NationStates Jolt Archive

I just have to ask.. for immigration proponents (who support illegal immigration)who say "no human can ever be illegal" is this not the same as saying no person is truely rich .. and so we shouldn't be penalizing success ? It seems to me this line of argument is baseless ... an illegal immigrant is just that .. someone who broke the laws of a country to enter it.. to say no one can be illegal is to say boarders dont really exist.. which can be simplified to priviate property doesn't exist ... and free enterprise dosn't exist. In a capitalist world... HUMANS CAN BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !

Yeah. It's fucking absurd. If anyone can just show up in your country and be entitled to all the rights and privelages of citizenship how do you keep out criminals, terrorists and sponges? I'm in favor of legal immigration, but immigration needs to be controlled.

Unskilled, poor immigrants put a strain on the nations that take them in. Because of that only a limited number per year should be admitted. Hell, some nations don't allow from outside to become a citizen. Switzerland's like that.

National borders and private property are different things, though, Invidentia. We all recognize that private property is your own sphere of influence, and that as a human being you are entitled to have nearly complete control over who enters that property and how it is dealt with [with certain exceptions]. However, is Government in the same position as a human being a la national borders? Does the government really OWN all of the United States? No. It doesn't. Because you have private property. Otherwise we live in Communism, and I don't think you believe that.

Lastly, I think you make a lot of leaps and jumps with your "no national borders = no private property = no free enterprise." Kindly explain that further.

National borders and private property are different things, though, Invidentia. We all recognize that private property is your own sphere of influence, and that as a human being you are entitled to have nearly complete control over who enters that property and how it is dealt with [with certain exceptions]. However, is Government in the same position as a human being a la national borders? Does the government really OWN all of the United States? No. It doesn't. Because you have private property. Otherwise we live in Communism, and I don't think you believe that.

Lastly, I think you make a lot of leaps and jumps with your "no national borders = no private property = no free enterprise." Kindly explain that further.

technically the government is just an institution representing the people.. the United STates infact does OWN the land because they bought or annexed all of it. and since the government owns the land and the government represents us.. it belongs to us.. the people as it is public property

Edit: and we make laws on who can and canot enter it just as we decide who can and cannot come onto our property... technically the difference is minimal at best

well as i just made the point.. public property is just a larger form of private property .. made avalible to the "legal" residents of the nation ... if boarders mean nothing we can then reduce it to the point where no justification can be made to private property .. and if there is no private proerty there is no private enterprise which is the cornerstone of the free market

I don't support national borders as good things in the first place.

That aside, an argument over immigration specifically goes like this...
If you remove the incentive for sponges (strip back/remove welfare, for instance), you won't get those. At present, you're stopping a lot of people who took a heck of a risk to get over here - clearly they're determined and going to be hard-workers. Also, historically, immigrants have been better entrepreneurs and less likely to be sponges than "natural" citizens.

How many people who try to cross come across with the specific intent of being criminals? And how many cease being criminals when we reduce the stringency of prohibition..?

As to terrorists, I fail to see how open borders encourage terrorism and closed ones discourage the same. I would like that explained, if possible? It's a common argument and I do need to first understand it to argue against it effectively.

Yeah. It's fucking absurd. If anyone can just show up in your country and be entitled to all the rights and privelages of citizenship how do you keep out criminals, terrorists and sponges? I'm in favor of legal immigration, but immigration needs to be controlled.

Unskilled, poor immigrants put a strain on the nations that take them in. Because of that only a limited number per year should be admitted. Hell, some nations don't allow from outside to become a citizen. Switzerland's like that.



No way to become a swiss citizen!
What if you're wealthy?

Fuck god damn it all to hell 8(

I think we should do like private-property owners, and put up a HUGE fence around the land borbers of the USA. 10 feet high concrete, going 10-15 foot into the ground, with 8 feet razorwire fence oughtta keep anyone out. And put all the illegals here into concentration/forced labor camps, to make an example out of them. Then no-one will try to come here illegally! 20 years in slave-labour camps in northern Alaska would deter anyone, I think...Mining coal! The coal that is there is not economically feasible right now, but if we had free labor it probably would be. Work 'em 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, 362 days a year (not 4th of July, Christmas, or Thanksgiving). Sounds Great!

