CDZ Discussion Question About Immigration

[320 Years of History]

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

I don't think the question is vague. You are correct, the world does not revolve around the U.S.

Given the question as it was asked, it's clear that the travelers involved seek to move between nation states. While the traveler is in their home nation, the U.S. cannot grant them any specific rights under its laws because U.S. laws don't apply outside the U.S. The same is so with regard to the other nation. Thus we must, if we are to determine whether the traveler has any inherent right to go from one place to another, must look to and for rights that exist without regard to political boundaries. In other words, do, by their very nature, political boundaries impinge upon any inalienable rights one might have merely be being an Earthling?

Some might say that rights of all sorts exist only within the construct of sovereignty and the corresponding political boundaries it necessitates. Others would say that regardless of what nation one belongs to, there are some rights that all men have and that no nation has the right to deny. Others may fall somewhere between those two positions. Regardless of where one falls on the spectrum, upon determining one's view of what rights are "state given" and which are "given by mere existence," one should be able to answer the question posed.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it's responsive to the original, extremely vague and dishonest question.

What am I to believe, that this is not a thread about Donald Trump? It is. Had Trump not said what he said, this thread would not exist. You chose to circumvent the whole mess and address the question in the broadest possible philosophical sense. All very interesting, and in keeping with the real purpose of this sub-forum, which is clean debate, but this thread is not designed to facilitate debate. It's a literal "gotcha" question. If you say yes, non-citizens do have the right to travel to the US, then you are wrong. If you say no, you are tacitly agreeing with Mr. Trump.

What Trump said was beyond stupid, it was dangerous and disgusting. I have no problem with debating any issue honestly. I will not participate in a discussion which seeks to legitimize the paranoia that Trump exploits without calling it out for what it is.

The notion of abandoning international norms to assuage the paranoia of the ignorant is pretty sad. The rational response to terrorism is to not be terrorized.

Red:
??? Are you saying yours and others' points of view on the matter depends on Donald Trump's having made the remarks he did on immigrants and immigration? I would hope not. My view on it, for example, has nothing to do with Mr. Trump or the fact that he catalyzed my examining my principles to see where they lead on the matter and everything to do with my belief that humans are born with the natural right of freedom, freedom to live on the Earth and act as they see fit provided their action doesn't inherently prohibit another from enjoying the resources the Earth offers.

I believe that right exists regardless of whether there is a United States or not and regardless of whether there is a Donald Trump or not. I disagree with Mr. Trump's immigration position not because I don't want Mr. Trump to be President; I disagree with it because I operate on a set of principles that have nothing to do with who else espouses them or doesn't. That I do is exactly why I am a registered independent and not a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Whig, Federalist, etc.

Notwithstanding the principle of which I just wrote, the single most important one by which I live and believe is that one must treat others as one would have them treat oneself. With that principle standing above all others I have, it's not hard for me to answer the thread question. I need only ask myself do I have the right to travel from point A to point B, absent any restrictions imposed by political boundaries? My answer is "yes." Do I want that others respect that right and allow me passage? Again, the answer is "yes." Therefore I must answer "yes" with regard to other people wanting the same, regardless of what Mr. Trump says. Were I to think I have no such right, I would answer "no" for both myself and with regard to others.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

I don't think the question is vague. You are correct, the world does not revolve around the U.S.

Given the question as it was asked, it's clear that the travelers involved seek to move between nation states. While the traveler is in their home nation, the U.S. cannot grant them any specific rights under its laws because U.S. laws don't apply outside the U.S. The same is so with regard to the other nation. Thus we must, if we are to determine whether the traveler has any inherent right to go from one place to another, must look to and for rights that exist without regard to political boundaries. In other words, do, by their very nature, political boundaries impinge upon any inalienable rights one might have merely be being an Earthling?

Some might say that rights of all sorts exist only within the construct of sovereignty and the corresponding political boundaries it necessitates. Others would say that regardless of what nation one belongs to, there are some rights that all men have and that no nation has the right to deny. Others may fall somewhere between those two positions. Regardless of where one falls on the spectrum, upon determining one's view of what rights are "state given" and which are "given by mere existence," one should be able to answer the question posed.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it's responsive to the original, extremely vague and dishonest question.

