Immigration Is Not A Human Right

May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#1
Whenever touchy-feely freakazoids say “human rights” you know they are double speaking the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Timothy Hsiao opens with human rights before he wipes out illegal immigration:


Is there a human right to immigrate? Many defenders of open borders think so. Individuals, they argue, are entitled to freedom of movement, which entails the right to immigrate from one country to another. This view has found support in the newly elected president of Mexico, who remarked that there is a “human right” to move to the United States.

This appeal to freedom of movement is dubious argument for a number of reasons. For starters, freedom of movement is not unlimited: my freedom of movement does not give me the right to move into your home.

One’s freedom of movement is also limited by the sovereignty and property rights of other individuals. I may have freedom to move about in my own home, but that doesn’t give me the right to do so in a home that isn’t mine. Similarly, I may have freedom of movement within my own country, but that doesn’t give me the right to move to another sovereign country. So in whatever sense we have freedom of movement, it doesn’t generate a right to move across sovereign territory.

This Is a Ridiculous Circular Argument

But the more important problem with appealing to freedom of movement in support of open borders is that it assumes the very thing it tries to prove. In other words, it is guilty of arguing in a circle.

Here’s why: freedom of movement applies only to places where I already have a right to be. This explains why I have freedom of movement within my own home, but not my neighbor’s. I have a pre-existing property right that lets me occupy my own home, but no such right exists for me to occupy the house across the street.

Now, if freedom of movement applies only to places where I already have a right to be, then appealing to freedom of movement in support of the right to move to another country assumes in advance that one already has a right to be in that country. Since that is exactly the very point under dispute, such an argument amounts to circular reasoning.

To have freedom of movement is to have the right to access or occupy some location. But I only have the right to access or occupy a location if I already possess property or sovereignty rights over that location to begin with. Invoking freedom of movement in defense of open borders, therefore, smuggles in the hidden assumption that individuals possess rights to access or occupy the territory of sovereign countries. But that, of course, is the very issue at stake.

This View Obliterates Property Rights

So much for that argument.​

NOTE: See this thread for more on property Rights:

http://defendingthetruth.com/socialism/66313-self-property-right.html#post1171864

What about the idea that there is a human right to immigrate? This too is questionable. A human right is a claim to some good or activity that all humans need in order to flourish. We can think of rights as “moral shields” that protect us as we go about living.

On this view is easy to see why goods such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would count as bona fide rights: they are all things that every human needs in order to live well. But what about immigration, as defined as movement across borders? What universal human interest is served in letting people move from one country to another?

Certainly some freedom of movement is necessary for us to flourish—life would be pretty boring if we stood still all day—but this is a far cry from the freedom to move across borders that defenders of open borders envision. We may grant that individuals may sometimes gain the right to immigrate through societal breakdown, oppression, or natural disasters, but this is not the same as saying that there is a general human right to immigrate. Indeed, there can be no such thing because there is no basic human interest common to all humans that can only be met by migration across borders.

What’s more, a right to immigrate, if it existed, would be the right to demand both of individuals and countries that one be granted admission to their territory, regardless of whether that individual or country approves. This is tantamount to saying that individuals have the right to use and occupy someone else’s property against his will. Such a view would amount to the wholesale denial of property and sovereignty rights.

If individuals have an obligation to let others use and occupy their property, then in what sense do they really own their own property? The freedom to exclude others is essential both to property rights and sovereignty rights.

There Is No Such Thing as a World Collective

Yet some defenders of open borders embrace this conclusion. The earth, they argue, is the “common property” of all humans, fit for our collective use and settlement. On this view, known as cosmopolitanism, individuals are not citizens of particular countries, but “world citizens” and members of the “world community.”

The problem with cosmopolitanism, aside from its radical collectivism, is that is takes on an unrealistic understanding of human nature. Distinct communities and nation-states are necessary for at least two reasons.

First, human beings stand in special relationships to each other. I am not just a human. I am also a son, brother, friend, professor, and churchgoer. Each one of these roles generates distinct communities—which Edmund Burke called “little platoons”—of which I am a member. To assimilate them all under the category of the “world community” is to pretend that they do not exist.

Human beings are more complex than the cosmopolitan takes them to be. Dividing human beings into groups and communities is the best way of recognizing and affirming the intricacies of the human experience.

A Nation Is Crucial for Protecting Natural Relationships

Second, the multifaceted nature of the human experience means that distinct nation-states are essential. The nation state offers a way of organizing and elevating the special groups and communities that make social life possible into cohesive political units. It is the vehicle by which human social groups can come together and act for the sake of a common interest.

At the same time, in focusing on local and regional interests, the nation-state affirms the “little platoons” that render human social life meaningful. Whereas the globalism of the “world community” devalues these special relationships, the localism of the nation-state recognizes their importance.

The idea of a right to immigrate may sound compassionate and be well-intentioned, but it is both deeply flawed and based on a naive view of human social relations. In denying this right, I am by no means devaluing or discouraging immigration. I am, rather, calling for a view of immigration that puts national sovereignty first.​

No One Has A ‘Right’ To Immigrate Into The United States
By Timothy Hsiao
July 24, 2018

No One Has A ?Right? To Immigrate Into The United States

“This view has found support in the newly elected president of Mexico, who remarked that there is a “human right” to move to the United States.”

