Why is it morally acceptable for a country to prioritize the prosperity of its own citizens, but not for whites to prioritize the prosperity of fellow whites?
You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though. And it's not just America, you'll run into these restrictions in every country, often times more strict.
> You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though.
Not on your own. You need to find a country willing to accept you as a citizen. For the vast majority of people in the world, the only countries that would accept them are those where they would be worse off. So the countries that do (successfully) prioritize prosperity of their citizens also effectively lock out most people from elsewhere. The trickle of immigration is just that, a trickle - it is deliberately constrained with various rules and requirements, and it would be a much bigger stream if anyone who wanted to change their citizenship could apply (even if you filtered out, say, people with criminal records and such).
Can you elaborate on why you think that isn't true?
Imagine I'm a cab driver in Pakistan and want to become a cab driver in the US. Can you point me to what form I would fill out in order to apply for a visa?
I'm having trouble understanding which level of abstraction you're trying to discuss.
Are you arguing that two human attributes in particular, race and birthplace, should for some reason be subject to the same level of discrimination in hiring?
Or are you asking a more abstract question? I.e., given any human attribute ${attrib}, what are the principles a government should use when deciding if ${attrib} is a legally protected class?
I'm just engaging in common-sense ethical reasoning. It seems wrong to require that all whites employ a much higher bar for hiring blacks. And, I have the same intuition about requiring all Americans employ a much higher bar for hiring foreigners.
Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.
So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).
Yet mysteriously, every country in the world does this (discriminates against foreigners) to some extent, and has for recorded history. If you can't figure out why, perhaps you shouldn't be talking about policy, in the same way you shouldn't delete code you don't understand.
Although I don't necessarily agree with what GP is saying, it seems to be spreading ignorance to say "if you can't figure out why [then I'm not going tell you] and you shouldn't be talking about it". Instead of alluding to a mysterious reason, which you insist one ought to understand to talk about policy, why don't you tell us what the reason is?
Might doesn't make morally right but it can make factually correct.
Two parties disagree and eventually one says to the other "if you don't stop it I'll make you stop it."
This is a truth claim that can be honestly verified through physical struggle. If they win, then their might did make them factually correct. If the other side was mightier than the other side proved themselves correct when they said "no you won't."
No?
Edit: human beings since forever have never stopped warring with each other over stuff. It's almost like our M.O. is Argumentum ad hominem, ad baculum, ad infinitum - "argument by beating a man with a stick for eternity"