George Lee expresses concern about "America's basic value" and yet he repudiates America's basic value, the principle of individual rights, the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as he declares that "America has the absolute and unconditional right to keep anyone out, with or without stated reason" and states that "immigration is not an entitlement."
Mr. Lee is correct in stating that immigration is not an entitlement, because immigration is a right. But by repudiating the right of immigration, as he does, he is repudiating the fundamental value of America as it was founded.
"Those talking about keeping our sovereignty, enforcing our borders, seem to mean that our government should use initiated force to obstruct or block the movement of people who seek to work here, do business here, and live in peace here.
"The appeal to “sovereignty” as a justification for initiating force against peaceful individuals is illogical, and unjust. It reflects a wholly un-American attitude: the collectivist view that “we” or our government own the country, and get to decide who may come here and who may not. And the “us vs. them” approach represents the lowest form of collectivism: tribalism."
"What is National Sovereignty?" (2018) by Harry Binswanger:
It looks like the "right of immigration" at the Founding was limited to free white persons. . . is that the "fundamental value" you were talking about? Because its hard to see a great deal of light between that "fundamental" and Amy Wax's position.
So, the U.S. Government should not regulate (I.e. "initiate force") at the border? That is, the only entry criteria you are recommending are 1) the person at the border is acting peacefully at that moment, and 2) that person at the border says he or she just "wants to do work or do business" in the U.S. and thus should be granted "the right of movement" (quite a new euphemism for immigration). So essentially, free entry to the United States to anyone who meets those two criteria is what you are advocating? The United States and its citizens have nothing to say about it? The thousands of terrorist and other enemy cells amd drug cartels around the world will be delighted to hear about this attitude and surely hope for your increased influence.
I could ask you the same thing: should the U.S. Government, on behalf of the citizens, not initiate force against ("regulate") you within the U.S. borders? That is, is it your view that the only criteria for respecting your rights should be that 1) you are acting peacefully at the moment, and 2) you say that you just "want to do work or do business" in the U.S. (or anything else that doesn't suggest that you are the threat to the rights of others that you may well be), and therefore that you should be *granted* "the right of movement" (given that rights, in your view, are apparently granted to us by government or by citizens and are not unalienable) or any other rights, absent any proof that you are not a threat to the rights of others?
So, you are claiming a right to freedom of movement (or any other freedom) within the U.S., for you and anyone else who meets those two criteria, is what you are advocating?
How are we to know that you're not a serial rapist or a murderer? Because we don't currently have evidence that you are a serial rapist or murderer? The citizens of the United States have nothing to say about you being *granted* freedom of movement within the U.S. or any other freedom, or even being allowed to remain in the U.S., even though, for all we may know, you are a serial rapist or murderer? Surely you're not going to claim that there are no serial rapists or mass murderers in the U.S.
The thousands of enemies of America within the country would be delighted to hear about this attitude of yours and surely hope for your increased influence.
Haven't you learned anything from the idea that the government (on behalf of the citizens of the United States) has something to say about you being *granted* freedom — of movement or anything else — within the U.S. in the context of a pandemic?
America was founded on the principle of individual rights, the view that all individuals have rights, unalienable rights, as individuals, not because they are Americans or because they are currently within the borders of America, but because they are individuals. It was understood and declared that the only proper purpose of government (the use of government force) is the protection of the rights of the individual and that America was to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Unless America is going to continue to repudiate that principle and become more and more authoritarian, down this road to totalitarianism, as it has been doing for decades, then it must once again embrace the principle of individual rights, and stand for it constituently, not hypocritically, regardless of what you or anyone else might otherwise prefer.
The border, by the way, is not the place to fight terrorism, any more than are the borders between the states, and those who pretend that it is play a role in this countries refusal to deal with nations that support terrorism as it should. But if there is some reason to think that some terrorist(s) are intent on crossing the border, then of course they should be stopped, just as you should be stopped if it is discovered that you are a terrorists currently residing within the U.S.
Frankly, with respect to your rights, you should be treated exactly as you advocate treating the rights of others. Maybe then, once enough so-called Americans grasp the importance of the principle of individual rights, will this country will once again embrace the principle that the individual has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those rights are not determined by geographical location, and that no one has a right to violate the rights of any individual.
