Is There a Right to Immigrate?

[RestorationOfLiberty]

What if "title" is the acorn which manifests the regulatory entitlement state?

What if the only natural law right to property one has is in its use in good will; all else to the edge of the universe is simply common?

You can have all the rights, laws, titles, etc you want, if you do not protect if against those who will harm/destroy they will mean nothing and are nothing.

[presence]

The hell? The relevant definition of "title" is clear. It has nothing to do with synthetic entitlements

What is title if not ex post facto legalized entitlement granted by an authority (or insurer) to in individual deemed to hold right of possession in absence of higher claim?

is any entitlement to title valid without having shown the right to possession?

Would such concepts arise in law as adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and statutory limitations if title was absolute?

title is a mere receipt of what may have been at one time

We should endeavor to keep this real.

indeed

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jsi..._relations.pdf

[Pericles]

osan's excellent analysis and study of Constitution provisions left out this text from Article I Section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Which indicates the federal government has the power to limit immigration, but the power to grant admission is with the states.

As William Rawle points out in his book on the Constitution, because one state grants admission, this does not grant admission to another state, as doing so, would render one state superior to another. However, once the immigrant becomes a citizen, he may then take up residence in any state of his choice, that being a privilege of citizenship.

[BSWPaulsen]

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.

My answer to #2? Unsurprisingly, the same response can be used as for question #1.

[ChristianAnarchist]

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.

My answer to #2? Unsurprisingly, the same response can be used as for question #1.

You are right about "rights". If one rejects that your "Creator" grants them in some definite way then they are all relative. We can bicker about rights and titles and duties all day long but if we don't accept some common "authority" for the issuance of such then we are all blowing smoke. I believe the ONLY "authority" is our Creator and exactly what He has to say is in dispute even by me. Since we cannot all agree on an "authority" (root word "author - think about it) where can we get common ground??

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Why does someone have a right to come to this country or any country for that matter if the people don't want it? Saying I don't have the right to reject immigrants is basically saying I have no control or say in my government and the immigrants have superior rights.

[osan]

What is title if not ex post facto legalized entitlement granted by an authority (or insurer) to in individual deemed to hold right of possession in absence of higher claim?

Title, in se, has absolutely nothing to do with legalities. That there are legal issues crafted around the notion of "title", as well as those of Law, speaks to the validity of the notion of rights and not to the greatly inferior notion of "legal authority". Title existed long before men devised their concepts, theories, structures, and institutions of jurisprudence. Title, in the sense relevant here, has been with men since men have existed. Title is born into us by our nature as living beings just as it is into a dog or the possum I just neglected to kill in my barn because I've had a belly-full of suffering for one day.

To be alive is to need. To need it do desire. To desire is to claim. Behold, man's fabric-dyed bent for title.

As you formulate it, above, I have no right to eat and that any man may enter my home by a virtue your specification fails to identify, and raid my refrigerator. He may then proceed to screw my daughter, or my cat as he might please, and help himself to all to which I am unable to claim title, save by the arbitrary artifice of an equally arbitrary and synthetically contrived authority. Please tell us you see with immediate clarity just how completely hosed this all is.

is any entitlement to title valid without having shown the right to possession?

Every just claim requires no proof. Must you prove your claim to eat? Breathe? Pee and crap? To speak? To walk the earth? To build a dwelling? To hunt? To the rock in your hand or the branch you use as a walking stick?

Must you prove your right to keep and bear arms? If so, to whom, exactly?

Forgive me, but this is all nonsense and gibberish. I appreciate you may be trying to stimulate discourse, but why take this path? Surely you do not believe what you have written.

Would such concepts arise in law as adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and statutory limitations if title was absolute?