I think we should do like private-property owners, and put up a HUGE fence around the land borbers of the USA. 10 feet high concrete, going 10-15 foot into the ground, with 8 feet razorwire fence oughtta keep anyone out. And put all the illegals here into concentration/forced labor camps, to make an example out of them. Then no-one will try to come here illegally! 20 years in slave-labour camps in northern Alaska would deter anyone, I think...Mining coal! The coal that is there is not economically feasible right now, but if we had free labor it probably would be. Work 'em 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, 362 days a year (not 4th of July, Christmas, or Thanksgiving). Sounds Great!


But should we put the dead ones in ovens or mass graves

well as i just made the point.. public property is just a larger form of private property .. made avalible to the "legal" residents of the nation ... if boarders mean nothing we can then reduce it to the point where no justification can be made to private property .. and if there is no private proerty there is no private enterprise which is the cornerstone of the free marketAnd if we shouldn't have welfare we can reduce it to the point that we should never help anyone ever. See, I can make extreme ideological leaps too!

Also! My room mate honestly believes we should castrate any of the illegal immigrants we find. A fun note.

I don't support national borders as good things in the first place.

That aside, an argument over immigration specifically goes like this...
If you remove the incentive for sponges (strip back/remove welfare, for instance), you won't get those. At present, you're stopping a lot of people who took a heck of a risk to get over here - clearly they're determined and going to be hard-workers. Also, historically, immigrants have been better entrepreneurs and less likely to be sponges than "natural" citizens.

How many people who try to cross come across with the specific intent of being criminals? And how many cease being criminals when we reduce the stringency of prohibition..?

As to terrorists, I fail to see how open borders encourage terrorism and closed ones discourage the same. I would like that explained, if possible? It's a common argument and I do need to first understand it to argue against it effectively.

there is a clear difference between illegal immigrants and legaon ones though
Legal immigrants pay taxes on property, in federal income, social security, medicare.. illegal immigrants........ dont. That being said, while its true most immmigrants dont come here to cause trouble go through much effort to get here and will work hard.. however, the fact that they come illegally means they are contributing to a subersive and illgeal market of trafficing. Even if they dont become criminals themselves, they work within a system of criminals making a demand for illegal documents human trafficing, which usually is as well connected with drug trade sex trade and can in the most extreme cases contribute to terrorism. Illegal immigration is all around a bad thing.

Btw national boarders is the heart of soverginty..

And if we shouldn't have welfare we can reduce it to the point that we should never help anyone ever. See, I can make extreme ideological leaps too!

Also! My room mate honestly believes we should castrate any of the illegal immigrants we find. A fun note.

the difference is.. i dont see welfare as a right.. its a priviliage i would personally have no problem doing away with if otheres agreed. But people try to pass off the idea that humans have the right to go where ever they like reguardless of national laws... I belive humans do have a natural right to move.. but they must do so within the confinds of the law..

the difference is.. i dont see welfare as a right.. its a priviliage i would personally have no problem doing away with if otheres agreed. But people try to pass off the idea that humans have the right to go where ever they like reguardless of national laws... I belive humans do have a natural right to move.. but they must do so within the confinds of the law..You misinterpreted what I said. It wasn't about welfare. It wasn't about immigration. It was about how you were using a slippery slope argument to say that if we don't believe in national borders then we don't believe in private property, an argument you didn't explain but used to justify the upholding of national borders. My point was that that is an unwise thing to do, because it doesn't make any sense.

It seems to me this line of argument is baseless ... an illegal immigrant is just that .. someone who broke the laws of a country to enter it..

well, someone holding the "no one is illegal" position is likely to hold either that there is some objective standard to which human law must conform to in order to be a real law (natural law thoery), or the general "fuck you" contempt for the existence of the nation-state. in either case, you don't recognize the existence of any laws that were broken.

to say no one can be illegal is to say boarders dont really exist.. which can be simplified to priviate property doesn't exist ... and free enterprise dosn't exist. In a capitalist world... HUMANS CAN BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !

wow, talk about wildly extending things without good cause.

but yeah, sure. whatever.

if boarders mean nothing we can then reduce it to the point where no justification can be made to private property

private property is unjustified. it exists due to theft and murder and extortion, backed up by the threat of further violence.

you earlier suggested that private property is an individuals sphere of influence and that this is each individuals right

My argument is simple.. the public sphere is just an extension of the private one.. and that the public (national public) in terms of a gobal perspective IS an individual.. with its own rights and laws and property. If you belive an individual has the right to private property i dont understand why it is such a leap to accept that a nation has its right to its property.. The State is an individual amongst other states.. this is the idea of soverignty.

sovereignty is the power of rule within a state which is defined by boarders.. if the boarders means nothing how do we know when the power of rule begins and ends ? Boarders are essential to the idea of Sovereignty.

you earlier suggested that private property is an individuals sphere of influence and that this is each individuals right Indeed, though I believe Free Soviets has a good point too. At least in America, all the land we have was stolen, cheated or killed for. Especially in the far west. We're not exactly paragons of the right to private property.

