How does illegal immigration threaten US sovereignty ?

[R. Shackleferd]

I'm missing something here, I think.

 

[Vincent]

You see, the point of sovereignty is that you make and enforce your own rules. We've become very lax on immigration, and when even Arizona just wanted to *enforce* the law, we had a foreign nation filing suit in our courts against us, and citizens of foreign nations demonstrating and protesting in the streets. We even have armed foreign military units crossing into our lands without our permission. Think--would you think of, say, Canada, as a sovereign nation if parades of people, crime cartel members, and foreign troops just crossed their borders whenever they felt like it? When a nation doesn't control who crosses it's borders and gives that power away by not using it, it loses some of its sovereignty.

Also, what other real nation in the world allows millions of illegal immigrants to live in their country? Why should we have to allow illegal immigrants while nations like Mexico have made it a felony punishable by years in prison?

Imagine if you live in an apartment building with 50 units. Now imagine that the guy who owns the building declares that you can't lock your doors. You can't prohibit people from just walking in and using your shower and sleeping in your bed whenever they feel like it.

I feel that's a semi-appropriate comparison.

 

[Rogue]

There's clearly been a loss of US sovereignty due to the political unwillingness to effectively enforce border security going back several decades that is now coming to a head.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Imagine if you live in an apartment building with 50 units. Now imagine that the guy who owns the building declares that you can't lock your doors. You can't prohibit people from just walking in and using your shower and sleeping in your bed whenever they feel like it.

I feel that's a semi-appropriate comparison.

It's a very appropriate comparison. The apartment building represents a collective run by a person or small group of people. It's tenets are born into this collective and become subject to the collective. The head of this collective does not give us the right to own our apartment unit nor does the head give us the right to defend ourselves and associate freely. The head also probably creates incentive for these trespassers using funds that the head extorts from the tenets by coercion. IF the unit I am living in is believed to be mine then I should own this unit and only I can decide who comes in and who doesn't. If not, then the head must be removed.

Sounds to me that the problem isn't sovereignty but a lack of property rights and the sovereignty of the individual to defend his property and his person.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A sovereign nation has defined borders and inside those borders it's laws apply.

A nation that refuses to have border by choosing to not enforce it's border and immigration law is ceding sovereignity to the invading nation.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

I can't consider immigration in and of itself to be a form of invasion and law enforcement certainly doesn't establish sovereignty. The harm from invasion should from the invaders in order to call them invaders; not something created by the state they are invading. In the case of true invasion, reactionary force or the threat of it is the only thing that can keep invaders out. Otherwise, we're just playing tollbooth Willie for the state.