What am I to believe, that this is not a thread about Donald Trump? It is. Had Trump not said what he said, this thread would not exist. You chose to circumvent the whole mess and address the question in the broadest possible philosophical sense. All very interesting, and in keeping with the real purpose of this sub-forum, which is clean debate, but this thread is not designed to facilitate debate. It's a literal "gotcha" question. If you say yes, non-citizens do have the right to travel to the US, then you are wrong. If you say no, you are tacitly agreeing with Mr. Trump.

What Trump said was beyond stupid, it was dangerous and disgusting. I have no problem with debating any issue honestly. I will not participate in a discussion which seeks to legitimize the paranoia that Trump exploits without calling it out for what it is.

The notion of abandoning international norms to assuage the paranoia of the ignorant is pretty sad. The rational response to terrorism is to not be terrorized.

Red:
??? Are you saying yours and others' points of view on the matter depends on Donald Trump's having made the remarks he did on immigrants and immigration? I would hope not. My view on it, for example, has nothing to do with Mr. Trump or the fact that he catalyzed my examining my principles to see where they lead on the matter and everything to do with my belief that humans are born with the natural right of freedom, freedom to live on the Earth and act as they see fit provided their action doesn't inherently prohibit another from enjoying the resources the Earth offers.

I believe that right exists regardless of whether there is a United States or not and regardless of whether there is a Donald Trump or not. I disagree with Mr. Trump's immigration position not because I don't want Mr. Trump to be President; I disagree with it because I operate on a set of principles that have nothing to do with who else espouses them or doesn't. That I do is exactly why I am a registered independent and not a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Whig, Federalist, etc.

Notwithstanding the principle of which I just wrote, the single most important one by which I live and believe is that one must treat others as one would have them treat oneself. With that principle standing above all others I have, it's not hard for me to answer the thread question. I need only ask myself do I have the right to travel from point A to point B, absent any restrictions imposed by political boundaries? My answer is "yes." Do I want that others respect that right and allow me passage? Again, the answer is "yes." Therefore I must answer "yes" with regard to other people wanting the same, regardless of what Mr. Trump says. Were I to think I have no such right, I would answer "no" for both myself and with regard to others.

"Are you saying yours and others' points of view on the matter depends on Donald Trump's having made the remarks he did on immigrants and immigration?"

No, I'm saying that this thread is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize Mr. Trump's statements. I have an opinion about international travel, and I would be glad to discuss it, but not under the cover of a dishonest, overly simplistic question.

I treat others as I would have them treat me. If I post a dishonest question, I would expect to be called out on it.

"Rights" is a very complex concept, and it is not addressable with a yes or no question. International rights are even more complex. The issue of natural vs. statutory rights is interesting, and I would gladly discuss it, but not under the cover of a dishonest, overly simplistic question.

Seriously, you don't see the agenda behind such a question? I will not legitimize Trump's xenophobic pandering, his red meat coup attempt. I will not answer a dishonest question.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

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.

Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.

FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

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.

Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.

FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.

Red:
Property laws are man made, but the right to real property being held by specific individuals is not; that too is among our natural rights. How does one know this? Let's keep it simple and see...Remove all man-made laws concerning property and stand on the ground somewhere of your choosing.

• Do you have the right to stand there peacefully? Of course you do, and as long as you're standing there, every other being on the planet that (1) cannot share that spot with you, (2) doesn't view you as an easy meal, or (3) that, upon seeing your refusal to yield, is unwilling to kill you or battle you for that spot will respect your right to stand there and make themselves comfortable with a different "patch of dirt."
• Did you insist on standing on the ground another individual occupied or did you select one that was unoccupied? In respect of other individuals' claims, most likely you picked an unoccupied spot instead of engaging in battle over an already occupied one.
• Perhaps you saw a spot that to reach you had to traverse around other individuals standing on their own patch of dirt. If so, did you push them off their spot, -- did you insist on "going through their basement" -- in order to get to your destination, or did you go around them to get to the spot you wanted? Again, you likely made yourself content going around the people already standing on their own spots, making no effort to "go through their basements."

Now I ask you this.