My argument is simple.. the public sphere is just an extension of the private one.. and that the public (national public) in terms of a gobal perspective IS an individual.. with its own rights and laws and property. If you belive an individual has the right to private property i dont understand why it is such a leap to accept that a nation has its right to its property.. The State is an individual amongst other states.. this is the idea of soverignty.

sovereignty is the power of rule within a state which is defined by boarders.. if the boarders means nothing how do we know when the power of rule begins and ends ? Boarders are essential to the idea of Sovereignty.This is understandable, though I disagree on certain points. But how does this threaten private property?

And how does it threaten sovereignty? While borders are certainly useful for things like trade legislation and where authority is valid or invalid, we do not necessarilly need to prevent immigration with them.

well, someone holding the "no one is illegal" position is likely to hold either that there is some objective standard to which human law must conform to in order to be a real law (natural law thoery), or the general "fuck you" contempt for the existence of the nation-state. in either case, you don't recognize the existence of any laws that were broken.



wow, talk about wildly extending things without good cause.

but yeah, sure. whatever.

... people are not recognizeing the existance of laws that were broken ? but law cannot be picked and chosen... we cannot simply disreguard the laws we dont like. what then is the relevance of any law .. or any right for that matter. Laws give the state the right to property.. so you dont belive in property.. maybe i dont belive in the "natural right of movement" so people dont have the right to live where ever they want. If we start picking and choosing which laws we want to recognize where does it end ? I can see how this is the position of a few radicals.. but how can it be a good majority of pro-immigration propoents (who recognize illegal immigration) to hold this idea as well

... people are not recognizeing the existance of laws that were broken ? but law cannot be picked and chosen... we cannot simply disreguard the laws we dont like. what then is the relevance of any law .. or any right for that matter. Laws give the state the right to property.. so you dont belive in property.. maybe i dont belive in the "natural right of movement" so people dont have the right to live where ever they want. If we start picking and choosing which laws we want to recognize where does it end ? I can see how this is the position of a few radicals.. but how can it be a good majority of pro-immigration propoents (who recognize illegal immigration) to hold this idea as wellI think the point FS was making was that some people consider immigration laws unjust, and so inherently void as laws. You generally don't obey what you consider to be unjust laws, do you? Or hypothetically you wouldn't, yeah?

... people are not recognizeing the existance of laws that were broken ? but law cannot be picked and chosen... we cannot simply disreguard the laws we dont like. what then is the relevance of any law .. or any right for that matter.

well, natural law theorists do not believe themselves to be 'picking and choosing'. they argue that they are following the actual law, instead of the unlawful commands of the state. the state issues all sorts of commands, up to and including genocide - the followers of natural law say that these commands must be judged against some other standard. as aquinas put it, "the force of a law depends on the extent of it's justice". or augustine's sentiment that an unjust law was no law at all.

as for those of us that reject the existence of the state entirely, there isn't much more to say. the commands of the state have no meaning except in so far as we agree to them, and it's borders are not only imaginary but things to be actively undermined. and, of course, some anti-statist also fall in the natural law camp too.

Indeed, though I believe Free Soviets has a good point too. At least in America, all the land we have was stolen, cheated or killed for. Especially in the far west. We're not exactly paragons of the right to private property.

This is understandable, though I disagree on certain points. But how does this threaten private property?

