Immigration policy -- does a nation have the right to determine who may and who may not enter its borders?

2016-03-12T10:56:01-05:00

I'm not asking about amnesty or anything else. Just simply, is it legitimate for any nation to determine who comes in and who does not?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2016 10:59 AM

2016-03-12T10:59:52-05:00

I will venture that you would find others that do so should you try to enter there.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 12 at 2016 11:00 AM

2016-03-12T11:00:36-05:00

Of course they do. Borders, language, culture is what defines a nation. Right now the U.S. is in deep poop.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 12 at 2016 11:04 AM

2016-03-12T11:04:00-05:00

I hope that was a rhetorical question. If anyone thinks that the answer is yes, we have a serious problem with our education and political system.

The U.S. Constitution makes its clearest general statement of popular sovereignty in the Bill of Rights, Amendment IX:

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 12 at 2016 11:05 AM

2016-03-12T11:05:42-05:00

I got four yes responses in less than three minutes. I agree. I've heard many people say that Border Control is racist. So what is the reasoning that some use to say the United States should not control its borders? Why is it racist when we do it?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Mar 12 at 2016 11:11 AM

2016-03-12T11:11:47-05:00

Absolutely. Otherwise there is no such thing as a nation.

Response by SGT Jonathon Caldwell made Mar 12 at 2016 11:43 AM

2016-03-12T11:43:19-05:00

Response by SSgt Chris Shultz made Mar 12 at 2016 11:43 AM

2016-03-12T11:43:43-05:00

Pure and simple, a nation has the right to determine who may or may not enter the country. Their constitution and national laws dictate the degree that they are able to discriminate against any particular population. The call in the US to open our borders stems from an excessive amount of compassion. If you illegally enter Mexico with say a firearm. They will do their best to convict you of that crime. Some countries have had shoot on sight orders for their Border Guards for anyone not entering correctly.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Mar 12 at 2016 11:45 AM

2016-03-12T11:45:25-05:00

A nation must respect its own boundaries as a segment of its own sovereignty. Free flow across an international line means authority has broken down.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Mar 12 at 2016 12:15 PM

2016-03-12T12:15:36-05:00

It is a nations right to determine the laws which govern conduct within its own borders. That includes the laws governing the process for those who want to cross those borders for whatever reason, and that process may or may not include all who want to enter. It's called sovereignty.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Mar 12 at 2016 12:40 PM

2016-03-12T12:40:58-05:00

Yes! It's about being a sovereign nation.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 12 at 2016 1:00 PM

2016-03-12T13:00:52-05:00

Yes.

If you look at our Constitution, Article one has SEVERAL Clauses which specifically apply to "immigration" or how we interact with Foreign Powers.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Mar 12 at 2016 1:23 PM

2016-03-12T13:23:58-05:00

As you know just about all nations has a program for refugees. Most does not allow, Iran Mexico and a lot more. Yes a nation should say who can come and who can't. We have that now with our open borders,thanks to Obama, people that we can't afford. My question to you would be how do you feel about Obama taking from our Vets and giving the funds for the Syrian refugees. But I am also speaking legitimately. The class of a lot of Mexican is not great people.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-03-12T14:14:03-05:00

Yes they do sir. Our nation and every other nation has the right to control its borders. Our country has problems because we have not controlled our borders as we should have. We can not take in the tens of millions of folks that want to come here. We have legal immigration policies that allow more people than most countries. With illegal immigration, how many of these folks are terrorists?

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Mar 12 at 2016 2:28 PM

2016-03-12T14:28:09-05:00

Yes, of course it does. I

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2016 2:48 PM

2016-03-12T14:48:02-05:00

Yes. and all nations do.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 12 at 2016 4:19 PM

2016-03-12T16:19:58-05:00

I think we do, the reason is simple. Let's look at history and we'll find that foreigners serve as vector's to diseases. For example, right now the US is spending almost a $1,000,000.00 a day allowing illegal aliens into the US the southern border of Texas. These illegal aliens are coming mostly from Central America the usual three Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, yet those countries are infested with the Zika virus known to cause cerebral birth defects. Since we've allowed illegals to just come in on the pretense of "asylum" that disease has already made it into our country. The other issue is that those illegals are folks with no useful skills and water down the already labor jobs that are hard as it is. Lastly, they become a burden to our economic system in that they do not report their actual income yet are eager to take on any social they can get whether in need or not. I am against illegal aliens completely, and I don't mean it in a racist manner. I am a first generation American born from Mexican parents.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 12 at 2016 4:22 PM

