Liberal (or Western) Democracy Under Pressure

[Del]

+JMJ+

Affording people their Universal Human Rights is moral.

Denying people their Universal Human Rights because of a nagging fear that someone, somewhere may be getting away with something is not.

'Nuff said?

It's not a universal human right to go wherever you want. Order demands law. Otherwise, anyone can just come camp out on your couch whenever they want.

'nuff said?

Your original point was, apparently, that since the respect for certain Rights accrues to the benefit of some politically disfavored group, this is justification to deny those selfsame Rights.

My response was that decades of the Democratic Party ostensibly benefiting from exploiting Immigration as a political wedge-issue is no more a legit reason to deny the Right to Migrate than is decades of the GOP ostensibly benefiting from exploiting Abortion as a political wedge-issue a legit reason to deny the Right to Life.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Now, if you want to switch gears and interrogate why affirming the Right to Migrate doesn't nullify the legitimacy of a nation's Border Security and Immigration Systems, then we could certainly have that convo. But one thing at a time please.

You don't really have a specific policy recommendation to offer, right?

Whatever we try to do will not support your vision of Universal Human Rights?

What do you want us to do? Please spell out something practical that we can discuss and possibly lobby/vote for.

[Del]

As nearly as I can tell, Wosbald's "Universal Human Right to Migrate" demands that America must accept any and all of the migrants who want to come here.... Just as Palestinians must accept all of the Jews who want to migrate to Israel.

But this isn't quite what Wosbald has said, at other times. So I am very unclear as to what Wosbald is asking for.

I cannot judge any policy proposal from the Trump Admin and discern with confidence whether or not such policy will comply with Wosbald's Jesuits.

[SlowToke]

+JMJ+

Affording people their Universal Human Rights is moral.

Denying people their Universal Human Rights because of a nagging fear that someone, somewhere may be getting away with something is not.

'Nuff said?

It's not a universal human right to go wherever you want. Order demands law. Otherwise, anyone can just come camp out on your couch whenever they want.

'nuff said?

Your original point was, apparently, that since the respect for certain Rights accrues to the benefit of some politically disfavored group, this is justification to deny those selfsame Rights.

My response was that decades of the Democratic Party ostensibly benefiting from exploiting Immigration as a political wedge-issue is no more a legit reason to deny the Right to Migrate than is decades of the GOP ostensibly benefiting from exploiting Abortion as a political wedge-issue a legit reason to deny the Right to Life.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Now, if you want to switch gears and interrogate why affirming the Right to Migrate doesn't nullify the legitimacy of a nation's Border Security and Immigration Systems, then we could certainly have that convo. But one thing at a time please.

No. ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Your point is moot.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

No. ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Your point is moot.

China sez that Illegal Birth is not a Right. Your point is what, again?

[SlowToke]

+JMJ+

No. ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Your point is moot.

China sez that Illegal Birth is not a Right. Your point is what, again?

If I'm not mistaken, your position is that migration is a natural right immune from laws. Firstly, that's just not true or how it works in any country whether you think it should or not. My position is that migration is a privilege subject to the laws of the receiving country. Without laws, whether they be divine or manmade, we have chaos. The saddest part to me is that political parties are taking advantage of the situation and encouraging migrants to ignore the legal path to citizenship. That's a fact; not a conspiracy theory. Democrats have very clearly stated the fact through words and actions.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

China sez that Illegal Birth is not a Right. Your point is what, again?

If I'm not mistaken, your position is that migration is a natural right immune from laws. …

You are mistaken. That is not my position. Natural Rights, of whatever stripe, are not immune from laws, since no Right is absolute.

However, Natural Rights are immune from "State capture", which means that Natural Rights do not either exist or not exist at the good pleasure of the State. To use your word, they are not a strict "privilege" to be granted or withheld at the State's whim. IOW, the State merely secures — but does not create or bestow — said Rights. Such is what the "inalienable" in Inalienable Rights means: the State didn't create them, and so the State can't deny them. To believe otherwise is called "Statism".

What this means in practice is that the State is obliged to secure the Illegal's Right to Migrate by affording him a Due Process in which the competing Rights of two, coequal parties (i.e. the Migrant, on one hand, and the State or Nation, on the other) can be asserted and negotiated in good faith in order to come to a judgement serving the Common Good.