And how does it threaten sovereignty? While borders are certainly useful for things like trade legislation and where authority is valid or invalid, we do not necessarilly need to prevent immigration with them.

because a state relies on security of stability to maintain itself... a State is largely self sufficent. If a state cannot control its own territory by who can enter this seriously impeds its ability to sustain itself (provide food supply, housing capacity, education, and in some cases welfare) .. every state has a population limit which once exceeded will begin to work to its great detrement.
Simply said Boarders are Essential.. If a state can't control them much of its power is lost

well, natural law theorists do not believe themselves to be 'picking and choosing'. they argue that they are following the actual law, instead of the unlawful commands of the state. the state issues all sorts of commands, up to and including genocide - the followers of natural law say that these commands must be judged against some other standard. as aquinas put it, "the force of a law depends on the extent of it's justice". or augustine's sentiment that an unjust law was no law at all.

as for those of us that reject the existence of the state entirely, there isn't much more to say. the commands of the state have no meaning except in so far as we agree to them, and it's borders are not only imaginary but things to be actively undermined. and, of course, some anti-statist also fall in the natural law camp too.

can you outline exactly what these natural laws are ? can any natural law theorists agree with one another on how many laws there are or to what extent they exist ? How they come about or how they are interpreted ? We know all these things of state law.. as they are controlled and dicated by society... where does natural law come from though ? and how does it impact society. It seems as though some people just use natural law as a work in progress and make it up as they go along.. whatever "feels" natural to them... would natural law leave us in a state of nature.. and does that were we really want to be ? and if life is just a state of nature.. whose state is it ? Lockes or Hobbs ... two very different worlds if you ask me. I can't accept natural law if these simple concepts cant be answered and I dont see how you could expect any reasonable person to either.

I think the point FS was making was that some people consider immigration laws unjust, and so inherently void as laws. You generally don't obey what you consider to be unjust laws, do you? Or hypothetically you wouldn't, yeah?

I absololutly would.. I can find some aspects of the justice system unjust... or the traffic system unjust.. but we CANNOT pick and choose the laws we like at the times we like them. Just because some aspects of the laws are unjust to some.. dosn't mean they are unjust in general.. yes the illegal imigrant might find a problem with the immigration system.. but the middle class family that comes from Europe or Southeast asia or wherever who become legal residents might find it very just. Whose perspectives should we be going off of ?

Edit: simply said.. society has to dictate what laws are unjust or just.. it is not for us the individuals to decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore

simply said.. society has to dictate what laws are unjust or just.. it is not for us the individuals to decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore

even if the law says that you have to help round up unpopular minority x to send them off to the camps to be killed?

Indeed, though I believe Free Soviets has a good point too. At least in America, all the land we have was stolen, cheated or killed for. Especially in the far west. We're not exactly paragons of the right to private property.

america (and australia, new zealand, canada, etc) are particularly glaring examples because the theft and murder is in the relatively recent past. but anywhere where you see private property instead of common property, you can be sure that it got that way through a rather impressive display of violence and murder at some point in the past.

And how does it threaten sovereignty? While borders are certainly useful for things like trade legislation and where authority is valid or invalid, we do not necessarilly need to prevent immigration with them.

because apparently the state must exercise all the power and control it possibly can or else it ceases to exist immediately.

Too bad the Native Americans didn't enforce immigration laws.

I just have to ask.. for immigration proponents (who support illegal immigration)who say "no human can ever be illegal" is this not the same as saying no person is truely rich .. and so we shouldn't be penalizing success ? It seems to me this line of argument is baseless ... an illegal immigrant is just that .. someone who broke the laws of a country to enter it.. to say no one can be illegal is to say boarders dont really exist.. which can be simplified to priviate property doesn't exist ... and free enterprise dosn't exist. In a capitalist world... HUMANS CAN BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !
Agreed, 100%.

even if the law says that you have to help round up unpopular minority x to send them off to the camps to be killed?

thankfully the constitution dose not provide for tihis to be permited... the reason why our laws should be followed and obeyed is because the constitution provides freedom and protects life CHEIFLY.

and even in that EXTREME case.. i would not be disreguarding the law... I would be engagine society to alter it...

bump..

i would have thougth there would be more opinions on such a vital issue as immigration

It's not a very sexy topic. You can't call someone names over it! Who'd want to talk about it on NS!?

thankfully the constitution dose not provide for tihis to be permited... the reason why our laws should be followed and obeyed is because the constitution provides freedom and protects life CHEIFLY.

and even in that EXTREME case.. i would not be disreguarding the law... I would be engagine society to alter it...Well, I don't want to get off topic on the nature of law in society, but I will say this: sometimes society won't change, or it will be too late and many will have already died. And what if the law expressly told you, Invidentia, to go and kill some people? Hypothetically speaking; perhaps our Constitution has been radically altered or sommin'. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself what to do, not rely on the laws of an estranged nation.

