[willmarch]

I have not called you racist anywhere in our conversation. I've simply asserted that a policy may be discriminatory.

I also don’t see how universal human rights leads to “nation-states should not exist". A state can have borders, put limits on immigration, and prioritize citizens while still being limited by due process, equal protection, and non-discrimination.

The part I'm against is treating individuals as suspect mainly because of group averages, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc, rather than their own conduct.

If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).

[remarkEon]

>I believe in universal human rights and equality/fairness in application of laws. You seem like you don't

This is the same thing and you know it. I've already explained how your position is unworkable at scale.

>If your position is just that states can favor citizens in some respects, I think there is no argument there. Where I disagree is with using that rationale as a way to justify broad disfavor toward legal residents or non-citizens as an entire class (whether administratively practical or not).

That's the whole point of a government! If a government lets a group of people in, and they misbehave, they can and should kick this group out. It is not more complicated than that.

[willmarch]

The same thing as what?

Respectfully, in my opinion, you have not explained anything. You've just made a series of statements without qualifiers, which is not convincing. Are you a pure utilitarian or do you believe in principles that go beyond that? Do you believe governments have restraints on their powers towards persons under their care regardless of citizenship status?

The point of government is universally debatable and changes based on new knowledge or new principles/needs; governments are continually evolving and there are many different types of governments. If a government has jurisdiction over persons and those persons misbehave, that government is still responsible for those persons and does not get to discard them without violating human rights as they are understood today (and most constitutions and courts subscribe to the position I am describing).

You keep iterating your belief in how governments should work but you have not defended that belief in a convincing way (with either historical examples or justifying the seeming abuses other than saying "they can do this"). I believe governments should and/or do support universal human rights and defend human rights (as enlightenment thinkers believed).

What you're describing, if I understand correctly, is in violation of those universal principles of human dignity (some persons are lesser than others under the law, which is not true no matter how you try to justify it).

The whole reason we have international courts is countries can violate the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. Your claim that governments can do whatever they want to non-citizens, flies in the face of that idea. Are you against international courts that try to protect persons from the governments that have jurisdiction over them against abuses?