5 ms·

A non-citizen doesn't have any inherent right to enter the country at all. If they are allowed to, it's a privilege generously granted by the state—and as a pri

A non-citizen doesn't have any inherent right to enter the country at all. If they are allowed to, it's a privilege generously granted by the state—and as a privilege, it's entirely conditional and revocable. That being said, guests of the country must always be treated fairly and honestly, just as you would treat a guest in your home.

LastTrain 3y ago
You are almost entirely wrong, of course. Visitors in the US do indeed have rights.
- thrwawy74 3y ago
  For comradery, I'm loving where this is going. I do wish we more consciously accepted that all persons have inherent rights. Looking forward to a world gov that tries to do good things someday... a la Bicentennial Man.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  Sure they do, just not the right to enter the United States.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  No, they are 100% correct. People who want to enter the country are not visitors in the US, by definition. And the comment didn’t say that even aspiring visitors to the US have no rights - it said they have no right to enter the country.
- kelnos 3y ago
  They didn't claim visitors in the US don't have rights. They -- correctly -- claimed that border agents can refuse to allow entry to visitors for any (or no) reason.
monkaiju 3y ago
According to the UN declaration of human rights, Article 13 specifically, which the US signed onto, we actually shouldn't even be able to block people at the border. "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
- aidenn0 3y ago
  You are misunderstanding that. It's "within the borders" not "across the borders." The second clause of Article 13 grants rights to leave countries, and to return to "his" country, which implies a right to deny non-citizens entry. That countries can (as a rule) deny non-citizens entry for whatever reason they so desire should be obvious.
- brewdad 3y ago
  That says the opposite of your claim. "within the borders of each state" Once you wish to cross into another state (nation or country) your freedom of movement is subject to limitations

LastTrain 3y ago

You are almost entirely wrong, of course. Visitors in the US do indeed have rights.

thrwawy74 3y ago
For comradery, I'm loving where this is going. I do wish we more consciously accepted that all persons have inherent rights. Looking forward to a world gov that tries to do good things someday... a la Bicentennial Man.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Sure they do, just not the right to enter the United States.
lazyasciiart 3y ago
No, they are 100% correct. People who want to enter the country are not visitors in the US, by definition. And the comment didn’t say that even aspiring visitors to the US have no rights - it said they have no right to enter the country.
kelnos 3y ago
They didn't claim visitors in the US don't have rights. They -- correctly -- claimed that border agents can refuse to allow entry to visitors for any (or no) reason.

monkaiju 3y ago

According to the UN declaration of human rights, Article 13 specifically, which the US signed onto, we actually shouldn't even be able to block people at the border. "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

aidenn0 3y ago
You are misunderstanding that. It's "within the borders" not "across the borders." The second clause of Article 13 grants rights to leave countries, and to return to "his" country, which implies a right to deny non-citizens entry. That countries can (as a rule) deny non-citizens entry for whatever reason they so desire should be obvious.
brewdad 3y ago
That says the opposite of your claim. "within the borders of each state" Once you wish to cross into another state (nation or country) your freedom of movement is subject to limitations