> That's sometimes part of the contract for entering a country. Nobody is forced to accept it.
That truly depends on your meaning of "force". For example, if I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your money or else, you are not forced to give me the money. You still have a choice. Yet, we commonly say that someone is forced because they are compelled by the alternative being a worse option created by someone else deliberately.
In that sense, yes people are forced to accept that contract.
Although it is part of the contract, I think it's inhumane that the contract is set up that way, and nation states should be held to higher standards than that.
If the contract for living in a country was that they chopped off a finger each year, would that be humane? No it wouldn't, and we'd protest against it. Some people would still choose it anyway. But something being part of a contract does not make that thing humane.
Why would people choose it anyway? Because being with the person you love matters a lot to some people.
And it matters to me that people who love each other, whoever they are, are allowed by nation states to be together if they wish. I consider it a basic facet of humane society to allow that. A proper example of what ought to be a simple human right. In the ballpark of "we hold these truths to be self-evident".
For two people who love each other to be prevented by law from being together in either of their home countries (because it's certainly possible for both ends to have incompatible restrictions) is, in my opinion, inhumane.
Also, for someone to be with someone else and then if the relationship turns sour to have the state applying enormous pressure to stay in the abusive relationship (whether with a partner or employer), that is also, in my opinion, inhumane and not a state functioning as it should. The state's job is to protect all people in its care, that includes all people it has accepted into its care as well. A state is ideally held to the standards of its noble constitution. It is not good enough to say "well it was part of the contract". We do not allow abusive terms in contracts to be upheld, even if they have been accepted. If someone agrees to be a slave, we declare that agreement void. Some things are struck out by courts if necessary when deciding what is right. Same should apply, in my opinion, to this.
That truly depends on your meaning of "force". For example, if I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your money or else, you are not forced to give me the money. You still have a choice. Yet, we commonly say that someone is forced because they are compelled by the alternative being a worse option created by someone else deliberately.
In that sense, yes people are forced to accept that contract.
Although it is part of the contract, I think it's inhumane that the contract is set up that way, and nation states should be held to higher standards than that.
If the contract for living in a country was that they chopped off a finger each year, would that be humane? No it wouldn't, and we'd protest against it. Some people would still choose it anyway. But something being part of a contract does not make that thing humane.
Why would people choose it anyway? Because being with the person you love matters a lot to some people.
And it matters to me that people who love each other, whoever they are, are allowed by nation states to be together if they wish. I consider it a basic facet of humane society to allow that. A proper example of what ought to be a simple human right. In the ballpark of "we hold these truths to be self-evident".
For two people who love each other to be prevented by law from being together in either of their home countries (because it's certainly possible for both ends to have incompatible restrictions) is, in my opinion, inhumane.
Also, for someone to be with someone else and then if the relationship turns sour to have the state applying enormous pressure to stay in the abusive relationship (whether with a partner or employer), that is also, in my opinion, inhumane and not a state functioning as it should. The state's job is to protect all people in its care, that includes all people it has accepted into its care as well. A state is ideally held to the standards of its noble constitution. It is not good enough to say "well it was part of the contract". We do not allow abusive terms in contracts to be upheld, even if they have been accepted. If someone agrees to be a slave, we declare that agreement void. Some things are struck out by courts if necessary when deciding what is right. Same should apply, in my opinion, to this.