2016-03-12T16:22:22-05:00

BTW, we already have a fair immigration law in the INA, the Obama administration just refuses to abide by the law.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Mar 12 at 2016 4:33 PM

2016-03-12T16:33:01-05:00

If I may respond as the former customs and immigration officer; the job of immigration always falls on the federal government. For the last 20 years immigration has been political versus legal. There are certain dangers with illegal immigrants; many of these are unknown by the conmen American citizen. Disease , A criminal history in one or several foreign countries. And let us not forget things like terrorism, fleeing from a Tyranical government, ties to organized crime. All that said, the immigration and naturalization act has the ability to allow people who are truly fleeing from something bad to at least temporarily stay here. I no from countless cases of human smuggling and other human rights violations that just a person getting here does not make their life better. But when you take the ability to enforce not only immigration and customs law but all federal law away from the enforcer you diminish the credibility of that agency. We never hear about the thousands that are rescued every year either crossing the border or in some modern slavery encampment. We only hear about the political screw ups. CBP is hemmoraging officers and agents for this reason. There are between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the USA right now. We cannot deport them all, and we cannot allow all of them to stay. Political powers refuse to draw a line, and the citizens are the once left dealing with the consequences.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Mar 12 at 2016 5:49 PM

2016-03-12T17:49:02-05:00

Let me ask a question... During the Cold War, if the Soviets had busloads or airplane loads of people coming to the USA would we have tolerated that? Would we allow a million Russians to move into Maine? Would the communist take our country or state? Would that be racist?

Thinking along the same lines, what if the Chinese sent 300 million or less than 1/3 off their population, which would out number US citizens. The open border game is ok, until you play the game with a country that has ONE Billion people.
We need to think.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Mar 12 at 2016 6:09 PM

2016-03-12T18:09:12-05:00

Absolutely, Maj John Bell!

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Mar 12 at 2016 7:31 PM

2016-03-12T19:31:38-05:00

Yes, nations not only have the right but the obligation to control its borders! Is more than just who comes and goes but what comes and go. The risk of not controlling the borders are more that people: illicit enrichment trafficking, infectious diseases (human, animal, vegetation), etc...

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Mar 12 at 2016 9:15 PM

2016-03-12T21:15:32-05:00

I don't know the law but I would think they can and if they can't they should be able to.

Response by Cpl Jim Hainen made Mar 13 at 2016 1:18 PM

2016-03-13T13:18:12-04:00

Absolutely it is right.

Response by Cpl Jim Hainen made Mar 13 at 2016 1:18 PM

2016-03-13T13:18:48-04:00

Sgt. James Hainen

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2016 6:00 PM

2016-03-13T18:00:21-04:00

Supposed to be a civil issue handled at the state level...

Response by SPC Greg Andle made Mar 14 at 2016 10:11 AM

2016-03-14T10:11:32-04:00

I moved to Australia in 2000, married a Swede who lived there, and got my Perm Residency the legal way. I agree with Immigration Laws, both ours, and most 'civilized' Countries. You can't be too careful whom you let into your country.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-03-14T11:32:42-04:00

Considering that there are around 195 countries in the world. Around 194 of them absolutely control who can and cannot enter. So yes I would say the majority of the world feels that it is legitimate.

Response by SFC William Adamek made Mar 14 at 2016 11:42 AM

2016-03-14T11:42:55-04:00

And to take this another step... DC wants to give Non-Citizens the right to vote. (https://www.mrconservative.com/2015/01/55354-new-legislation-to-let-illegal-aliens-vote-starts-in-d-c/)
With this type of stuff going on as well as the issuing of drivers licenses to these same non-legal immigrants by many states... do you really think the current immigration laws will every be enforced? While our federal and state government get to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, just imagine what would happen to us if we picked and chose which laws we wanted to follow or not.

Home

Mr. Conservative is the top website for news, political cartoons, breaking news, republican election news, conservative facts and commentary on political elections.

Response by MSgt Budd Johnson made Mar 15 at 2016 11:17 AM

2016-03-15T11:17:54-04:00

We can not continue to be a welfare state for other countries citizens. And we have to stop paying a ransom for them to be our friends. The borders can be made more difficult to cross, but the enforcement of our immigration laws must be stepped up to deter the crossings.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 8:11 AM

2016-03-25T08:11:35-04:00

Why do people only ask this question about the United States? Name another developed country in the world more open to immigration!

