That seemed... pretty unconvincing. It seemed to boil down to "Restricting people by national borders is immoral, therefore there's no moral defense for it, therefore it's immoral".
Yes, it tried to do a bit better than tat. It tried to make a case that restricting people is immoral. But if you didn't already assume that it was, the argument was... rather unconvincing.
It also assumes that no moral case can be made for borders, instead of actually taking such an argument seriously and addressing it.
Yes, it tried to do a bit better than tat. It tried to make a case that restricting people is immoral. But if you didn't already assume that it was, the argument was... rather unconvincing.
It also assumes that no moral case can be made for borders, instead of actually taking such an argument seriously and addressing it.