Why "America first"?

I hear this nationalistic mantra all the time when people want to justify denying refugees asylum, instituting protectionist policies, deporting illegal immigrants, etc. Even when the aggregate impact on humanity is positive, many Americans still think that it's more important to prioritize people that happen to be US citizens. The even more bizarre argument is that even when the proposed policy aligns with American interests, like expanding h1b1 visas, many oppose it on the grounds that it "hurts American workers". Never mind that these immigrants would then be considered Americans and thus their interests would matter to us even under their framework; we can only focus on people who are Americans now.

Of course, most American citizens got that way through sheer luck, .i.e. being born on American soil. Yet the same people who yammer about "entitlement programs" and "wealth redistribution" are resolute about one of the single greatest "entitlements" in human history; being born into a modern western society.

I understand, firstly, that it is rational to prioritize American interests to a reasonable degree to ensure our own continued survival and prosperity, given that this is typically good for the world too, and that secondly, people have an ingrained instinct to value their "tribe" over "outsiders", but is there any philosophically sound justification? Something something about the social contract?

Why not America first, should we put the rest of the world first before our own people? Can you honestly say you care about the rest of the world more then you care about our current people that need jobs and help?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why not America first

Because most Americans were given that label by complete chance, .i.e. being born here.

Good for us. This is our country. Fate and chance are part of life.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Good for us. This is our country.

Yeah...does anyone else have a more intellectually satisfying argument that isn't circular?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Fate and chance are part of life.

Is-ought fallacy.

I was not born with millions of dollars, should I be entitled to it cause other people have it?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I was not born with millions of dollars, should I be entitled to it cause other people have it?

How would you like it if you were immediately thrown into a concentration camp rampant with malaria, lacking in basic medical supplies, and devoid of any social mobility, because your parents gave birth to you in town B instead of town A?

I didnt know the US was placing people in concentration camps.

Because there's no reason for somebody to take responsibility for anybody else than himself. Simple as that. You're responsible for yourself; your family is responsible for itself; your country is responsible for itself.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I didnt know the US was placing people in concentration camps.

There are some really sh*tty countries where that's basically the case. My point being that you wouldn't like it if you had to live under those conditions just because you were born in the wrong place.

This is doubly unfair if your moving into the better place would actually help that better place.

Originally posted by JKBart
Because there's no reason for somebody to take responsibility for anybody else than himself. Simple as that. You're responsible for yourself; your family is responsible for itself; your country is responsible for itself.

Didn't your hero think differently? mmm

He attempted to make whole Europe his own country so he's another topic
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

I was not born into royalty, but since I want to be Royalty, I should be entitled to it based on the premise of this thread.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I was not born into royalty, but since I want to be Royalty, I should be entitled to it based on the premise of this thread.

Royalty is an unfair concept for this very reason.

Do you think it would be fair if people born in Massachusetts received different constitutional rights from those born in Texas, and you weren't allowed to move?

Originally posted by JKBart
He attempted to make whole Europe his own country so he's another topic
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Royalty is an unfair concept for this very reason.

Do you think it would be fair if people born in Massachusetts received different constitutional rights from those born in Texas, and you weren't allowed to move?

The federal constitution applies the same to all states, state constitutions are different between the states.

And Royalty is a completely fair analogy. As was money, property rights or anything else we can chose.

@TI: the other thing that you're missing is that we're not talking about giving people free things; we're talking about giving them the opportunity to compete in the market. You're proposing a system that prevents people from buying property in the United States even if they have the money, or working at a company even if the company wants to hire them. The hypocritical part is, you rant a lot about government regulations, and yet seem to think this completely arbitrary one is totally fine.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The federal constitution applies the same to all states, state constitutions are different between the states.

Yes, but nobody stops you from moving between states, nor would anyone want to do that. That's the point.

I don't think you're catching onto the fact that I'm using, you know, analogies.

Because this is the united states. No one stops people in EU from moving countries because of a union.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because this is the united states. No one stops people in EU from moving countries because of a union.

This is purely an is-ought fallacy. You haven't explained how this makes sense.