I'll play along. > Why is driving a privilege, yet visiting the USA is seen by some as a human right for all of our species? The comparison makes no sense. A

I'll play along. > Why is driving a privilege, yet visiting the USA is seen by some as a human right for all of our species? The comparison makes no sense. A non-non-sequitur question would be the same comparison about guns, given that guns are essential for the livelihood of far fewer people than cars, it would be comparing deadly objects to deadly objects instead of humans, and legal standards would actually match up in a slightly more sensical way that might produce an actual answer[1]. But to ignore the multiple ways it makes no sense, an answer would look something like, because piloting deadly weapons with a modicum of skill is something many people find positive, whereas travel in the abstract is considered by many people a fundamental human right. > What claim does a random foreigner have on the USA that ranks their desire to visit above the commander in chief's desire for them not to visit The president's status as "commander in chief" means nothing in a civilian context, and I see nothing in the constitution about Presidential Whim being a meaningful legal basis - can you point to the SCOTUS case establishing "do what thou wilt shall be the the whole of the law"? > Why are some countries allowed to control who visits them, and some are not? I have no idea what you're talking about, or what it has to do with Muslim bans in the US. If you can point to someone of relevance making that claim in relation to the Muslim bans, please do share. > Why is the battle almost exclusively being portrayed as it being immoral and unethical for only the USA to have any border control at all of any form This is what a red herring looks like. > why is only this regulation or law being targeted as opposed to NORML I dunno, perhaps because NORML is not a sitting president currently banning Muslims? Perhaps because people see different relevance to their lives between different bad laws? Perhaps because this is happening now, we want less of it, and the best way to get less of something is to nip in in the bud? Perhaps because many people see banning people based on religion abhorrent to the character of their country in ways that bad taxation doesn't? How about I flip that around- when there are so many other absurd laws, is this the only one you want to defend? Why aren't you throwing your rhetorical skills at some other battle? [1] The answer, of course, is the constitution.