3 ms·

Obviously there are differences, but it is still a fine analogy. If I own property I can determine who can use it. I live in a democracy so I own my country as

Obviously there are differences, but it is still a fine analogy. If I own property I can determine who can use it. I live in a democracy so I own my country as well. It is shared with others, but a house could also have split ownership. If you have split ownership on a house you have to come to an agreement on who can come into the house. Why is a country any different? It is not just about using resources. If somebody broke into my house and just lived there, but didn't use any food or bandaids I would not be thrilled with it. While it is better than if they used my resources I don't want somebody I don't know in my house. I have the exact same standard with my country. I don't want anybody who hasn't been documented in the country. If you are born here you get a birth certificate and you haven't committed any crimes. If you come here, I want to have some level of knowledge, like if you are a criminal or are carrying the plague. Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses. We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it.

tomrod 2y ago
> Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses. > We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it. Per sister comment to yours, we don't have a "globally accepted idea" as states (which do have sovereignty, unlike both homes and most cities) offer benefits to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that by way of policy they are okay with different standards of immigration. If two people arguing for the same policy disagree completely on the internal consistency in supporting their argument, this suggests that the argument lacks coherence. I continue to reject that the analogy of a home has useful equivalence to a sovereign state regarding immigration on grounds that it is a logical fallacy.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Almost everybody agrees that a state can determine who can enter and how long they can be there. Homes are similar because almost everybody agrees that the owner can determine the same thing. When 99.99% of people agree on the similarity of two different things then the burden is on the 0.01% to prove the alternative. If you refuse to make a coherent argument other than they are not identical then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

tomrod 2y ago

> Your analogy to a city doesn't apply because a city doesn't have sovereignty. It cannot stop people from coming into it like you can with a country or house. If you think it acceptable to break down the sovereignty of a country, then there is no reason why I can't do the same to houses. > We have a globally accepted idea on this, so the burden is on you why we need to destroy it. Per sister comment to yours, we don't have a "globally accepted idea" as states (which do have sovereignty, unlike both homes and most cities) offer benefits to undocumented immigrants, suggesting that by way of policy they are okay with different standards of immigration. If two people arguing for the same policy disagree completely on the internal consistency in supporting their argument, this suggests that the argument lacks coherence. I continue to reject that the analogy of a home has useful equivalence to a sovereign state regarding immigration on grounds that it is a logical fallacy.

ImJamal 2y ago
Almost everybody agrees that a state can determine who can enter and how long they can be there. Homes are similar because almost everybody agrees that the owner can determine the same thing. When 99.99% of people agree on the similarity of two different things then the burden is on the 0.01% to prove the alternative. If you refuse to make a coherent argument other than they are not identical then there is no point in continuing this conversation.