But it is a slap in the face to people who fill out immigration papers, submit them, and quietly wait in their own country for their number to come up, to give citizenship to people who entered illegally.

Response by Maj Rob Drury made May 24 at 2016 10:59 PM

2016-05-24T22:59:39-04:00

Yes, it's absolutely legitimate; and as long as there's a Democratic administration in place who can use it to buy votes, that will be the determinant of our immigration policy.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made May 25 at 2016 12:22 AM

2016-05-25T00:22:16-04:00

Try going to China. The travel agent has to send my passport to get a visa. They are very strict on foreigners and visitors. If you visited Taiwan, they will not allow you to visit. Russia is looking for labor but also strict. Many Arab countries will not let you in if you have an Israeli visit stamp. In fact, that is widely known, so Israel will put a removable page in your passport. Most countries feel an obligation to protect their citizens and do control visitors and immigrants. I think few national leaders do not want to relinquish control or protection for their countries.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 25 at 2016 12:26 AM

2016-05-25T00:26:03-04:00

There are people who would argue that we are all citizens of the world and borders are wrong. People like Mark Zuckerberg who lives behind a fence and is spending $30 million to by all surrounding properties so neighbors can't see into his bedroom.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made May 25 at 2016 12:50 AM

2016-05-25T00:50:17-04:00

Maj John Bell Who is in charge? Would you propose that no one vets, examines or inspects those seeking admittance?? Should we also adopt the Euro, and the non-border controls present in that community?

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made May 25 at 2016 6:06 AM

2016-05-25T06:06:50-04:00

To control your borders is part of what makes a country sovereign and it was taught in school early on. I think many people were asleep or skipping school on that day of class.

Response by SGT Jamarl Jones made Mar 9 at 2018 12:15 PM

2018-03-09T12:15:49-05:00

Stupid question: Of course a nation has a right to choose who enters. Part of being a nation is having a border. A border is completely superfluous if a nation doesn't restrict access.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 9 at 2018 12:38 PM

2018-03-09T12:38:25-05:00

If a nation does not have that right, then eventually they will cease as a nation. Afterall- can you name one nation that does not issue or demand a passport? Every nation in the world decides who lives in it, and most nations have much stricter immigration laws than our own. Look up Mexico's laws on immigration and land ownership to see an example.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Mar 9 at 2018 1:09 PM

2018-03-09T13:09:17-05:00

Yes, Nations are sovereign, within each nation there are rules and most nations are different from one another. For our nation, we have very liberal laws that are very broad in scope.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Jun 29 at 2021 1:32 AM

2021-06-29T01:32:39-04:00

Short answer. ABSOLUTELY.

Response by LTC David Brown made Jun 29 at 2021 5:24 AM

2021-06-29T05:24:22-04:00

My opinion is yes

Response by SrA John Monette made Jun 29 at 2021 7:08 AM

2021-06-29T07:08:09-04:00

depends on the country.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2021 7:19 AM

2021-06-29T07:19:02-04:00

Yes.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2021 11:33 AM

2021-06-29T11:33:44-04:00

Yes.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2021 11:59 AM

2021-06-29T11:59:05-04:00

Not by the left and not by the globalist, they believed in open borders

Response by SrA John Monette made Jun 29 at 2021 12:29 PM

2021-06-29T12:29:55-04:00

same premise: do you have the right to say who can and cannot enter your house?

Response by SrA John Monette made Jun 29 at 2021 12:31 PM

2021-06-29T12:31:54-04:00

if the answer is an unequivocal yes, what do we do with the illegals? how far back do we go? do we include descendants of illegals? Maj John Bell

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jun 29 at 2021 2:51 PM

2021-06-29T14:51:01-04:00

Of course they do.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Jun 29 at 2021 7:20 PM

2021-06-29T19:20:26-04:00

Yes. We definitely need to screen people to make sure no disease or murders etc!

Response by SPC John Bryant made Jun 29 at 2021 7:36 PM

2021-06-29T19:36:29-04:00

Under the laws of immigration yes as bad as it sound the US policy vetting is one of the most important part of coming to America to insure the safety of it citizen. The board issue we face are not just people flooding over the board illegally but Cartel and the illegal active that poses the threat to citizen.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 6 at 2021 3:08 PM

2021-09-06T15:08:13-04:00

In accordance with laws, treaties and national agreements, yes.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Sep 6 at 2021 5:07 PM

2021-09-06T17:07:15-04:00

I do not believe there are very many that would support open borders, regardless what the right-wing media claims.
As to our immigration policy, the two parties have been arguing for many, many years. Today we are so divided by party, I doubt any viable changes to our immigration policy would ever pass.

