Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.Does your neighbor have the natural right to move into your basement? Property rights are natural rights as well.
If the above is a no, then why do we, as a collective people, not have the right to determine who comes and goes in our house - the USA?
No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.Does your neighbor have the natural right to move into your basement? Property rights are natural rights as well.
If the above is a no, then why do we, as a collective people, not have the right to determine who comes and goes in our house - the USA?
No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Why are you hung up on "natural law"? Your interpretation of natural law seems to be something you just made up to express your opinion of how things should be. In nature, a rabbit is free to go where ever its feet will take it. However, there are many predators in nature that are free to make a meal of the rabbit if they can catch it. Is this "natural law", the way nature works?Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.Does your neighbor have the natural right to move into your basement? Property rights are natural rights as well.
If the above is a no, then why do we, as a collective people, not have the right to determine who comes and goes in our house - the USA?
No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.Does your neighbor have the natural right to move into your basement? Property rights are natural rights as well.
If the above is a no, then why do we, as a collective people, not have the right to determine who comes and goes in our house - the USA?
No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
Why are you hung up on "natural law"? Your interpretation of natural law seems to be something you just made up to express your opinion of how things should be. In nature, a rabbit is free to go where ever its feet will take it. However, there are many predators in nature that are free to make a meal of the rabbit if they can catch it. Is this "natural law", the way nature works?Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
Countries have borders and the governments of the countries have laws about who are allowed within their borders. Natural law has nothing to do with this.
Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
YOu dismiss the concept of a nation of citizens owing their land because their right to the land is "man made".
You consider your ownership of your land "different" because you have a deed to that land.
Now, that deed was made by men of course.
But the real point here is that that deed is not your Right to property.
It is just a piece of paper than documents your Property so that the government can do it's job and protect your property rights.
If we as Americans wished we could print up and send to all Americans deeds to their group national property.
We have the right to do that because it is OUR LAND.
And your attempts at spin are nothing but annoyances. They might convince yourself and people who agree with you already.
Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?
I say no.
Trump says no.
What do you say?
I say that freedom of movement about the planet is an inalienable right that has nothing to do with political boundaries.
That contradicts the RIght of National Sovereignty.
Which is an actual right.
Well, in my mind, a natural right is more important than a legal right, and anything accruing from national sovereignty is a matter of legal rights rather than natural rights. Sovereignty is something that is recognized and mutually agreed upon by the parties involved, I suppose one could claim that a natural law, rather than a man made one, is what grants sovereignty to a given person or entity. That doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to nation states like the U.S. for there is nothing that naturally endowed Europeans, and thus us as their descendents, a natural right to the territory now called the U.S. The fact is that, while we will do nothing much to make amends for having done so, our forebears basically usurped/took the territory of North America from the people who were already in it for millennia before any European arrived.
Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?
I say no.
Trump says no.
What do you say?
I say that freedom of movement about the planet is an inalienable right that has nothing to do with political boundaries.
That contradicts the RIght of National Sovereignty.
Which is an actual right.
Well, in my mind, a natural right is more important than a legal right, and anything accruing from national sovereignty is a matter of legal rights rather than natural rights. Sovereignty is something that is recognized and mutually agreed upon by the parties involved, I suppose one could claim that a natural law, rather than a man made one, is what grants sovereignty to a given person or entity. That doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to nation states like the U.S. for there is nothing that naturally endowed Europeans, and thus us as their descendents, a natural right to the territory now called the U.S. The fact is that, while we will do nothing much to make amends for having done so, our forebears basically usurped/took the territory of North America from the people who were already in it for millennia before any European arrived.
Translation: Natural rights to territory should only be recognized for non-European inhabitants.
Like I said before, your interpretation of natural law is something that you simply made up to support your opinion of open borders. Unless there is some authority backing up your opinion about natural law, it means nothing.Why are you hung up on "natural law"? Your interpretation of natural law seems to be something you just made up to express your opinion of how things should be. In nature, a rabbit is free to go where ever its feet will take it. However, there are many predators in nature that are free to make a meal of the rabbit if they can catch it. Is this "natural law", the way nature works?Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
Countries have borders and the governments of the countries have laws about who are allowed within their borders. Natural law has nothing to do with this.