It's not a very sexy topic. You can't call someone names over it! Who'd want to talk about it on NS!?

Well, I don't want to get off topic on the nature of law in society, but I will say this: sometimes society won't change, or it will be too late and many will have already died. And what if the law expressly told you, Invidentia, to go and kill some people? Hypothetically speaking; perhaps our Constitution has been radically altered or sommin'. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself what to do, not rely on the laws of an estranged nation.

honestly speaking then no.. this is a law i would not follow... but this is obserdly radical and cannot be comparbily transposed onto what Im arguing here...

are you trying to say because of this extreme example.. we should be picking and choosing the laws we like.. and those we dont (dont exist in our mind ?)

Traffic laws state by schools you should be going at a significantly reduced speed.. Perhaps I dont like this rule.. Its my right to go as fast as I can so I break the law because I dont recognize this law as a "just" law. Are you trying to tell me this is ok ?

And i dont think goin on the topic of Natural law is off topic as some here are using it to justify the argument that no one is illegal.. and boundries have no meaning. I personally have seen no generally accepted specific states of natural law.. and all of the questions ive stated in the above thread have gone unasnwered..

honestly speaking then no.. this is a law i would not follow... but this is obserdly radical and cannot be comparbily transposed onto what Im arguing here...

are you trying to say because of this extreme example.. we should be picking and choosing the laws we like.. and those we dont (dont exist in our mind ?)

Traffic laws state by schools you should be going at a significantly reduced speed.. Perhaps I dont like this rule.. Its my right to go as fast as I can so I break the law because I dont recognize this law as a "just" law. Are you trying to tell me this is ok ?I'm not telling you anything; I've made no normative statements regarding traffic law. It's not a matter of "liking." It's a matter of justice.

And i dont think goin on the topic of Natural law is off topic as some here are using it to justify the argument that no one is illegal.. and boundries have no meaning. I personally have seen no generally accepted specific states of natural law.. and all of the questions ive stated in the above thread have gone unasnwered..This is because you and I have fundamentally different definitions of the role and nature of the State. I don't believe I can convince you of my points, because your values are so radically different. Sorry, kind of a cop-out. But that's why I haven't really touched the main subject of the thread since last night.

I'm not telling you anything; I've made no normative statements regarding traffic law. It's not a matter of "liking." It's a matter of justice.

This is because you and I have fundamentally different definitions of the role and nature of the State. I don't believe I can convince you of my points, because your values are so radically different. Sorry, kind of a cop-out. But that's why I haven't really touched the main subject of the thread since last night.

the only context by which I can accept "natural law" as a higher authority by which to judge the laws we have through states is in a religious context.. because then a higher being is passing down god given rights and such...

But your argument being seemingly a secular one.. your basing the justifiability of our laws on a state of nature (which depending on your interpreation could be seen as a survival of the fittest forum ?) Besides the fact that when we submit ourselves to statehood and accept the ideas of nationstates we submit to their laws not the laws of nature (which are probably far more brutal)

thankfully the constitution dose not provide for tihis to be permited... the reason why our laws should be followed and obeyed is because the constitution provides freedom and protects life CHEIFLY.

and even in that EXTREME case.. i would not be disreguarding the law... I would be engagine society to alter it...

the constitution has been abolished and you are living under a military dictatorship. you have no hope of politically altering the laws issued by the council of generals, they don't care. and the law says that you are required to take part in this matter; either in the round up, the transportation, or the executions. what do you do and why?

the only context by which I can accept "natural law" as a higher authority by which to judge the laws we have through states is in a religious context.. because then a higher being is passing down god given rights and such...

But your argument being seemingly a secular one.. your basing the justifiability of our laws on a state of nature

the secular argument about natural law is that it just exists in the universe, waiting to be discovered through the use of reason. it isn't about the state of nature. it's about using reason to determine whether some law fits with the objective standard that we ought follow.

the secular argument about natural law is that it just exists in the universe, waiting to be discovered through the use of reason. it isn't about the state of nature. it's about using reason to determine whether some law fits with the objective standard that we ought follow.

the thing about reason is that it is in no way objective.. it is entirely subjective in nature.. in the eye of the beholder.. intelectuals often look at the same complex problems and have ultimatly polar belifs... why is your reasoning any better or worse then your nieghbors ?

the constitution has been abolished and you are living under a military dictatorship. you have no hope of politically altering the laws issued by the council of generals, they don't care. and the law says that you are required to take part in this matter; either in the round up, the transportation, or the executions. what do you do and why?

