It's not inhumane or something to have visa only for work and not for indefinite residency. If the work visa was defacto a permanent residency visa, no one would give it and no one would get it.
It is in fact inhumane. It is also "or something" if you mean "unethical" by that.
The purpose of the arrangement is to obtain easy to exploit workforce to undercut the one locally available. The fact that it is precarious and exploitative is not an accident, but the goal.
People wanting to live in San Francisco aren’t the problem, housing red tape and nimbys are
The whole welfare system is based on the requirement that it only applies to a selected few and adults today support the elderly so they can retire under the assumption that children will pay the adults for their retirement. If you open up the welfare system for 7 billion people that haven't contributed, it will all collapse.
Permanent residents have some access to welfare, but there isn’t a straightforward path from work visa to green card.
Who is suggesting US welfare has to support 7 billion people?
That's the result from advocating free movement or no borders considering stats such as 52% of Africa's youth wanting to relocate to Europe or US. Unless you dismantle the welfare state. But it's possible that I misunderstood what the person meant with the 20th century comment.
Opening US borders for a free-for-all would be of course a disaster. But even that is a bit of a stretch to say that entire world’s population would move to the US.
People used to be highly mobile (and continue to be). The Americas were settled by millions of Europeans and Africans before the United States even became a country. South Asians were moved to Africa during the colonial era en masse. Vikings settled all over Europe and even Istanbul. The Huns, Goths, Romans, were all on the move.
Honestly, I'm not sure what use you see from asking this question.
It's reasonable to ask why your country of birth owes you anything. Keep in mind not every country gives you citizenship from birth, so it raises the question of whether what you're saying really is correct.
I would suggest if someone has worked somewhere for a decent amount of time they should not be disposed of so easily as the person in the article.
But that question wasn't. It was bad faith "gotcha!" question.
There's why does any country owe you, and why does your country of origin in particular owe you.
Your country owes you citizenship even if you don't pay your taxes. It may punish you in other ways, but not by taking away citizenship.
- People who can't "defend the country" don't get these rights: women, children, old people, people with religious exemptions, people with an unreasonable fear of being violently killed.
- People who promise to come and defend will get these rights, regardless of where they were born? Do they just make a solemn oath or do they have to do boot camp and maintain their skills?
I hope you can see this is not where your rights come from.
Because its a UN convention.
But for the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming a person already has a country they belong to which does give them the right to stay.
No other country owes you the right to stay. Singapore does not owe me the right to be there, let alone stay there. Each country is free to decide the rules for who it allows in and how long it allows them to stay and under what conditions.
It's not a "human right".
A “human right” is a social term defined by the demands of the people living in that time collectively. There is no list we can check off, it is what people demand and can fight for.
By asserting the right they very well could be /creating/ it.
The beauty of human rights was that it was supposed to be a well-defined set of core things. Which can't be granted, they just shouldn't be stamped on. But now „human rights“ is becoming a very polarised topic with many bits where person A is forced to do provide something to person B because it's „human rights“. Does person A has a „human right“ to refuse to provide his service?
If it was supposed to be a a well-defined set of core things, where are you drawing that set from?
Can it be a non-questionable human right to force others to provide you something?
Granting people that others will provide them something is fine. But it must be possible to discuss such topics. Human rights, IMO, shall be a very pure set of things that are not up to discussion, even with rather fringe views. Regardless of political quadrant. Of course, some freaks will always question anything. But wide wide majority (think 95% if not 98%) shall sign off on that.