As usual, your summaries are eloquently written.
Can you prove that it is a right to preserve what you have described? A right to me seems to be relatively simple: to breathe, to speak, to practice religion, to buy or sell etc. Aversion to changes is not a right.
Moreover, let's say that I, like ICE, stopped you from walking to groceries to buy food for your family; I tell you my reason for restraining and handcuffing you was that I don't like your customs, beliefs, appearance, and my desire that's been passed down from my family, friends and peers justifies my terrible action.
Does this seem ok to you? If not, why must we enforce this to others? The issue of rights is a complicated one. The ones you listed are relatively self-obvious (at least in current Western society). What becomes more complicated is defining the rights of groups, such as the rights of Americans as citizens. Aversion to change is not a right, of course, but possessing the power to control and shape your destiny (as a group), within reasonable limits, certainly strikes me as a right. It’s the right of Americans, Germans, Japanese, Congolese, Jews, and so on. Each group has the right to set group standards and pursue policies or enforce social pressures to ensure group survival and success.
The reason we’re having this fundamental disagreement stems from our understanding of the issues of nationality, citizenship, individual, group, and human rights. You, if I am understanding you correctly, essentially view rights as largely universal and should apply to all humans relatively equally; barriers, such as borders and citizenship, are tantamount to violations of another individual’s superior rights to personal autonomy and desire for self-actualization. Borders and cultural groups that often define their in/out limitations through borders and citizenship laws are socially constructed hinderances to personal desire and, therefore, tantamount to a violation of human rights.
However, I disagree with that. I believe rights are more hierarchical and complex. The desire of the outsider to enter into the group, whether that means simply crossing borders, obtaining citizenship, or being welcomed as a member of the ingroup, does not supersede the right of group self-determination. I, as an American, do not have the right to go to Italy and be allowed permission into Italian society, whether it’s to work, permanently resettle, or anything. It’s the right of Italians to decide who they want to allow into their society, for how long, and how many. Our representative democratic models assume that elected officials speak on behalf of (or represent) the citizens, therefore whatever the Italians decide to enshrine into law regarding immigration via the state is an expression of their collective will and an act of self-determination. As a foreigner, that doesn’t violate my rights because I possess no inherent right to be in their society, regardless of how it affects me.
So you're asserting that different cultural pov that's evolved internally is different from the one that's grown externally. Is this not just a nuanced way of saying foreigners' rights are less important?
Why is it absurd? American citizens should not be any more or less immune from being criticized for deviating away from the cultural norm. For example, if we force foreigners to speak fluent English before living here, then it would be appropriate to test Americans' literacy and kick them out if they don't sufficiently meet the standards.
There are Americans that burn the American flags but they have the right to stay here. I have a hard time believing that it is moral to prevent many respectful would-be immigrants that deserve to be here when we already keep the rights of flag burners.[/quote]
In short: yes, it is saying that foreigners’ rights are less important. That does not make them less important as human beings, endowed with basic human rights, but it does mean that when a foreign individual’s rights are placed against the interests or desires of the ingroup into which they’re attempting to enter, they are of secondary importance.
With that said, it should be understood that this does not mean a foreigner should automatically be denied entry, their rights ignored, or to be forced to remain in a dangerous situation in their homeland. As a (hopefully) humane society, we would open our doors for foreigners and invite them in; whether it’s for temporary shelter or as permanent members of our society. But, that should remain, at the end of the day, the choice of each society.
Certain things are widely shared morals that do not have to be written in the constitution. And if the Constitution violates human rights, then it is our duty to challenge, and override it through commonly shared morals. Saying "i merely follow the orders" is only something an authoritarian would justify.
If Americans can dissent from such norm, so can foreigners. Do foreigners not have human rights to practice or like certain aspects of life?
I can grant that Americans should perhaps have more access than foreigners do.
Perhaps Americans who have naturalized for 10+ years may be entitled to greater amount of welfare or disability checks; perhaps they can vote; perhaps they may be subject to less taxes. These things can be more like "club membership" privileges and benefits that club members can enjoy.
But as for the basic needs such as the rights to live, buy or sell common goods, or speak, they are entitled to every bit of that right as Americans do, because there are other Americans willing to associate with them.[/quote]
Of course the Constitution can change; if it comes into conflict with the interests of present society, then we have the right (legally and otherwise) to change our governing documents. But, constitutional laws are not all there is to morality and rights; it addresses only a portion. The rest is up to individuals and our society to determine.
On what grounds are they entitled to that though? I do not seek to keep anyone living in poverty or the looming threat of danger, I’d like to help personally and I’d like our country to help as well (inviting in more refugees, increasing foreign aid, stop the deadly and destabilizing wars). But, there simply is no reason for me to conclude that every person has the right to access the society established, maintained, and governed by members of a particular culture against the members of that society’s will.
Again, individuals do have rights, groups have rights, and foreigners have rights. But, they can often conflict; it’s the job of each society and its members to work out how they want to strike a balance. Do they want to completely ignore foreigners? Do they want to curtail the rights of individuals within their society to engage in consensual prostitution or expand rights to ensure every person has access to healthcare for free? That’s for each society and its members to decide. That’s the entire point of democracy, constitutional rights, and so on.
I do not claim we have to celebrate it.
See above again. A vast majority of foreigners would have succeeded in meeting their basic living requirements. Do they not have the right to live? Must they suffer in poverty in their homeland?
You can object that their misfortunate is not our fault. Again, that is not my claim. You do not have to land a hand to a homeless person. But if I want to give him my money to assist him, then it's my right to. Why do you prevent me and others who may want to help foreigners?
Are you not justifying a mob mentality? The same mentality that made people opposed to interracial marriage? A white man can marry a black woman he wants to marry even if 99% of white and black community opposes it. Period.
[/quote][/quote]
You live in a society. It’s not just about you and your wishes. If you wish to run around naked and have consensual sex with others in front of a school, should you be allowed? It’s consensual, you aren’t physically harming anyone, and you aren’t restricting anyone’s rights in the process. If anything, by the law denying that to you, it’s restricting your rights as an individual. But, I think we can all agree that two consenting adults engaging in sex acts in public in front of minors should be a criminal offense, despite the restrictions it places upon individual pursuit of self-actualization and happiness. And those limitations will be imposed by the will of the society in which you live, and justified through the moral definitions of right and wrong shaped by that society’s culture.
Basically, there are limits to individual rights, wherein group rights supersede. Do you not agree? If you want to help foreigners financially or through volunteering, there’s nothing stopping you from contributing to charities, writing your Congressman on behalf of such issues, engaging in grassroots activism to persuade your fellow citizens to support or oppose your position on an issue, or traveling overseas, such as in the Peace Corps. In order to help, you don’t have to force a society that may be opposed to immigration and refugees to “tolerate” it.
There’s no mob mentality about it, unless you consider democracy a mob mentality.
