CDZ Discussion Question About Immigration

[Tresha91203]

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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

 

[Holos]

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?

Thank you for clarifying this. I do believe there are indeed many in America (and also solely within the United States) lacking in general education, albeit manners may be flourishing at this time of law enforcement.

However, as your thread has spawn greatly diverging focuses, you would be glad to know education is not only for those learning ESL, but also for those interested in learning about Political Science.

To address your question I have not only a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America with me but also a copy of the Declaration of Independence, released and adopted approximately 12 years before the Constitution was effected as the form of government for the United States.

A little of history before we address the current issue of immigration. Before the Constitution was effected by the 9 required agreeing States, not long after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence was the Confedaracy union of thirteen States.

Okay, so how does it relate? Well, even as the aspect of the union of the States have been modified since their very creation, what has remained always pertinent and bonding was the Declaration of Independence as the first adopted document to assure Individual rights against any oppression and tyranny (at that time represented by the King of Great-Britain), consequently also assuring Union rights which were sequentially documented.

The Declaration of Independence, most fundamental authenticator not only for the current citizens of the United States of America, and also for any citizen worldwide, affirms very clearly the Rights of People who "in the Course of human Events" may have to Separate themselves from previous connections as People are entitled to be respected for their opinions as equality is assumed and declared.

The Rights are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happinness. These are endowed Rights by each one's Creator (in this case represented by the Declaration signees who constituted the assembled General Congress at the time to avoid a denser cross discussion of religion and politics, nonetheless I will not neglect the Powers of the Earth and the Laws of Nature therein worded in the Declaration).

Now, how does it relate to current immigration? We continue our examination of the document. A non-citizen is legally and lawfully with the Rights to ensure and procure Life, Liberty and Happinness when Power is justified from Consent. These Rights can, however, be denied when consent is partial to the entire State of the Union envisioned and destructive to an already established and functioning Government.

This way a person has the right to enter the U.S. if their organizing of Powers is endeavoring to ensure Safety through Prudence and does not put themselves as potential or actual tyrants, injurors or usurpers to either achieve or ensure the Rights of Life, Liberty and Happinnes we are all endowed with.

 

[320 Years of History]

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 man made 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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

I didn't answer a question about policy. I answered the question of whether folks have a right to enter the U.S. I think they do and the analogy I used showed the nature by which I see that right as being a natural one not a man made one. That right exists regardless of any borders a nation state creates, regardless of whether they are respected by the man made laws of a state.

I don't believe we were asked whether one has a right to enter the U.S. and whether the laws of the U.S., its policies, should follow that right or not follow in line with that right. I did state that I believe the best and most well conceived laws are those that conform to rather than conflict with natural rights; however, in the very same paragraph I wrote, "the circumstance of one being or not being free to move from place to place...exists absent [man made] laws."

I believe that when one considers what rights people have or don't have, the first question to consider is whether the right in question issues from nature or from man. Those given by nature do not ever go away, no matter the policy of a state. Men may, in their policymaking, deny one the ability to exercise one's natural rights, but even doing so doesn't remove the right from existence. It simply makes it hard or impossible to exercise the right, but the right persists nonetheless.

 

[Correll]

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.

Fear is the rational response to random death. Not fearing a real danger is foolishness, not bravery.


That being said, the immigration question is larger than Muslims. The vast majority of people who would be effected by a Trump administrations immigration policy would be HIspanics, deported or denied entrance.

And desiring to keep out unwanted and unneeded Third World Immigrants is not demonizing anyone.

It is addressing the fact that high levels of immigration, especially Third World Immigration does not serve US interest's.


THe only thing silly here is your hysteria.

 

[Correll]

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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

If you try to come live in my basement, I'm calling the cops to kick your freeloading ass out of my home.

If the cops don't come, I'm kicking you out of my home myself.

Your have have no right to move about on my property.

 

[320 Years of History]

Fear is the rational response to random death. Not fearing a real danger is foolishness, not bravery.


