[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Having a right means an obligation is imposed on others to behave in a certain way towards you.

And the justification of imposing such obligations are?
The Law is there to provide stability, but seeing that a right is not a law, then what is its purpose?

The point is that with the typical advocate of immigration restriction, they wouldn't even consider a suggestion that British-born people could be thrown out of Britain, for example. They'd consider it wrong to deny those people the opportunity to live in Britain, regardless of whether they are a strain on resources or whether there are economic problems. Yet when it's about immigrants, those born outside the country in question, talk of 'strain on resources' and 'economic issues' suddenly become OK reasons to deny them the opportunity to live in Britain.

Yet again you ignored the reality of such issues. You pay no attention to economic or cultural burdens of immigration.

I don't consider taxation or laws logical either, I consider them to exist for the benefit of an elite minority. I have this username for a reason, you know?

Well then you do not understand logic, society, people, or economics. You have a lot of reading to do

Yes, priests often were common people. Marat lived on almost nothing for most of the revolution.

Priests were most certainly not commoners.

Yes, it did that as well, albeit indirectly. Peasants no longer had to spend their days farming and labouring for their lords, they had more leisure time. People's diet changed because they were able to spend more of what they earned on themselves, and so eating higher quality food, etc.

There is a stark difference between a change to a cultures preferred diet, and simply not starving. As for leisure time, I think not.

Not Israel's specifically, the same argument applies to immigration restrictions in any country.

And my point remains. Why is one countries problems another countries issue? If they are not economically or socially linked, then it simply is not.
So again, why should Israel care about these immigrants?

[Chi019]

(Original post by Notethis)
And why exactly is that a bad reason?

Well that's true. There are some double standards. For instance it is also fine for the Dalai Lama to want to preserve the Tibetan character of Tibet. He doesn't want it being changed too much by Han Chinese moving there.