• Did you need any mand laws to tell you that you are free to move to the destination of your choosing? I'm sure you did not.
• Did you need any man made laws to tell you that the spots on which others stood are spots you (1) cannot and should not claim as your own, unless you want to fight them for it, and (2) must go around to get to your desired destination? Again, you almost certainly did not.

From the very simple example above that removed all man-made laws, one can easily see that natural law grants each of us the right to move freely and the right to property. One can also see that every creature on the Earth understands the limits of both natural laws and it's not a matter of one trumping the other; the two coexist quite happily and every creature is perfectly capable of complying with both. One also sees that those natural rights exist and are adhered to even in the absence of political (man made) boundaries, or any laws that have been codified by men.

So what then do man made laws pertaining to property occupation/ownership do? Those laws merely allow us to extend the limit of the spot of land that each individual has a natural right to claim. Instead of our being able to claim just as large a spot as we can physically occupy at one instant, we have devised property ownership laws that allow us to claim, say, the land area of a house and its immediately surrounding land.

Now you might ask, "What if I want to claim an area larger than I can even see in its entirety?" Well, that's exactly what property laws make possible. Even as they make that possible, those man made laws should and must, if they are to be good laws, function in observance of natural laws, not usurp them. Thus, as goes the thread's question, though its framed within a context that exists only in the presence of man made laws, the circumstance of one being being or not being free to move from place to place, as well as to claim for themselves an unoccupied spot (permanently or temporarily) exists absent those laws.

So, yes, people from other places absolutely have the right to come to, "stand in," and move through this place, just not the exact spot that you or I happen to occupy at a given moment. But look around, there's no shortage of individually unoccupied spots.

 

[OldLady]

and DEFINATELY [sic] no refugees

Refugees & Asylum

I wonder how many people will bother reading that.

It was short and sweet. Be not afraid!

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

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.

Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.

FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.

Red:
Property laws are man made, but the right to real property being held by specific individuals is not; that too is among our natural rights. How does one know this? Let's keep it simple and see...Remove all man-made laws concerning property and stand on the ground somewhere of your choosing.

• Do you have the right to stand there peacefully? Of course you do, and as long as you're standing there, every other being on the planet that (1) cannot share that spot with you, (2) doesn't view you as an easy meal, or (3) that, upon seeing your refusal to yield, is unwilling to kill you or battle you for that spot will respect your right to stand there and make themselves comfortable with a different "patch of dirt."
• Did you insist on standing on the ground another individual occupied or did you select one that was unoccupied? In respect of other individuals' claims, most likely you picked an unoccupied spot instead of engaging in battle over an already occupied one.
• Perhaps you saw a spot that to reach you had to traverse around other individuals standing on their own patch of dirt. If so, did you push them off their spot, -- did you insist on "going through their basement" -- in order to get to your destination, or did you go around them to get to the spot you wanted? Again, you likely made yourself content going around the people already standing on their own spots, making no effort to "go through their basements."

Now I ask you this.

• Did you need any mand laws to tell you that you are free to move to the destination of your choosing? I'm sure you did not.
• Did you need any man made laws to tell you that the spots on which others stood are spots you (1) cannot and should not claim as your own, unless you want to fight them for it, and (2) must go around to get to your desired destination? Again, you almost certainly did not.

From the very simple example above that removed all man-made laws, one can easily see that natural law grants each of us the right to move freely and the right to property. One can also see that every creature on the Earth understands the limits of both natural laws and it's not a matter of one trumping the other; the two coexist quite happily and every creature is perfectly capable of complying with both. One also sees that those natural rights exist and are adhered to even in the absence of political (man made) boundaries, or any laws that have been codified by men.

So what then do man made laws pertaining to property occupation/ownership do? Those laws merely allow us to extend the limit of the spot of land that each individual has a natural right to claim. Instead of our being able to claim just as large a spot as we can physically occupy at one instant, we have devised property ownership laws that allow us to claim, say, the land area of a house and its immediately surrounding land.

Now you might ask, "What if I want to claim an area larger than I can even see in its entirety?" Well, that's exactly what property laws make possible. Even as they make that possible, those man made laws should and must, if they are to be good laws, function in observance of natural laws, not usurp them. Thus, as goes the thread's question, though its framed within a context that exists only in the presence of man made laws, the circumstance of one being being or not being free to move from place to place, as well as to claim for themselves an unoccupied spot (permanently or temporarily) exists absent those laws.