George Lee expresses concern about "America's basic value" and yet he repudiates America's basic value, the principle of individual rights, the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as he declares that "America has the absolute and unconditional right to keep anyone out, with or without stated reason" and states that "immigration is not an entitlement."
Mr. Lee is correct in stating that immigration is not an entitlement, because immigration is a right. But by repudiating the right of immigration, as he does, he is repudiating the fundamental value of America as it was founded.
"Those talking about keeping our sovereignty, enforcing our borders, seem to mean that our government should use initiated force to obstruct or block the movement of people who seek to work here, do business here, and live in peace here.
"The appeal to “sovereignty” as a justification for initiating force against peaceful individuals is illogical, and unjust. It reflects a wholly un-American attitude: the collectivist view that “we” or our government own the country, and get to decide who may come here and who may not. And the “us vs. them” approach represents the lowest form of collectivism: tribalism."
"What is National Sovereignty?" (2018) by Harry Binswanger:
https://www.hbletter.com/what-is-national-sovereignty/
Here is America's first immigration act of 1790:
https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/
It looks like the "right of immigration" at the Founding was limited to free white persons. . . is that the "fundamental value" you were talking about? Because its hard to see a great deal of light between that "fundamental" and Amy Wax's position.
So, the U.S. Government should not regulate (I.e. "initiate force") at the border? That is, the only entry criteria you are recommending are 1) the person at the border is acting peacefully at that moment, and 2) that person at the border says he or she just "wants to do work or do business" in the U.S. and thus should be granted "the right of movement" (quite a new euphemism for immigration). So essentially, free entry to the United States to anyone who meets those two criteria is what you are advocating? The United States and its citizens have nothing to say about it? The thousands of terrorist and other enemy cells amd drug cartels around the world will be delighted to hear about this attitude and surely hope for your increased influence.
I could ask you the same thing: should the U.S. Government, on behalf of the citizens, not initiate force against ("regulate") you within the U.S. borders? That is, is it your view that the only criteria for respecting your rights should be that 1) you are acting peacefully at the moment, and 2) you say that you just "want to do work or do business" in the U.S. (or anything else that doesn't suggest that you are the threat to the rights of others that you may well be), and therefore that you should be *granted* "the right of movement" (given that rights, in your view, are apparently granted to us by government or by citizens and are not unalienable) or any other rights, absent any proof that you are not a threat to the rights of others?
So, you are claiming a right to freedom of movement (or any other freedom) within the U.S., for you and anyone else who meets those two criteria, is what you are advocating?
How are we to know that you're not a serial rapist or a murderer? Because we don't currently have evidence that you are a serial rapist or murderer? The citizens of the United States have nothing to say about you being *granted* freedom of movement within the U.S. or any other freedom, or even being allowed to remain in the U.S., even though, for all we may know, you are a serial rapist or murderer? Surely you're not going to claim that there are no serial rapists or mass murderers in the U.S.
The thousands of enemies of America within the country would be delighted to hear about this attitude of yours and surely hope for your increased influence.
Haven't you learned anything from the idea that the government (on behalf of the citizens of the United States) has something to say about you being *granted* freedom — of movement or anything else — within the U.S. in the context of a pandemic?
America was founded on the principle of individual rights, the view that all individuals have rights, unalienable rights, as individuals, not because they are Americans or because they are currently within the borders of America, but because they are individuals. It was understood and declared that the only proper purpose of government (the use of government force) is the protection of the rights of the individual and that America was to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Unless America is going to continue to repudiate that principle and become more and more authoritarian, down this road to totalitarianism, as it has been doing for decades, then it must once again embrace the principle of individual rights, and stand for it constituently, not hypocritically, regardless of what you or anyone else might otherwise prefer.
The border, by the way, is not the place to fight terrorism, any more than are the borders between the states, and those who pretend that it is play a role in this countries refusal to deal with nations that support terrorism as it should. But if there is some reason to think that some terrorist(s) are intent on crossing the border, then of course they should be stopped, just as you should be stopped if it is discovered that you are a terrorists currently residing within the U.S.
Frankly, with respect to your rights, you should be treated exactly as you advocate treating the rights of others. Maybe then, once enough so-called Americans grasp the importance of the principle of individual rights, will this country will once again embrace the principle that the individual has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those rights are not determined by geographical location, and that no one has a right to violate the rights of any individual.