> 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.

> 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.