That being said, the immigration question is larger than Muslims. The vast majority of people who would be effected by a Trump administrations immigration policy would be HIspanics, deported or denied entrance.

And desiring to keep out unwanted and unneeded Third World Immigrants is not demonizing anyone.

It is addressing the fact that high levels of immigration, especially Third World Immigration does not serve US interest's.


The only thing silly here is your hysteria.

Karen Thompson Walker: What's The Difference Between Rational and Irrational Fears?

I agree re: the hysteria.


Ignorance is the parent of fear.
― Herman Melville, Moby-Dick

 

[Correll]

Fear is the rational response to random death. Not fearing a real danger is foolishness, not bravery.


That being said, the immigration question is larger than Muslims. The vast majority of people who would be effected by a Trump administrations immigration policy would be HIspanics, deported or denied entrance.

And desiring to keep out unwanted and unneeded Third World Immigrants is not demonizing anyone.

It is addressing the fact that high levels of immigration, especially Third World Immigration does not serve US interest's.


The only thing silly here is your hysteria.

Karen Thompson Walker: What's The Difference Between Rational and Irrational Fears?

I agree re: the hysteria.


Ignorance is the parent of fear.
― Herman Melville, Moby-Dick

I will try to check it out tomorrow.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

If the cops don't come, I'm kicking you out of my home myself.

'Cause you're a badass!

 

[Holos]

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 man made 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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

I didn't answer a question about policy. I answered the question of whether folks have a right to enter the U.S. I think they do and the analogy I used showed the nature by which I see that right as being a natural one not a man made one. That right exists regardless of any borders a nation state creates, regardless of whether they are respected by the man made laws of a state.

I don't believe we were asked whether one has a right to enter the U.S. and whether the laws of the U.S., its policies, should follow that right or not follow in line with that right. I did state that I believe the best and most well conceived laws are those that conform to rather than conflict with natural rights; however, in the very same paragraph I wrote, "the circumstance of one being or not being free to move from place to place...exists absent [man made] laws."

I believe that when one considers what rights people have or don't have, the first question to consider is whether the right in question issues from nature or from man. Those given by nature do not ever go away, no matter the policy of a state. Men may, in their policymaking, deny one the ability to exercise one's natural rights, but even doing so doesn't remove the right from existence. It simply makes it hard or impossible to exercise the right, but the right persists nonetheless.

From what I have understood of your statements, the concepts you have chosen to use as argumentative defense are appropriate (the law of men and the law of nature). I do verily agree that the laws of nature are indeed more fundamental.

I will, in all manner of respect, oppose your one claim which from my perspective is absolutely fatal, allowing the strenght of your argument to easily crumble by means of a defense other than those you have used yourself. I will not expand on the myriad of authentic and possible defense lines as you have already shared two that we ought to keep paying attention to.

Your argumentative flaw, obstructing the advance of your defense, was of a simple logical nature, captured by a single phrase and advertently exclaimed by a single word. And I quote:

"Men may, in their policymaking(!), deny one the ability to exercise one's natural rights, but even doing so doesn't remove the right from existence."

The sentiment is ideal and conveys true empathy to the situation of frustration, but does not really address the solution, which in this complex case is not with the laws of nature (for there are men's construction which are not policies impeding - although not denying - the exercise of rights, such as loaded guns and trembling triggering fingers) but with the policies and further (or retroactively) with the policymaking too.

In simple terms, policies tend to remain stable and persistent in the agreement of natural laws. They are not made to further establish rights, as these are naturally endowed, but made to provide safety for those who do not have a need to exercise their rights. What does occur in the remaking, revising, substitution and complementing of men's law is the furthering of benefits either of individuals who have already completed their exercises of rights or of individuals who have never before been exposed to the need and for one reason or another choose to do so for their own interest and advantage.

Policy does not deny, but only provides. Men who is not involved in policies deny to their own detriment, instead of participating in lawmaking by exercising their given natural and men made rights.

 

[Correll]

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.

You're the one pushing dangerously bad policy and using the analogy to justify it, but I'm the meanie for being too literal? If you didn't mean your post literally, my bad. It appeared to me you believed it and meant it.

If the cops don't come, I'm kicking you out of my home myself.

'Cause you're a badass!

NO, because it's my freaking house.

And my family lives here. I'm not letting an unknown quantity live here with them.

 

[Tresha91203]

... and that was my point about the absurdity of open borders.

 

[jwoodie]

Now, how does it relate to current immigration? We continue our examination of the document. A non-citizen is legally and lawfully with the Rights to ensure and procure Life, Liberty and Happinness when Power is justified from Consent. These Rights can, however, be denied when consent is partial to the entire State of the Union envisioned and destructive to an already established and functioning Government.

This way a person has the right to enter the U.S. if their organizing of Powers is endeavoring to ensure Safety through Prudence and does not put themselves as potential or actual tyrants, injurors or usurpers to either achieve or ensure the Rights of Life, Liberty and Happinnes we are all endowed with.

Why not dispense with pomposity and succinctly state your opinion in standard English?

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles, not the law of the land. Even so, it does not prescribe any rights which may be pursued by denying the rights of others. Declaring oneself independent from authoritarian rule does not imply freedom to invade another country because it would make one happier.

 

[320 Years of History]

Now, how does it relate to current immigration? We continue our examination of the document. A non-citizen is legally and lawfully with the Rights to ensure and procure Life, Liberty and Happinness when Power is justified from Consent. These Rights can, however, be denied when consent is partial to the entire State of the Union envisioned and destructive to an already established and functioning Government.

This way a person has the right to enter the U.S. if their organizing of Powers is endeavoring to ensure Safety through Prudence and does not put themselves as potential or actual tyrants, injurors or usurpers to either achieve or ensure the Rights of Life, Liberty and Happinnes we are all endowed with.

Why not dispense with pomposity and succinctly state your opinion in standard English?

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles, not the law of the land. Even so, it does not prescribe any rights which may be pursued by denying the rights of others. Declaring oneself independent from authoritarian rule does not imply freedom to invade another country because it would make one happier.

Off Topic:
??? A two paragraph reply and the one sentence of it that you emboldened constitutes for you a non-succinct expression? What about Holos' remarks struck you as non-standard English? It looked and read like standard English to me.

Rather than using a rhetorical inquiry to deride a member for their remarks that are unclear to you, why don't you politely ask them to clarify their remark?

 

[Holos]

Now, how does it relate to current immigration? We continue our examination of the document. A non-citizen is legally and lawfully with the Rights to ensure and procure Life, Liberty and Happinness when Power is justified from Consent. These Rights can, however, be denied when consent is partial to the entire State of the Union envisioned and destructive to an already established and functioning Government.

This way a person has the right to enter the U.S. if their organizing of Powers is endeavoring to ensure Safety through Prudence and does not put themselves as potential or actual tyrants, injurors or usurpers to either achieve or ensure the Rights of Life, Liberty and Happinnes we are all endowed with.

Why not dispense with pomposity and succinctly state your opinion in standard English?

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles, not the law of the land. Even so, it does not prescribe any rights which may be pursued by denying the rights of others. Declaring oneself independent from authoritarian rule does not imply freedom to invade another country because it would make one happier.

What you are calling pomposity is simply applied rhetoric, intentionally organized in such a way to give acknowledgement to the source of my argument so that the reader or audience can verify and associate their own remarks with those in a document of historical context.

In a debate, standard English may have to be exercised through certain disciplines of communication depending on the persons involved. Rhetoric and logic are two of those disciplines which are generally always present in an effective argument such as my own.

If, in fact, you read again what I wrote in the post you quoted you will realize the second paragraph of your comment states exactly the same as I had stated.

I could, of course, make my words simpler and provide no documented references. However, I believe there is more benefits to you exercising your reading abilities in this forum than for me to exercise my simplicity.

 

[jwoodie]

the one sentence of it that you emboldened constitutes for you a non-succinct expression?

No, it was an example of pomposity.

 

[Holos]

the one sentence of it that you emboldened constitutes for you a non-succinct expression?