So, yes, people from other places absolutely have the right to come to, "stand in," and move through this place, just not the exact spot that you or I happen to occupy at a given moment. But look around, there's no shortage of individually unoccupied spots.

You are connecting 2 unrelated things. Standing on property is not the same as owning property. Owning property is is not natural (see NA culture). Others cannot stand on you, not because you own that dot, but because it is already occupied. People who own nothing still dont get stood on.

I plan to move into your basement but I have no intention to stand on you. All good?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

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.

Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.

FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.

Red:
Property laws are man made, but the right to real property being held by specific individuals is not; that too is among our natural rights. How does one know this? Let's keep it simple and see...Remove all man-made laws concerning property and stand on the ground somewhere of your choosing.

• Do you have the right to stand there peacefully? Of course you do, and as long as you're standing there, every other being on the planet that (1) cannot share that spot with you, (2) doesn't view you as an easy meal, or (3) that, upon seeing your refusal to yield, is unwilling to kill you or battle you for that spot will respect your right to stand there and make themselves comfortable with a different "patch of dirt."
• Did you insist on standing on the ground another individual occupied or did you select one that was unoccupied? In respect of other individuals' claims, most likely you picked an unoccupied spot instead of engaging in battle over an already occupied one.
• Perhaps you saw a spot that to reach you had to traverse around other individuals standing on their own patch of dirt. If so, did you push them off their spot, -- did you insist on "going through their basement" -- in order to get to your destination, or did you go around them to get to the spot you wanted? Again, you likely made yourself content going around the people already standing on their own spots, making no effort to "go through their basements."

Now I ask you this.

• Did you need any mand laws to tell you that you are free to move to the destination of your choosing? I'm sure you did not.
• Did you need any man made laws to tell you that the spots on which others stood are spots you (1) cannot and should not claim as your own, unless you want to fight them for it, and (2) must go around to get to your desired destination? Again, you almost certainly did not.

From the very simple example above that removed all man-made laws, one can easily see that natural law grants each of us the right to move freely and the right to property. One can also see that every creature on the Earth understands the limits of both natural laws and it's not a matter of one trumping the other; the two coexist quite happily and every creature is perfectly capable of complying with both. One also sees that those natural rights exist and are adhered to even in the absence of political (man made) boundaries, or any laws that have been codified by men.

So what then do man made laws pertaining to property occupation/ownership do? Those laws merely allow us to extend the limit of the spot of land that each individual has a natural right to claim. Instead of our being able to claim just as large a spot as we can physically occupy at one instant, we have devised property ownership laws that allow us to claim, say, the land area of a house and its immediately surrounding land.

Now you might ask, "What if I want to claim an area larger than I can even see in its entirety?" Well, that's exactly what property laws make possible. Even as they make that possible, those man made laws should and must, if they are to be good laws, function in observance of natural laws, not usurp them. Thus, as goes the thread's question, though its framed within a context that exists only in the presence of man made laws, the circumstance of one being being or not being free to move from place to place, as well as to claim for themselves an unoccupied spot (permanently or temporarily) exists absent those laws.

So, yes, people from other places absolutely have the right to come to, "stand in," and move through this place, just not the exact spot that you or I happen to occupy at a given moment. But look around, there's no shortage of individually unoccupied spots.

You are connecting 2 unrelated things. Standing on property is not the same as owning property. Owning property is is not natural (see NA culture). Others cannot stand on you, not because you own that dot, but because it is already occupied. People who own nothing still dont get stood on.

I plan to move into your basement but I have no intention to stand on you. All good?

Must you really be that literal?

 

[Tresha91203]

I'm real, looking at real consequences of real bad policy. Utopic visions are a waste of time. As soon as you invite everyone else, poof, your vision turns to shit, as everyone has their own agendas.

 

[I amso IR]

To all involved in this discussion. Every human being has an inherent right as well as need, to relieve themselves. Having that right does not, however, allow them to do so on my grass or in your shoe. Do all human beings have the inherent right to come to the U.S.? Of course, if they comply with admission requirements and behave themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

If you think they do, please be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

If you think they do, please be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

I've never seen someone reply to themselves before. Are you saying you disagree with yourself? If you want to be honest (and I don't believe you do), say what you truly feel. You believe Trump's xenophobic pandering is rational policy. Don't break it down into tiny chunks, in an attempt to obfuscate the real issue.

