4 ms·

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

maxerickson 10y ago
That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question. It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.
- Kequc 10y ago
  How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.
wayn3 10y ago
Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them? Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle. Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.
ubernostrum 10y ago
This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history. This is an interesting claim to make. For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration. And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.
- jerkstate 10y ago
  I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.

maxerickson 10y ago

That just sidesteps the interesting part of the question. It's been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history that nations do not exist by right, they exist by might.

Kequc 10y ago
How deep into the bowels of history are you digging because I'm not young. What are you suggesting exactly, nations are illegitimate?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.

wayn3 10y ago

Nations do not have rights granted to them the same way they grant rights to you. Nations are essentially sovereign. They can do whatever they want. If they piss off some other nation, that may lead to war, but there is no court that rules over nations. There have been some of these in recent times, but nations decide to accept their rulings by choice, not because they have to. remember how they veto'd the USA going to war in Iraq and the USA still went to war and nothing happened to them? Nations have ALL the rights. The same way you have the right to with your body whatever you want. At least in principle. Even when the supreme court decides that its nation can not do something, thats an entity that is part of the natio making a decision for the nation. Its not that the nation has lost rights, its just decided that it installs a supreme court that serves as a decision-maker for the nation.

ubernostrum 10y ago

This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history. This is an interesting claim to make. For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration. And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.

jerkstate 10y ago
I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.