admin wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:48 am
i have spent a good deal of time this morning trying to follow the logic, or arguments for "migration" being a human right.
you simply can not get there, without negating all other kinds of rights (e.g. political, property, etc.).
if you start with some sort of assumption about every human has the same right to move around the earth as every other human.
o.k. so far.
freedom of movement.
no person has any more right to property, land, territory, than any other, then you start breaking down.
you rapidly run into things like, well how far does that go?
when i think about "rights" in general, i always think of the, "your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins".
which would be exactly what would happen with a universal right to migration.
they seem to at every turn be conflating migrant possesing human rights (e.g. to not be killed, torchered, due process, etc), with migration IS a human natural right in itself; that usurps all other rights, such as state, association, property, etc. at the least it is not an inalienable or natural right, but that sure seems what they are trying to make out of it
that leap of logic i simply can get to.
now, with legal immigration, i am all for, once country extends an invitation to an individual, that they have an obligation to provide for similar rights to other residents and humans in general; but, the right to be a perment resident or a citizen of a country in the first place is a super stretched definition.
that means i can wake up in the morning, declare myself a swiss citizen (having never been there before, and no immidiate plans to go), and switzerland needs to hand over to me all the rights and benfits of a swiss citizen living outside of switzerland. if i get to the boarder, they owe me a job, a house, food, health care, etc... and have no authority to stop me from entering the territory.
it just so easily leads to a reductio ad absurdum in short order.
does that make any sense at all?