 

[jwoodie]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

If you think they do, please be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

I've never seen someone reply to themselves before. Are you saying you disagree with yourself? If you want to be honest (and I don't believe you do), say what you truly feel. You believe Trump's xenophobic pandering is rational policy. Don't break it down into tiny chunks, in an attempt to obfuscate the real issue.

I say no, whereas you are an intellectual coward. Bye bye.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

If you think they do, please be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

I've never seen someone reply to themselves before. Are you saying you disagree with yourself? If you want to be honest (and I don't believe you do), say what you truly feel. You believe Trump's xenophobic pandering is rational policy. Don't break it down into tiny chunks, in an attempt to obfuscate the real issue.

I say no, whereas you are an intellectual coward. Bye bye.

No, you're the coward. You have as much intellectual integrity as your boy Trump. You started this thread to justify your xenophobic cowardice and are too dishonest to admit it and discuss that topic openly. You are afraid of Muslims. Your paranoid panic would drive you to demonize 25% of the world's population. You seek to justify your paranoia with silly threads about "rights". You are being intellectually dishonest.

The barbarians are coming! Build moats! Stock them with krakens! Yeah, real brave.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Property laws are man made, not natural. I have the natural right to move about freely across the globe, including your basement. My natural right to freedom trumps your man made right to own a patch of dirt.

FFS, even Canada selects who improves their country and rejects those who may burden it. Only in the US do we take in waves that do burden us while we make the educated immigrants with means wait to get in. It took years for my degreed, self-sufficient MIL to gain entrance to the US from Canada and 2 more years to gain citizenship. My Canadian BIL was actually deported back to Canada in 2012, from a sanctuary city.

Red:
Property laws are man made, but the right to real property being held by specific individuals is not; that too is among our natural rights. How does one know this? Let's keep it simple and see...Remove all man-made laws concerning property and stand on the ground somewhere of your choosing.

• Do you have the right to stand there peacefully? Of course you do, and as long as you're standing there, every other being on the planet that (1) cannot share that spot with you, (2) doesn't view you as an easy meal, or (3) that, upon seeing your refusal to yield, is unwilling to kill you or battle you for that spot will respect your right to stand there and make themselves comfortable with a different "patch of dirt."
• Did you insist on standing on the ground another individual occupied or did you select one that was unoccupied? In respect of other individuals' claims, most likely you picked an unoccupied spot instead of engaging in battle over an already occupied one.
• Perhaps you saw a spot that to reach you had to traverse around other individuals standing on their own patch of dirt. If so, did you push them off their spot, -- did you insist on "going through their basement" -- in order to get to your destination, or did you go around them to get to the spot you wanted? Again, you likely made yourself content going around the people already standing on their own spots, making no effort to "go through their basements."

Now I ask you this.

• Did you need any mand laws to tell you that you are free to move to the destination of your choosing? I'm sure you did not.
• Did you need any man made laws to tell you that the spots on which others stood are spots you (1) cannot and should not claim as your own, unless you want to fight them for it, and (2) must go around to get to your desired destination? Again, you almost certainly did not.

From the very simple example above that removed all man-made laws, one can easily see that natural law grants each of us the right to move freely and the right to property. One can also see that every creature on the Earth understands the limits of both natural laws and it's not a matter of one trumping the other; the two coexist quite happily and every creature is perfectly capable of complying with both. One also sees that those natural rights exist and are adhered to even in the absence of political (man made) boundaries, or any laws that have been codified by men.

So what then do man made laws pertaining to property occupation/ownership do? Those laws merely allow us to extend the limit of the spot of land that each individual has a natural right to claim. Instead of our being able to claim just as large a spot as we can physically occupy at one instant, we have devised property ownership laws that allow us to claim, say, the land area of a house and its immediately surrounding land.

