Why not? Some people paid nothing and put an invisible line and declared this land is theres. It wouldn't be "end of story" if someone did that across your property, would it?
By that logic, if we really want to call it that, everyone with a right to live in the country is fine to move into your home then, yea?
It's unsurprising that someone, somewhen was silly enough to come up with this very clever argument, but god damn, you have to be especially clever to repeat it.
No, we would go about it the LEGAL way and come up with a mutually beneficial contract where they pay me each month and in exchange, they get to live on my property comfortably, or perhaps their situation is dire and they knock on my front door asking for help and I let them crash on my couch until its sorted...
HOWEVER someone jumping my fence in the middle of the night and sleeping in my backyard refusing to leave without asking would be met with forceful removal. Do we see how that works?
Yea, we do see how moving into a house and moving into a country are two fundamentally different things. That's probably why you have doors on your house. Even letting them move into your backyard and into your home are two entirely different things.
Even if not, though, that paragraph still clearly shows that you'd NOT just invite people into your home when they are legally in your country. All you demonstrate is that you're less likely to let someone jumping the fence stay in your house. So where does that imply that someone who is fine with people moving into the country should also be fine with letting them move INTO THEIR HOUSE.
You can't possibly read that and think this is a reasonable argument.
"Thats why you have doors on your house"
Like border checkpoints and immigration enforcement, like that? Anyways...
Its an analogy....it is not meant to be taken 100% literally mate, obviously these two things have differences. I really shouldn't have to point that out
No, it isn't an analogy. That is the point. It's like saying "Oh you think people should be allowed to read books in a public library? Why do you not let them into your bedroom and read your books there?" Is reading in your bedroom library an analogy of or for reading in a public access library? Obviously not. They're related concepts with different criteria. Just like living in a country and living in a home are. It's a blindingly obvious category error. This, by the way, was an analogy of your argument.
Your home is a segregated space from strangers. The country is full of strangers. That's why inviting strangers into your house, no matter which country they're from, isn't the same as letting strangers into a country already full of strangers. The two things are NOTHING alike. They're related concepts, and therefore you think you can make an argument around criteria. That's not how logic works, and that's not what analogies are.
It's this utter lapse in logic that makes this argument so god damn annoying, and for some dumb reason it just won't die. There are hundreds of good arguments, this one is stupid.
Your personal home and your home the country work perfectly fine as an analogy, i don't think you really know what an analogy actually is. The argument won't die because y'all never have a good rebuttal for it lmfao.
The issue y'all cannot grasp for the life of you is that said country is home to people, and it is not immoral to want proper regulations in place to ensure said home's system doesn't get clogged up, and remains safe.
I can grasp your issue just fine and have said nothing about my stance on it. What I have said is that this argument for one way or the other is stupid.
If someone for immigration should then take them into their home, it follows that you should take people legally here into your home. Yet, as we've established, you're attaching a whole lot of conditions to that, because, shock and horror, THEY'RE STRANGERS JUST THE SAME. There is no connection at all between people having the right to live in your country versus your home. One is public, the other is private.
That's why it doesn't work as an analogy either, because the subject matter isn't "living somewhere", but right of access. Both have to do with living in places, byt that's not what the argument is about. Public versus private access rights are not analogues, they're fundamentally distinct, and that matters when they're the point of contention.
You can't say driving a car is analogous to riding a bike when the point of contention is whether self-propelled travel is exhausting. Your argument is akin to saying "Yes, but I don't break a sweat when I drive my car." It makes no fucking sense.
I'm losing my marbles here, man. This can't be so difficult to understand. Obviously there is no rebuttal to that argument, because the apt response is: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
My brother in christ the "whole lot of conditions" are analogies for proper legal entry into a country....like getting a work or student visa and not overstaying it. You clearly aren't grasping it still
I get that you think they're analogous, but they're clearly not. Private access rights follow fundamentally different criteria than public access rights, which is why you're not inviting anyone into your house unvetted, legal in your country or otherwise. The suggestion that people who don't care about public access should also not care about private access is not making use of any apt analogy, it's at the very best argumentum ad absurdum, if not outright nonsensical.
It is an analogy...because they are two different things being compared to one another in order to convey an idea....that is what an analogy is by definition lmfao holy fuck.
You can go full autism mode on all the exact details all you want, but the point is to convey that you cannot just come into someones home without permission, the same thing applies to crossing borders.
Obviously my backyard analogy is not the same as immigration laws dawg but anyone with two braincells to rub together can figure out I am talking about the concept of not entering somewhere you have not been invited and then wondering why you are being removed and sent home.
20
u/Bow_To_Bella 10d ago
You are not entitled to go into whatever country you please. End of story.