Not only did one of the five worst presidents in U.S. history make so-called human Rights this country’s responsibility, he put in a plug for democracy horseshit. Listen to the video in Lee Moran’s article:

“Former President Jimmy Carter was asked about the state of democracy in 2018. Carter said that democracy has reached its peak and is declining. I hope that trend will reverse.”​

Jimmy Carter: The US has 'abandoned' its role as a champion of human rights
Lee Moran
Jul 25th 2018 4:57AM

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...-role-as-a-champion-of-human-rights/23489056/

The democracy movement cannot decline fast enough to suit me.

Finally:

Freakazoids know all about human Rights that must be paid for with tax dollars, but they know nothing about the Rights in our original Bill of Rights. (Not a one of those Rights requires tax dollars.)

http://defendingthetruth.com/civil-rights/78243-negative-rights-v-positive-rights.html#post1187001
 
Jul 2018
1,281
297
Earth
#3
But it should be as it's as natural as anything else humans do.

The idea that you can only exist in your little country, state, town, home is quite unnatural.
List three (3) countries you would like to emigrate to.

1.
2.
3.

What kinds of red tape do they have to keep you out?
 
Likes: 1 person
May 2018
5,025
3,177
Chicago
#4
List three (3) countries you would like to emigrate to.

1.
2.
3.

What kinds of red tape do they have to keep you out?
Point taken, but the US has always been different with regards to immigration, and it has been to our great benefit for the most part.
 
Jul 2015
5,026
2,256
chicago
#5
But it should be as it's as natural as anything else humans do.

The idea that you can only exist in your little country, state, town, home is quite unnatural.
You are wrong. Borders are very natural. You have a border around your body that you control. You let people in and you keep them out. You have a border around where your family lives you have a wall and locking doors.

Back in precolumbian America the native tribes had borders.they kept people out. In Europe the ancient Romans had borders. They had walls and guards and they kept people out.

In Germany today, if you want to move there you need X amount of dollars. You need to be proficient in the German language and it takes 8 years to get citizenship.

But you want people to be able to cross the US border at will. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
15,440
14,324
Arizona
#6
You are wrong. Borders are very natural. You have a border around your body that you control. You let people in and you keep them out. You have a border around where your family lives you have a wall and locking doors.

Back in precolumbian America the native tribes had borders.they kept people out. In Europe the ancient Romans had borders. They had walls and guards and they kept people out.

In Germany today, if you want to move there you need X amount of dollars. You need to be proficient in the German language and it takes 8 years to get citizenship.

But you want people to be able to cross the US border at will. Ridiculous.


Again? With the biggest lie of all?? I don't know of any American who approves/supports crossing the border at will. I'm surprised you didn't use the RW worn-out cliche: Open Borders.

You and your peeps seem to have a strange form of Amnesia. Have you forgotten WHO created this country? Who built this country?
Try again, Einstein.
 
Likes: 1 person
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#7
Again? With the biggest lie of all??
To Clara007: ‘Illegal aliens built this country’ is the biggest lie of all.

I don't know of any American who approves/supports crossing the border at will.
To Clara007: Apparently, you do not know all of those Democrats who want to abolish ICE.

You and your peeps seem to have a strange form of Amnesia. Have you forgotten WHO created this country? Who built this country?

To Clara007:
You never knew, or forgot, the difference between legal immigrants who built this country, and illegal aliens who are tearing down the country.

Learn some truth about immigrants in this thread:


http://defendingthetruth.com/immigration/92593-ship-her-back-france.html
 
Dec 2015
15,440
14,324
Arizona
#8
@ FLANDERS
To Clara007:[/COLOR] ‘Illegal aliens built this country’ is the biggest lie of all.[/B][/COLOR]

I'm sorry you can't read or comprehend. Maybe you should go back to 3rd grade and start again.
The phrase I replied to was this was "crossing the border at will". At NO POINT was the word "ILLEGAL" used.



To Clara007: Apparently, you do not know all of those Democrats who want to abolish ICE.

Approximately 10 Democratic Lawmakers have issued statements about abolishing or "fixing" ICE...that's out of thousands of Democrats currently active in positions of authority. So again, STOP LYING. I do not want to abolish ICE.



To Clara007:
You never knew, or forgot, the difference between legal immigrants who built this country, and illegal aliens who are tearing down the country.

Your arrogance is sickening. Every single person in this nation is grateful for their ancestors who traveled to this country and applied for citizenship. The legal naturalization process! Illegal aliens who come to this country applying for asylum are NOT tearing down this country. Illegal aliens who cross the border illegally are NOT tearing down this country. If that were the case, this country would have been "TOAST" 130+ years ago when the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. They've been coming ever since and HERE WE ARE--we're still here.

You're a racist, biased moron and have NOTHING to "teach" me or anyone else on this site. Immigrants BUILT THIS COUNTRY--the roads, the bridges, the industry, the railroads, the dams, the farms, the cities, and the states so when you say a prayer of THANKS, why don't you thank all the generations of immigrants who risked their lives to give us this great nation.
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions