SuaveSocialist said:
StarDoor said:
1.) You'll have to provide a source for that.
2.) I guess you've never heard of the "logical conclusion"? Your premise is that immigration is a human right, which means states should not be able to restrict it. If everyone wants to live in the best country possible, and there is no restriction on migration, then everyone will simply move to the perceived "best country." This isn't complicated.
3.) The UN's definition is that "nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference."
In case you need to know what sovereignty is: "The authority of a state to govern itself."
Border security and immigration law are components of sovereignty. Through self-determination, nations can freely choose their sovereignty. Therefore, immigration can be restricted under self-determination.
|
1) The UN.
2) Like I said, "logic" has little to do with your statement.
3) Thanks for providing that definition. Looks like you glossed over "based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity". Your 'whites-only country' is clearly anathemic to the definition you provided. So, you can refer to 2) and then to 1).
Case closed.
|
1.) Do you have a link or not?
2.) Do you have an argument or not?
3.) OK, imagine 50 million white people moving into Uganda, a country of 37 million. They would be the new majority of the country and have a stranglehold on politics, and the former Ugandan population would no longer have its sovereignty. But that would be fine with you, right? Because immigration is a human right.
"Equal rights and fair equality of opportunity" is not the same thing as "right to invade a country that belongs to a different people."
