It does not follow from not valuing some people more than others that free movement would benefit any of these people; IMO part of a "moral" position involves trying to guess the likely consequences of things in the real world. An argument that people from different cultures don't get along very well, particularly when there's a large and sudden change in the numbers of one of the groups, is not antithetical to your position of valuing people equally; the only point of disagreement is wrt likely outcomes.
To me, it is quite analogous to one's home - while some people might be personally ok with strangers letting themselves in and sleeping on the couch, I am personally not ok with it. Perhaps you've spent considerable time and money putting things into a state that you find pleasant, I'd rather keep it more or less in that state, otherwise maybe I'd have just sat around and relaxed rather than expending all the effort and money.
I'm fine with others personally disagreeing with this philosophy, but I'm not ok with the fairly common claim that "it doesn't make any difference", or having to pay for the consequences of alternative philosophies. But then to be fair, the west has saddled many parts of the rest of the world with "extreme inconvenience" to put it mildly, so you could certainly argue that this is our just desserts.
To answer both you and the other commenter, I'm a consequentialist. That is, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place without modern day nationalism. There would be less wars and more cooperation. Cultures would win by merit. Nationalism is not far removed from racism (which I assume you do not support) when you think deeply and honestly about it. Your nationality is for the most part an accident of birth, doesn't define you and is very difficult to change.
I could keep going without changing your mind. Nationalism is such a deeply emotional, entrenched notion that is taught from childhood, from Hollywood movies to popular songs, and almost never challenged (you may have thought about the subject more deeply, but you'd be in a minority). Plus, even if you agreed with me on a philosophical level, being Canadian and all, it'd probably still be in your best self interest not to join the anti-nationalist ranks :) In the spirit of full disclosure, I traveled a lot and lived in a few countries (including China), so I can't pretend to be completely unbiased.
Agreed, but until we have a massive enlightenment in overall society as well as removing those from power who play on people's fear and emotions, we'll have to make do with what we have. Until then, nationalism matters.
> Nationalism is not far removed from racism (which I assume you do not support) when you think deeply and honestly about it.
Yes and no. Racism, taken literally, is idiotic. Racism as a description for culturalism, does in fact define you, or the aggregate behavior of a group is what "culture" is. People are largely (but not entirely) a product of their environment, that is a fact. So the notion of "supporting it" or not makes no sense, it is simply a description of objective reality, a classification. Now, turning your brain off and making decisions solely based on what culture someone appears to belong to of course is prone to error so should be used with caution, but the progressive liberal fear mongering that dishonestly interprets this as bordering on genocide is a big part of the problem why we can never seem to make any progress imho. And again, this matural human behavior (classification based on objective reality) is abused by those in power for their personal gain.