Response by Cpl Raymond Wiltshire made Sep 22 at 2021 11:18 AM

2021-09-22T11:18:00-04:00

YES! My wife and her family are immigrants. They did it the correct way, and it was not cheap. Since coming to America the wife, son-in-law and daughter-in-law have all become naturalized US citizens, learned how to speak English, adapted our culture and become productive member of our society. They came her and worked hard not expecting any handouts, just a chance.
But then as I said, they did it the right way.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2021 3:07 PM

2021-09-22T15:07:11-04:00

Well, let's look at it the other way. Let's assume it's not. If it isn't "legitimate" for any nation to determine who can come within its borders, then that nation is stating, in essence, that ANYONE can come into its national territory. And "anyone" means just that, anyone. So any type of fleeing criminals can come in, as can anyone who, for any reason, decides to change his or her geographic location to this nation's territory.
Now, a related question - which I admit you did not ask - is... what "rights" do these randomly entering people have in this nation's territory? Since - presumably - the entry of all these people is a "legitimate" action on their part (meaning, it's not prohibited by law... at the nation's choice), then one has to presuppose that these people will have access to the rights, benefits and obligations of all those citizens who were there before they decided to arrive.
If this nation were freedom-based and capitalistic (meaning based on the rights of individuals and based on the principle of those who work and make an effort will reap rewards), then those who would be motivated to come in would realize that there were no "freebies" to be gained there and thus would be faced with the need to work, be productive and contribute to their own well-being to get ahead.
If, on the other hand, this nation were based on the concept of implied slavery and a socialistic economy (meaning a focus on the rights of the state and thus a tendency towards totalitarianism, and a confiscatory attitude towards the goods, possessions and wealth of its subjects, coupled with the immense opportunities for corruption which socialistic/government-control-of-everything agencies provide, and the bribing of all existing and new incoming citizens with government-provided "benefits" designed to keep the socialist elite in power), then those motivated to come would be those seeking the "benefits" (i.e.: handouts) which they would happily exchange for their eventual "support" of the power-seeking governing elites.
So perhaps, as this over-simplified summary implies, the issue is not so much if the nation determines who comes in, as it is what kind of environment does the nation create which then serves to motivate the KIND of people who come in. And this "kind of people" factor has nothing to do with outward physical appearance but with the ATTITUDE and WILLINGNESS TO WORK AND CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO THE COUNTRY of those people.
Now, let's take the US as a random example. In the 1965-1968 period, the Johnson administration in essence abandoned capitalism as our economic system. Charts from the FED regarding our fiat money supply confirm this. We then started to create a mega-central government and started creating "benefits" that we couldn't pay for. Then ideologically motivated judges started extending these "economic rights" (which is a conceptual absurdity and purely socialistic in nature) to illegal immigrants. So, from a historical pattern of incoming illegal immigrants who were willing to work and make some money to take back home when they returned, the new pattern was illegal immigrants coming in to get benefits and stay. So the environment created by the politicians who proclaim to be the "leaders" and the non-elected ideologically motivated politicians (in the bureaucracy and the courts) changed the type of people, in terms of attitudes, who were entering the country.
But I have digressed. Does a nation have the legitimate right to determine who comes into the country? YES. But what determines that is not so much who stands guard at the entry points to the nation. A lot of what determines that is the environment that the politicians create inside the nation which then determines the type of people attracted to that particular national territory. When you create a socialistic environment, you attract those who are not motivated to work and produce. When you create a capitalistic environment, you create what we once had - the beacon on the hill - a country based on an idea... the idea that no matter who you were and/or where you came from, if you worked hard you would get ahead and improve your lot.
Were we perfect? Of course not! But we were way better than the other options in the world.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Nov 25 at 2021 4:23 PM

2021-11-25T16:23:43-05:00

Yes, controlling the sovereignty of borders is one of several basic benchmarks of a functioning government.
- control borders
- levy taxes
-provide security ( what we enjoy as rule of law and a national security establishment focused outward)
- provide a means to address grievances (generally recognized as a legal system)