>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either t

>I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified. This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions do violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses don't violate rights. With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.