You'll perhaps understand why "natural law" is part of the discussion if you trace the discussion back to post #7. In that post I answered the question "do non-U.S. citizens have the right to enter the U.S?" My response was yes, because the right of freedom of movement (anywhere) is an inalienable right.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" may be the three inalienable rights expressly noted in the Declaration of Independence, but that they are the sole three noted doesn't mean there are only three. Inalienable rights are those that we each have regardless of what laws, policies or political borders men make or draw on a map, that is, they are rights that are given by nature and from nature comes their inalienability. Freedom to move around the planet is another inalienable right, one we all are given, and that right has nothing to do with political boundaries or man made laws.
You can write about "rabbits and predators" if you want to, but realize that doing so ignores the fact that we are not rabbits, and the "predators" that would correspond to your analogy are not creatures other than we, humans. So unless you are of a mind to liken one group of humans to the predator and the other to the prey, all the while knowing that we are not predators or prey to one another, find a better analogy, one in which the substantive similarities, not just the incidental ones, are shared among the creatures and humanity.
Where your analogy falls apart (detailed discussion provided for folks who want to offer a rebuttal):
Pick your rabbit or your predator...Would rabbit A deny rabbit B the right to freely move anywhere? Yes, it would; A would deny B freedom of movement, access, to the small part of the land that A has claimed as it's warren. A's warren is it's "personal" territory in very much the same way as my basement, like the rest of my house, is my personal territory. That analogy corresponds to the idea of private property.
You might want to consider a creature that is a territorial predator, perhaps a large cat or canine, or even other primates. The thing there is that like the rabbit, they have what is there "exclusive use/home" territory and their "ranging territory." The former, is much like yours or my home or the rabbit's warren; the latter is analogous to what I'm referring to as the public domain. While there may be some conflict when groups/individuals encounter one another, but as long as the "arriving" group isn't attempting to occupy the "home range" of the residents, there is no issue.
Now that all may sound very similar to what's at issue in this discussion, and in some ways it is. The thing that differs is that those critters are acting in accordance with a "natural law." Their "uncrossable" boundaries are given by what each of them considers their home, not by what is just part of the adjoining/surrounding "public domain." In contrast, the idea of banning foreigners from the whole of the U.S. is permitted not by natural law, but by human law.
I am not at all suggesting that you or I should take immigrants into our homes, just into the unoccupied area that may be near our homes. My home in D.C. is mine. Period. The D.C. metro area and the rest of the U.S. is my "ranging territory." I suspect the same is true for you with regard to wherever your home is. You and I both manage to "get along" in peace with other folks moving through our "ranging territory" and who claim a small piece of it as their own, their home.
Assuming you read the content at the link I provided above, you'll have noticed that competition for resources is a strong motivator of conflict among groups/individuals when they encounter one another in the "ranging territory." Is there some resource that you or I might lose or be denied, and that we otherwise would have controlled/consumed/owned if folks born in other places come to the U.S. and move about our "ranging territory?" Is there some resource that we lose that you or I might lose or be denied, and that we otherwise would have controlled/consumed/owned if folks born in other places come to the U.S. and establish their own home in a small piece of what was, prior to their doing so, part of our "ranging territory?" For both questions, the answer is clearly "no" because were it "yes," we'd have not let the resource(s) remain in the public domain for an immigrant or other existing resident to claim as their own. (The second question isn't even relevant to the question the OP posed, for the question asks only about entry into the land, not settling there after entry.)
You present this as an axiom, but it not.Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?
I say no.
Trump says no.
What do you say?
I say that freedom of movement about the planet is an inalienable right that has nothing to do with political boundaries.
??? I wrote in English. No translation is necessary. Moreover, what you wrote as a translation isn't what I wrote at all. I have no idea why you think what I wrote and intend by my words should apply (or not) based on one's being European or not.
It is not a 'creative' interpretation. It is not even equivocation considering it is not 'like' ownership it quite literally is. It is fact and the way it works. You refuse to acknowledge my point and then demand it is not serious. That is not a discussion - that is you ignoring an opinion that you do not agree with.Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.Does your neighbor have the natural right to move into your basement? Property rights are natural rights as well.
If the above is a no, then why do we, as a collective people, not have the right to determine who comes and goes in our house - the USA?
No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
The United States purchased much of the land within its boarders. --It is not a 'creative' interpretation. It is not even equivocation considering it is not 'like' ownership it quite literally is. It is fact and the way it works. You refuse to acknowledge my point and then demand it is not serious. That is not a discussion - that is you ignoring an opinion that you do not agree with.Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.No, neither my neighbors nor anyone else have the natural right to freely move into my basement, and the reason is that my basement my private property. Movement in and through the public domain is not at all the same thing.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
Functionally, there is no difference whatsoever with my owning my house and the nation that owns the land as a whole and cares for/defends it. You can continually say that it is not the case but you also cannot show why it is functionally different or why a group of individuals suddenly looses a basic right that you acknowledge is inherent within each individual. It is not logical.