Now you might ask, "What if I want to claim an area larger than I can even see in its entirety?" Well, that's exactly what property laws make possible. Even as they make that possible, those man made laws should and must, if they are to be good laws, function in observance of natural laws, not usurp them. Thus, as goes the thread's question, though its framed within a context that exists only in the presence of man made laws, the circumstance of one being being or not being free to move from place to place, as well as to claim for themselves an unoccupied spot (permanently or temporarily) exists absent those laws.

So, yes, people from other places absolutely have the right to come to, "stand in," and move through this place, just not the exact spot that you or I happen to occupy at a given moment. But look around, there's no shortage of individually unoccupied spots.

You are connecting 2 unrelated things. Standing on property is not the same as owning property. Owning property is is not natural (see NA culture). Others cannot stand on you, not because you own that dot, but because it is already occupied. People who own nothing still dont get stood on.

I plan to move into your basement but I have no intention to stand on you. All good?

Must you really be that literal?

I'm real, looking at real consequences of real bad policy. Utopic visions are a waste of time. As soon as you invite everyone else, poof, your vision turns to shit, as everyone has their own agendas.

Pink:
Fine, be "real," but don't be real dense and respond as though you don't understand the difference between an analogy/metaphor and remarks presented in a literal context.

 

[longknife]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Another troll thread.

What Trump REALLY says is that all people are welcome in the USA IF THEY FOLLOW THE LAW! (And are not Muslim - with which I agree 1,000%!)

 

[Elvis Obama]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Another troll thread.

What Trump REALLY says is that all people are welcome in the USA IF THEY FOLLOW THE LAW! (And are not Muslim - with which I agree 1,000%!)

I agree with part about the troll thread.

I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Trump's position. He has no position. He merely recognizes the unfocused anger pervading the country and knows how to exploit it. What he has said is that he would suspend all Muslim travel into the USA until "we can figure out what's going on". That's what the world responded to with disgust and horror.

It's 100% wrong to fear 25% of the world's population because they are Muslim. The worst possible response to terrorism is to be terrorized. It takes courage, but the only rational response is to maintain your values and lifestyle in the face of primitivism, not to let the cavemen drag you down to their level.

 

[jwoodie]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Another troll thread.

What Trump REALLY says is that all people are welcome in the USA IF THEY FOLLOW THE LAW! (And are not Muslim - with which I agree 1,000%!)

What is this, an ESL forum? I asked if non-U.S. Citizens have a RIGHT to enter the U.S., NOT whether they are "welcome" if they follow the law. Comprende?

 

[longknife]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Another troll thread.

What Trump REALLY says is that all people are welcome in the USA IF THEY FOLLOW THE LAW! (And are not Muslim - with which I agree 1,000%!)

I agree with part about the troll thread.

I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Trump's position. He has no position. He merely recognizes the unfocused anger pervading the country and knows how to exploit it. What he has said is that he would suspend all Muslim travel into the USA until "we can figure out what's going on". That's what the world responded to with disgust and horror.

It's 100% wrong to fear 25% of the world's population because they are Muslim. The worst possible response to terrorism is to be terrorized. It takes courage, but the only rational response is to maintain your values and lifestyle in the face of primitivism, not to let the cavemen drag you down to their level.

If you do not understand the dire threat Islam presents to free thinking, liberty loving people there is absolutely nothing I could ever present to change your mind.

 

[longknife]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Another troll thread.

What Trump REALLY says is that all people are welcome in the USA IF THEY FOLLOW THE LAW! (And are not Muslim - with which I agree 1,000%!)

What is this, an ESL forum? I asked if non-U.S. Citizens have a RIGHT to enter the U.S., NOT whether they are "welcome" if they follow the law. Comprende?

No non-citizen has ANY constitutional rights NOT provided by appropriate and constitutional legislation.

Aliens MAY apply to come here but that approval, if granted, is based upon criteria determined by lawful rules and regulations.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you do not understand the dire threat Islam presents to free thinking, liberty loving people there is absolutely nothing I could ever present to change your mind.

"Religious thought" and "free thought" aren't now nor before things that walk in lockstep together. What makes Islam any different than the rest of them? All monotheistic belief systems prescribe specific ideas and proscribe any ides that differ from those that it prescribes.

Do you think, for example, that the Ten Commandments are invitations to debate and entreaties to airings of divergent points of view?