There are also concepts of false title, doubtful title, and so forth to cover ill-demonstrated claims. But these are all matters for the courts and rest secondarily in principle, if not always in practice, to the principled concept of title. They are ruminations and attempts at making practical the concept itself, whether rightly or otherwise. They hold distant secondary salience to the raw concept itself. I ought not need to justify my just title to any man at any time or for any reason. That I am called upon to do so is evidence not of my need to, but rather of the corruption of third parties who endeavor to take that which is rightly mine. The only time I am validly called upon to prove my claim is when my title is unjust, whether because I have stolen the object in question from another through theft, robbery, or fraud, or may owe the asset in question as a matter of settling a debt or making whole something which I have damaged. Otherwise, no burden of proof falls to me. It is the same as my right to tell a cop to get bent when he demands I identify myself to him just because he thinks he is "the law".

title is a mere receipt of what may have been at one time

Endlessly and hopelessly false.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jsi..._relations.pdf

Good grief... the two quotes alone assassinate the credibility of the author, who would have to be assessed as a commie prick based on his choices.

The first quote is questionable at best. "What we do cannot be understand except in relation to those we touch." This is unvarnished BULL$#@! vomited forth by some apparent ignoramus judge from Texas. QED. 1/2

The second quote is far worse. "Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end, and are limited by it." You have GOT to be joking - pure commie horse $#@! from what I bet is a trash Jew from NJ. I don't even want to dignify it with a response, it is so wholly overflowing with FAIL. If you press the issue, I willgo through the demolition of this scrap of cheap bull$#@!, but I would rather not, given the day I've had at the hospital. I will leave it to you.

I am exhausted at the moment and in no great humor to engage in mass demolition of the work of an ignorant douche, spewing a raft of idiotic nonsense, but I will address one of his opening sentences just to demonstrate what an ignoramus the author is on a topic to which he is so wholly unqualified to express any opinion:

"Property rights regulate relations among people by distributing powers to control valued resources."

Complete and utter nonsense. Yes, the rights do in fact "regulate" relations in that they tell people what is right v. wrong in terms of their behaviors toward one another regarding title to a given thing. They distribute nothing, much less powers. They may, through their proper employ suggest in whose hands a certain power may rest with respect to the relevant property in question, but they do nothing in themselves. It is the individual who uses the concepts as tools to make the proper determinations. This may seem the picking of a nit, but I assure you that the difference between what I have written and that of the jackanapes in question is fundamental, at wide variance with each other, and crucially important to those seeking to understand a greater truth.

Reading on a bit, this author seems to consistently grab onto a snippet here and there of proper truth and then go all $#@!y by drawing idiotic non-sequiturs. I am too tired to go on with this apparent nonsense. Perhaps he pulls it out of the hole somewhere down the line, though I suspect not.

Rights of the fundamental sort are absolute. Were they not, they would not be rights but rather mere privileges, meted out by someone and as easily taken away. I have no idea why this concept is apparently so hopelessly difficult for so many people to grok. It is simplicity itself. What I suspect, however, is that the difficulty stems from the conflicts of interest that arise from the truths about rights, driving the corrupt man to make exceptions for the sake of evading and neutralizing the implications that cramp his style. "Oh yes... I believe in free speech, of course... but not if it offends me, naturally. Can't have any of that, therefore your right to free speech is not absolute." This is the brand of stoogery in which the entire world now bastes to endlessly perfidious effect.

To accept the limits of rights of the fundamental sort is to reject them in toto. They are either absolute or they are nothing at all.

[Jan2017]

An immigrant/refugee-asylum seeker has the "right to appeal" a deportation from the USA -
the Trump idea is that they exercise that appeal right while waiting in the prior country of entry into United States.

[Superfluous Man]

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?

This is not true. There exists a moral law of right and wrong that doesn't depend on anyone's agreement with it for it to obtain. Deep down, we all know this innately with such certitude that we can't even conceive of it not being the case.

[BSWPaulsen]

This is not true. There exists a moral law of right and wrong that doesn't depend on anyone's agreement with it for it to obtain. Deep down, we all know this innately with such certitude that we can't even conceive of it not being the case.

Perhaps true in an individual's mind, in that each individual may have a sense of right and wrong, but extending that to your neighbor is altogether unlikely to meet complete agreement on what is right and wrong.

Appealing to a universal understanding of right and wrong is fallacious. A consensus can be established between people, and that consensus can be treated as real, but is binding only to those that accept it.

What you've done is the equivalent of "Deep down, we all innately know with certitude that there is a God and we can't even conceive of it not being the case."

Substitute any abstract entity in and the falsity of the statement remains the same.