Ive already basically address this extreme example.. i would have to default to my moral belifs in the lack of legitmate justifiable laws regulated by society. In no way is this situation your constructing transferable to the situation at hand.

might I also add that the statement that "natural law ... just exists in the universe" sounds dangerouls similar to the rationalization of intelegent design and the moral code that is derived from it.

Natural law in your argument is sustained in reasoning.. but as I stated earlier.. reasoning is subjective.. and essentially based on game theory if you so wish to reduce it to this level. As well this natural law is obviously only something that can be revealed only by humans as the subsiquent animal kingdom follows only darwins survival of the fittest laws. With no evidence to point to in nature itself, being based on an ideology or line of thought which is purely subjective how can natural law ever subsiquently be defined or identified ?

It just dosn't hold water... and without it.. there is simply no argument to support illegal immigration. We maybe a nation built on immigrants.. but it was built on immigrants who came to this country legally... not under cloak and dagger

i would have to default to my moral belifs in the lack of legitmate justifiable laws

and this is the very question at issue. what is a legitimate law? what makes the council of generals command for you to partake in genocide illegitimate? they are the law-making body of the state, after all sounds to me like you are picking and choosing.

Unskilled, poor immigrants put a strain on the nations that take them in.
actually quite a lot of nations need unskilled workers as the citizens of the country don't like cleaning crap for some reason.

might I also add that the statement that "natural law ... just exists in the universe" sounds dangerouls similar to the rationalization of intelegent design and the moral code that is derived from it.

not a natural law theorist myself.

but if there are moral facts and if moral judgements have truth values, then these must somehow exist in the universe. just because someone makes a wrong claim about what the facts of the universe are doesn't mean that there are no facts.

technically the government is just an institution representing the people.. the United STates infact does OWN the land because they bought or annexed all of it. and since the government owns the land and the government represents us.. it belongs to us.. the people as it is public property

Edit: and we make laws on who can and canot enter it just as we decide who can and cannot come onto our property... technically the difference is minimal at best

the difference is.. i dont see welfare as a right.. its a priviliage i would personally have no problem doing away with if otheres agreed. But people try to pass off the idea that humans have the right to go where ever they like reguardless of national laws... I belive humans do have a natural right to move.. but they must do so within the confinds of the law..

I don't know whether you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian or what, but you are one funny duck. ;) No insult intended, just that your views seem incongruent.

All property belongs to the federal government and we possess it on sufference? No natural property rights?

Read any John Locke? Or the Constitution?

"natural right to move" but only "within the confin[e]s of the law"?

"Natural right" tends to mean independent of the law. A natural right can have limitations, which may or may not be the same as the burdens imposed by the law.

Do you believe there is a natural right to possess guns? Does it exist only "within the the confin[e]s of the law"?

There may be practical and economic reasons for limiting immigration. I am skeptical.

But one's natural rights do not depend on the accident of where one is born.

All property belongs to the federal government and we possess it on sufference? No natural property rights?

Read any John Locke? Or the Constitution?

"natural right to move" but only "within the confin[e]s of the law"?

"Natural right" tends to mean independent of the law. A natural right can have limitations, which may or may not be the same as the burdens imposed by the law.This is what I was getting at, but I'm dumb and can't talk.

I don't know whether you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian or what, but you are one funny duck. ;) No insult intended, just that your views seem incongruent.

All property belongs to the federal government and we possess it on sufference? No natural property rights?

Read any John Locke? Or the Constitution?

"natural right to move" but only "within the confin[e]s of the law"?

"Natural right" tends to mean independent of the law. A natural right can have limitations, which may or may not be the same as the burdens imposed by the law.

Do you believe there is a natural right to possess guns? Does it exist only "within the the confin[e]s of the law"?

There may be practical and economic reasons for limiting immigration. I am skeptical.

But one's natural rights do not depend on the accident of where one is born.

