02-16-2017, 12:40 PM
Am I the only one struck by the notion that issues like rights, titles, and so forth are all reification fallacies and that is why they are all so ably bickered over? That they only have any real meaning if people agree on the nature and/or meaning of those abstractions and therefore give them any real force?
Simply put, the thread title is slightly humorous because it doesn't actually require a lengthy rebuttal.
Is there a right to immigrate? No, not in any concrete sense. It is a reification fallacy to believe as such. We could, however, try to discuss whether one should be invented, and if so, what its nature and function would be.
Now, a different pair of questions could be posed. Is it in the self-interest of the thread-starter and myself to allow others to freely immigrate around where we live? If a large group of people have a framework around which their society is based and occupy an outlined amount of space (nation-state) should people from outside that outlined amount of space be allowed to freely come inside?
My answer to #1? Not necessarily. It is very easy to imagine scenarios in which that free movement could prove detrimental to me and mine. That they are speculative scenarios does not matter, because failure to plan for disaster opens the door for it. As such, if thread-starter insists there is a right to immigration it would be at odds with my understanding of a right to immigrate, and as such you end up with 2 different understandings of that abstraction. Which understanding ends up in force is up to whomever is more persuasive, or, failing that, has more brute force in their favor.