No, it was an example of pomposity.

However, in reality, it was just an acknowledgement to the reference.

 

[jwoodie]

the one sentence of it that you emboldened constitutes for you a non-succinct expression?

No, it was an example of pomposity.

However, in reality, it was just an acknowledgement to the reference.

It was a pompous acknowledgement, but let's move on. How about a 320 word limit per post (if you would like a reply)?

 

[Holos]

the one sentence of it that you emboldened constitutes for you a non-succinct expression?

No, it was an example of pomposity.

However, in reality, it was just an acknowledgement to the reference.

It was a pompous acknowledgement, but let's move on. How about a 320 word limit per post (if you would like a reply)?

I was just following the traditional sentiment so I could be a legitimate inheritor... No big deal, I know it seems foolish, but that's because it actually was quite foolish and it needed not be that way anymore (and thankfully isn't).






I actually would not mind having the word limit, or at least a word count to be aware of if the debators would like to have thoughts and arguments especially contained. It's a great idea, in fact. It would advance a wordy like me in many occasions.

 

[baber]

We should be allowed to get away from a country that doesn't fit us. If we want to move into the united states then no one should stop us from having a better life and getting out of that bad fit.

 

[320 Years of History]

We should be allowed to get away from a country that doesn't fit us. If we want to move into the united states then no one should stop us from having a better life and getting out of that bad fit.

Well, now, there's a limit to that as well.

For me, there's my answer to the question the OP asks: do non-U.S. citizens have the right to enter the U.S? Then there's my answer to a question that was not in the OP asked: do non-U.S. citizen have the right to enter the U.S. in contravention of U.S. law? For the OP's question, one must consider and respond with regard to and in consideration of man's inalienable rights (that's how I responded in several earlier posts); for the second question, the focus shifts from the mere existence of natural rights to the exercise of those rights. To the second question, my answer is squarely "no."

There is yet at least one more dimension regarding the matter of immigration: how to respond to illegal immigrants, that is, how we as individuals and as a polity treat people who've entered the U.S. in contravention of U.S. immigration laws. My view on that is that we should do nothing to illegally arrived individuals until they become, as individuals, a "drain" on the resources provided by and dedicated to legitimate/legally present citizens and residents.

I believe that if one insists on coming to the U.S. and enduring a life of extreme hardship and poverty here rather than where one came from, fine. If one can get to the U.S. and brings with one ample resources to, in a life of relative or absolute comfort, sustain oneself indefinitely, that's fine too. At such time as one requires services and the general munificence of the American people and legal residents, it's time for one to go. What does that mean specifically? Well, among other things, it means, IMO, illegal immigrants:

• do not get driving licenses,
• do not get medical care beyond that which is needed to allow U.S. authorities to deliver them alive -- as in literally not dead -- back to where they came,
• are not permitted to work in the U.S.,
• do not receive the "welfare" services to which U.S. citizens are entitled,
• do not get to attend U.S. public schools and do not qualify for "in state" tuition at state colleges and universities,
• do not get to own real property in the U.S. or its territories (they can rent to their hearts' content),
• are not entitled to any of the rights accorded in the Bill of Rights and the remainder of the U.S. Constitution, and
• do not get to occupy streets and alleyways with whatever makeshift dwelling one can muster.

There are, of course, more things I would not accord to illegal immigrants, but the list above should give one an idea of the limits of my view of what constitutes "too much" largesse as goes illegal arrivers into the U.S. Moreover, I firmly believe that if/when any illegally present person comes to seek or need any of the things I would not grant to them, if the appropriate authorities are present when illegals present themselves for any of those things, they should immediately be incarcerated and commenced in the deportation process.

If on the other hand, one can come to the U.S. and pay out of pocket for all the goods and services one needs and not need to obtain a job, by all means, come, hang out, enjoy the country and have a good time; just don't break any laws and get caught or suspected of doing so. That amounts to coming to the U.S. for a super long vacation. If one has the means to do that, have at it. Welcome and enjoy.