Only then, only after going through this Due Process, is it revealed whether the Illegal in question is justly exercising his Right to Migrate (and thus, to be put on some path of accommodation and assimilation) or whether he is Criminal as well as Illegal (and thus, to be put on the fast-track to deportation).

[Del]

+JMJ+

No. ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Your point is moot.

China sez that Illegal Birth is not a Right. Your point is what, again?

Abortion is murder. It is always wrong. Neither the mother, nor the father, nor the government have authority to delete a child.

Immigration should be in accord with legal processes, so applicants can be vetted and discerned as worthy residents. Our government officials have a duty to protect citizens.

That is the point, again.

[Del]

What this means in practice is that the State is obliged to secure the Illegal's Right to Migrate by affording him a Due Process in which the competing Rights of two, coequal parties (i.e. the Migrant, on one hand, and the State or Nation, on the other) can be asserted and negotiated in good faith in order to come to a judgement serving the Common Good.

Only then, only after going through this Due Process, is it revealed whether the Illegal in question is justly exercising his Right to Migrate (and thus, to be put on some path of accommodation and assimilation) or whether he is Criminal as well as Illegal (and thus, to be put on the fast-track to deportation).

Okay.... so you are almost saying something solid.

The "fast track to deportation" is presently confined to gang members and those with history of violent crime. This seems to comply with your moral code.
It's not like illegal families are being rounded up into camps and deported at scale.

How is anyone being denied "due process"? What is the process that ought to be followed?
By what process ought we to keep our border secure and respect those who desire to immigrate by legal due process?
=====

I don't think you understand "Right to Migrate is a Human Right" correctly. America is under no obligation, morally or under international law regarding asylum, to take in anyone who wants to come here.

Mexico is not under civil war or natural disaster, forcing people to flee to America as the nearest safe region such that we are obligated under treaty to accommodate them.

[SlowToke]

+JMJ+

China sez that Illegal Birth is not a Right. Your point is what, again?

If I'm not mistaken, your position is that migration is a natural right immune from laws. …

You are mistaken. That is not my position. Natural Rights, of whatever stripe, are not immune from laws, since no Right is absolute.

However, Natural Rights are immune from "State capture", which means that Natural Rights do not either exist or not exist at the good pleasure of the State. To use your word, they are not a strict "privilege" to be granted or withheld at the State's whim. IOW, the State merely secures — but does not create or bestow — said Rights. Such is what the "inalienable" in Inalienable Rights means: the State didn't create them, and so the State can't deny them. To believe otherwise is called "Statism".

What this means in practice is that the State is obliged to secure the Illegal's Right to Migrate by affording him a Due Process in which the competing Rights of two, coequal parties (i.e. the Migrant, on one hand, and the State or Nation, on the other) can be asserted and negotiated in good faith in order to come to a judgement serving the Common Good.

Only then, only after going through this Due Process, is it revealed whether the Illegal in question is justly exercising his Right to Migrate (and thus, to be put on some path of accommodation and assimilation) or whether he is Criminal as well as Illegal (and thus, to be put on the fast-track to deportation).

So, would you not agree that there is a legal process to migrate to the US? Does that include climbing over a fence in the dead of night? Asylum seekers (true asylum seekers) can enter at a legal point of entry. Why do you think they would enter anywhere else? Do you think the millions who have migrated illegally are all asylum seekers? What are they seeking asylum from? Why do you suppose they don't seek asylum legally? I agree with you that legitimate asylum seekers deserve due process. Criminals who illegally enter our country (and by criminals I mean anyone who breaks the law including illegally crossing our border) are absolutely not entitled to due process. We owe them nothing. They can follow the legal path of entry. Period.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

… Criminals who illegally enter our country (and by criminals I mean anyone who breaks the law including illegally crossing our border) are absolutely not entitled to due process. We owe them nothing. …

This, here, is the nub of the problem. It's also a Crime Against Humanity.

All without exception have a minimal standing in our legal system. All without exception are owed Due Process. That's why it's called "Due". Due=Owed.

I dunno what to say beyond this point, other than, at the very least, we whittled it down to the basic disagreement. Thank you for participating in the convo. However, I can't say I'm particularly surprised at the result. After all, I've been hammering on the Due Process issue for 10 years now.

And so, I s'pose we're back to where we were at the start of this convo, viz., the ball is — or is gonna be — in SCOTUS' court. Crossing fingers.