[Superfluous Man]

Perhaps true in an individual's mind

It's true in the mind of God. The truth of the rightness of what is morally right and the wrongness of what is morally wrong is as absolute as 2+2=4. Committing deeds that violate the Creator's moral law don't disprove its existence, it only proves the sinfulness of the person committing them. And if deeds of that sort have occurred without being rectified yet, that is no evidence that they won't still be.

[otherone]

Substitute any abstract entity in and the falsity of the statement remains the same.

This includes, of course, the state, the collective, and the consensus, all of which make a pretense at the moral justification of using force against those who do not accept their abstraction.

[BSWPaulsen]

It's true in the mind of God. The truth of the rightness of what is morally right and the wrongness of what is morally wrong is as absolute as 2+2=4. Committing deeds that violate the Creator's moral law don't disprove its existence, it only proves the sinfulness of the person committing them. And if deeds of that sort have occurred without being rectified yet, that is no evidence that they won't still be.

Which God? The one you believe in? It must be so, since you know the mind of this God so very well. It seems presumptuous to claim to know the mind of God, but what do I know?

You are, of course, free to derive your understanding of morality from whatever source you so desire. As am I.

And I do not derive mine from whichever one of the great multitude of gods humans have created that you worship. Unsurprisingly, you will find a lack of accord between us on what constitutes right and wrong.

[BSWPaulsen]

This includes, of course, the state, the collective, and the consensus, all of which make a pretense at the moral justification of using force against those who did accept their abstraction.

Erroneously conflating unlike terms is unbecoming.

A collective of people that is quantifiable is not an abstract concept or entity. A quantifiable number of people that form a majority, one that establishes a consensus, is most definitely real. These are real people doing real things.

Now, the morality of those actions? Debatable. But the actions? Not falsifiable.

[otherone]

Erroneously conflating unlike terms is unbecoming.

A collective of people that is quantifiable is not an abstract concept or entity. A quantifiable number of people that form a majority, one that establishes a consensus, is most definitely real. These are real people doing real things.

Now, the morality of those actions? Debatable. But the actions? Not falsifiable.

Discernment is key. Learn it.

Wait...what? "Actions" are always real, whether motivated by your mythical "greater good", or Superfluous Man's diety.

[BSWPaulsen]

Wait...what? "Actions" are always real, whether motivated by your mythical "greater good", or Superfluous Man's diety.

You are really struggling here. My mythical greater good? Good God, man. Get some help from an outside party if this is difficult for you to understand. What you quoted was directly associated with a preceding statement dealing with a fallacious statement from Superfluous Man.

Either A) you didn't understand what you were responding to, or B) thought you would conflate the abstract entities I was referring to with a collective. Whichever it was, your response was inane.

[otherone]

You are really struggling here. My mythical greater good? Good God, man. Get some help from an outside party if this is difficult for you to understand. What you quoted was directly associated with a preceding statement dealing with a fallacious statement from Superfluous Man.

Either A) you didn't understand what you were responding to, or B) thought you would conflate the abstract entities I was referring to with a collective. Whichever it was, your response was inane.

Of course I understand. What you fail to comprehend is that a "consensus" morality is neither more or less arbitrary than any other based on an abstraction.

[BSWPaulsen]

Of course I understand. What you fail to comprehend is that a "consensus" morality is neither more or less arbitrary than any other based on an abstraction.

I am quite aware of the arbitrary nature of morality in all of its forms. I was the one that invoked the fallacy of reification earlier in this thread to start this whole tangent, or did you miss that?

Your attempt at one-upmanship was misguided at best, and foolish at worst. Take your pick.

[otherone]

I am quite aware of the arbitrary nature of morality in all of its forms. I was the one that invoked the fallacy of reification earlier in this thread to start this whole tangent, or did you miss that?

Your attempt at one-upmanship was misguided at best, and foolish at worst. Take your pick.

You are tilting at windmills, Don.
My original point was in agreement with yours.

[BSWPaulsen]

You are tilting at windmills, Don.
My original point was in agreement with yours.

Too funny. No matter how I read it, it definitely doesn't come across as agreement. Oh well, not the first Quixote impression I've done and it won't be my last.

You've been a good sport about it. Have a good day!

[RestorationOfLiberty]

No right to immigrate exist. End of the subject.