an AMERICAN business?"

[ThomWV]

11. Easy Answer

Because I choose to. That is my right as the body who licensed the company to operate (corprorate charter by your definition in the state of California) within my borders to require that it only employ workers from within those borders too. Remember, I may reserve what I have created - which is the stable community in which the business operates - to myself and my own.

[crispini]

12. If the company really tries to hire an American citizen and can't...

there is a type of visa for that -- it's called an H1-B. I know an AWFUL lot of technical people and engineers who have made it over to the States via an H1-B. :shrug:

[porphyrian]

9. Who gets to define moral rights?

There may be legal rights, though. However, despite the overtures of outrage people like to display at the mention of "illegal immigrants," most Americans accept a level of ambiguity with regards to the law as virtually all of us break them at some point, if not daily. Hell, the entire state of Georgia began as a prison colony (something they share with Australia, I guess).

In light of the blatant and repeated crimes of this administration - torture, a war of aggression, mass murder of innocents, abandonment of the troops they use to do it all, and a ceaseless stream of lies to cover it all - anyone who can muster righteous indignation about "illegal immigrants" has some other unexplored issue that needs to be addressed. It's like complaining about speeding drivers while a serial killer is loose in the neighborhood.

[ret5hd]

13. Here's the flip-side of the question...

Let's say a foreign company wants to invest in the U.S. and bring the profits home, distribute profits to shareholders, etc. No problem there, right? None whatsoever. That's what corporations do.

And next let's say a U.S. company wants to invest in a foreign country and bring the profits home, distribute profits to shareholders, etc. No problem there, right? None whatsoever. That's what corporations do. No problem there, right? None whatsoever.

So there you have it. Money trumps people. Capital gets to flow freely. Free as the breeze. Back and forth, to and fro, a completely borderless world. (Big) business gets exactly what it wants and everyone says this is OK.

The only restrictions are on people. People are confined, essentially imprisoned (even if some peoples bars are more gilded than others), while capital gets free reign.

Maybe I'm one of only a few that sees the inherent injustice in this.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. That's EXACTLY my point.

There's a sizeable chunk of countries -- namely, the European Union -- that did away with such double standards. The more countries do that, the better.

[ThomWV]

15. Actually I Think You Missed The Point

The European Union didn't do away with such standards. What the European Union did was expand the boundrys. Just as we have that line up north and that line down south along with the two Oceans the European Union has its boundrys too. Afghanastan is no more welcome than Peru when it comes to that line. So what you have there is simply bigger, not somehow better.

[NormanYorkstein]

17. are you joking?? The EU has super strict immigration policies!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. I say amongst the constituent countries.

And they keep adding more countries.

Contrast that to NAFTA, where only capital became freee to move, and not people.

[Irreverend IX]

16. How do you feel about open borders for Brazil?

Let's say I'm rich as hell and I want to build a new home in Rio. Should I be able to do it without going through any formal immigration process? What if a few thousand of my rich friends want to come with me and buy up big tracts of land to turn into gaudy estates?

[NormanYorkstein]

18. well no moral right to stop you!

As long as you have the money you're in the clear!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. I. Am. Not. Advocating. Open. Borders.

Pay more attention to what you read.

[mondo joe]

21. Why is a "moral right" required?

Just wondering.

[Robbien]

22. Haven't you heard, Regent University has taken over our Justice system

and Pat Robertson has decreed everything is going to be judged according to morals. His morals.

[mondo joe]

23. Indeed. And it seems some on DU have the same approach -- government

as a MORAL entity.

:shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

24. Not if you get a visa n/t