The 'deed' you keep referencing is immaterial and a straw man. The deed is nothing more than a construct to clarify who owns what and has no actual bearing on the right itself -- particularly when you are referring to the natural right rather than the current legal framework of that right. I have no need to show you the natinal 'deed' in order to support my position.
Actually it is the issue (topic) of the OP. And it is relevant to those that believe that the government should regulate immigration.What's telling and sad is that there are those who wish to deny immigrants access to America at all.
Whether those from other countries have a 'right' to immigrate or not isn't the issue; at issue is the fact that to advocate denying immigrants access runs counter to everything America stands for, counter to our immigrant tradition, and counter to the fundamental American truism that this country is great and strong because of immigration.
Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?
I say no.
Trump says no.
What do you say?
Not in the least. As a matter of fact it is the EXACT opposite - as a practical matter this is EXACTLY what it is. Public ownership is the collective ownership of the land by the people of this nation and we have the RIGHT to regulate who and what we allow into the nation.In a way it is. The 'public domain' is nothing more than land that we all own. I have a right to cross it under most circumstances as I am one of the 300 million owners. Random man in China however does not - they have no rights over that land and are not one of those owners. The same can be said in reciprocation.
Oh, come on. You know you are pushing the limits of what it means for lands to be part of the public domain, and I say that because you and I both know that the only thing making you and I "own" the U.S. public lands is a set of man made laws, not natural laws. I see your remarks above as academic, and for this discussion, they are surely intriguing for the sake of intellectual debate, but as a practical thing, which is what immigration amounts to, not so much.
Further, I could make the exact claim about all property rights - they are a set of man made laws and not natural. That argument would be incorrect IMHO but it would not differ from the one that you are making.
Well, when you can line up those citizens with their deeds showing that they actually own the land, I'll believe you. You know darn well that I have a deed to the land in which is found my basement and thus applying the private property principle allows me to deny others access to it. And you know darn well that the public land is deeded to nobody and exists as "ours" only because it falls within the political boundary that defines our country. Movement through it to others is restricted not by any natural law or right of property by only by the man made laws that result in the definition of political boundaries.
So, come on, stop equivocating by trying to liken private and public property concepts when only a "creative" interpretation of public ownership is the only straw on which that line stands; that tactic is great for comedians, but in a serious discussion, I would have thought it beneath you. Or isn't it, and I've overestimated you?
YOu dismiss the concept of a nation of citizens owing their land because their right to the land is "man made".
You consider your ownership of your land "different" because you have a deed to that land.
Now, that deed was made by men of course.
But the real point here is that that deed is not your Right to property.
It is just a piece of paper than documents your Property so that the government can do it's job and protect your property rights.
If we as Americans wished we could print up and send to all Americans deeds to their group national property.
We have the right to do that because it is OUR LAND.
And your attempts at spin are nothing but annoyances. They might convince yourself and people who agree with you already.
The deed is indeed man made. A deed, however, is but the man made equivalent of a natural claim to a small patch of space, space that is one's personal and private property. The concept of private property exists in nature just as it does in man made law; that we have created a deed to reflect that principle doesn't take away from it's being part of the natural law, the natural order of things.
Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?
I say no.
Trump says no.
What do you say?
I say that freedom of movement about the planet is an inalienable right that has nothing to do with political boundaries.
That contradicts the RIght of National Sovereignty.
Which is an actual right.
Well, in my mind, a natural right is more important than a legal right, and anything accruing from national sovereignty is a matter of legal rights rather than natural rights. Sovereignty is something that is recognized and mutually agreed upon by the parties involved, I suppose one could claim that a natural law, rather than a man made one, is what grants sovereignty to a given person or entity. That doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to nation states like the U.S. for there is nothing that naturally endowed Europeans, and thus us as their descendents, a natural right to the territory now called the U.S. The fact is that, while we will do nothing much to make amends for having done so, our forebears basically usurped/took the territory of North America from the people who were already in it for millennia before any European arrived.
Translation: Natural rights to territory should only be recognized for non-European inhabitants.
??? I wrote in English. No translation is necessary. Moreover, what you wrote as a translation isn't what I wrote at all. I have no idea why you think what I wrote and intend by my words should apply (or not) based on one's being European or not.
