You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

15
-14

[–] go1dfish 15 points -14 points (+1|-15) ago 

Freedom of movement is a liberty, and as much as they would claim otherwise the USG does not have a legitimate ownership claim to every square inch of the land it ostensibly controls.

You have the natural right to keep anyone you want off of your property, but no authority to restrict the movements of people otherwise.

0
9

[–] 10048378 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Well, they own the borders so they have the right to keep people off of the borders and thus out of the country as an extension.

Freedom of movement only counts within the country that grants it. The world isn't a singular country with a singular set of laws or liberties. Thus you can't extend the same liberties and rules to foreign entities, especially if they refuse to follow your rules to begin with.

6
-3

[–] go1dfish 6 points -3 points (+3|-6) ago 

Well, they own the borders

How did they come to acquire them legitimately?

Do they also own the heavens and sky?

Freedom of movement only counts within the country that grants it.

Freedoms are not granted, they are restricted. Freedom is the natural state of man until another imposes upon him.

The world isn't a singular country with a singular set of laws or liberties.

Liberty does not rely on the dictates of rulers, it exists in spite of them.

0
6

[–] cyks 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Non-citizens are not granted U.S. liberties, your argument is moot argument.

3
-2

[–] go1dfish 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

As a matter of law you are incorrect: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

As a matter of philosophy your argument is irrelevant.

0
2

[–] Slayfire122 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If I have the right to keep a person off my property, then shouldn't the collective group of citizens have the collective right to keep people off all their property?

4
-4

[–] go1dfish 4 points -4 points (+0|-4) ago  (edited ago)

If you all individually agree that a person should not be on your own property there is no need for collective action.

What you suggest is only necessary if you want to force one or more people who do not agree to restrict access to people they would otherwise welcome.

Person A

Person B

Person C

Person D

Person A and B don't like D, why should they be able to force C to reject D?

0
1

[–] lissencarak 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Political authority grows from the barrel of a gun. That is all the authority needed to exclude anyone for any reason.