Yeah ive read Locke.. have you read Hobbes ? and the contract with the state.. And yeah Ive read the constitution.. Have you read the declaration of independence where the United States declared itself a sovergien nation ? So that it then was granted the power to control its own boarders. Sure you can have the freedom to move out of your state.. but you dont have the freedom to enter any neigboring state without their permission. And where does this natural law come from ? logic ? reason ? it dosn't seem to exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom. And as I argued before.. reason is subjective.. not objective.... so there is no basis for your natural law unless your talking about devine right .. but then Im assuming your trying to make a secular argument here

natural right .. as far as i see it.. outside of a religious context has meaning only within a state of nature.. we today do not live in a state of nature, we live within the confinds of nationstates and thus subject ourselves to such laws. Technically natural right means you have the right to do whatever you please whenever you please... and yes owning a gun would fall into that category. But I belive as Hobbes did you enter into a social contract when submitting yourself to a government (which provides security), and as such surrender your liberties to such government. If then you are GIVEN the right to again hold such weapons you then have the right to do so. But only if it is so redistributed to you.

not a natural law theorist myself.

but if there are moral facts and if moral judgements have truth values, then these must somehow exist in the universe. just because someone makes a wrong claim about what the facts of the universe are doesn't mean that there are no facts.

can you give me an example of one of these moral facts ? and the truth value of moral judgements ? These things are all conditional and something like "morals" is again largely subjective.. as long as your talking outside the realm of religion. And even then.. much of the morals we have in law find their roots back in basic religions from the dawn of time. Government and religion were born together... less you can find a basic civilization whose belifs were not centered around some belif in some form of religion.

reason is subjective.. not objective....

how does that work? you have premises, you have valid inferences, you have conclusions that follow from them. seems objective to me. if reason isn't objective, what is? and how would you argue for that position?

Yeah ive read Locke.. have you read Hobbes ? and the contract with the state.. And yeah Ive read the constitution.. Have you read the declaration of independence where the United States declared itself a sovergien nation ? So that it then was granted the power to control its own boarders. Sure you can have the freedom to move out of your state.. but you dont have the freedom to enter any neigboring state without their permission. And where does this natural law come from ? logic ? reason ? it dosn't seem to exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom. And as I argued before.. reason is subjective.. not objective.... so there is no basis for your natural law unless your talking about devine right .. but then Im assuming your trying to make a secular argument here

Kind of odd for someone to deny the existence of natural rights and then point to the Declaration of Independence. Does the following ring a bell?
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men

I am well familar with Hobbes, but our Founders followed Locke.

The DoI is a statement of ideas. It has no legal significance to our nation at this point. The Constitution is the law of the law. It protects the rights to life, liberty, and property. Our government does not own or have rights to all land within our borders. That is a specious argument.

As you consider all reason subjective, there is little point in reasoning with you. But could you explain why -- by mere arbitrary place of birth -- you are entitled to superior rights?

Kind of odd for someone to deny the existence of natural rights and then point to the Declaration of Independence. Does the following ring a bell?
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men

I am well familar with Hobbes, but our Founders followed Locke.

The DoI is a statement of ideas. It has no legal significance to our nation at this point. The Constitution is the law of the law. It protects the rights to life, liberty, and property. Our government does not own or have rights to all land within our borders. That is a specious argument.

As you consider all reason subjective, there is little point in reasoning with you. But could you explain why -- by mere arbitrary place of birth -- you are entitled to superior rights?

the unaliable rights spoken about in the declearation of indepence were spoken from a relgious context.. you highlighted the wrong part.. you should have highlighted that they are endowed by their Creator
and I have stated I fully accepted the idea of natural rights from a religoius stand point.. but from a secular one.. there is no basis !

and just to clarify.. the consititution does protect the rights of life liberty and property.. for those legal citizens and residents of the nation... it does not protect the people living in other countries... and the constitution being the supreme law of the land is sustained by the idea of soverginty in that the nation has the power to make its own constitution.. but by destroying what the state is.. (essentially borders) you throw the whole concept of soeverignty out the window.. and with it all that the constitution is empowered by

how does that work? you have premises, you have valid inferences, you have conclusions that follow from them. seems objective to me. if reason isn't objective, what is? and how would you argue for that position?

is it not possible to aproach the same problem with differeing premises all with valid inferences who have conclusions ? reason is based on what is reasonable to one person... and idea of reason is different for all different people.

What is reasonable to you.. may or maynot be reasonable to me... though you may ahve your premise and valid inferences, I will undoubitly have my own which in my eyes are equally or more resonable. whose so called reason then prevails ? Can two types of differeing reason exists together in the confinds of a single problem if they contradict one another ?