This post makes the point that when we are talking about a right to immigrate we are trying to redefine the definition of national sovereignty into something unworkable. Similarly, the article at this link (=> http://www.str.org/articles/we-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights#.V8eSozUW6eE) argues that the debate over same-sex “marriage” is not about rights. It is about an unworkable definition of marriage.
There is a growing movement in America to have a, ‘open’ or ‘borderless’ society. This is lawlessness. If we take the time to actually look at the definitions for the words being used and apply a little basic logic, this is easy to prove. If you have a moment, I’d like to show you how.
First, by definition, a nationmust have a border. If it does not have a border, then it is not and cannot be a nation.
Now, the natural response to this is that one definition of ‘nation’ refers to a people, and not a specific piece of land. OK, but does that definition actually work in reality, or has it been accepted by people seeking to push a hidden agenda? Let us look to see. Look in the world and show me the ‘nation’ of Hitites. Or the ‘nation’ of Assyrians. Or the ‘nation’ of…
View original post 468 more words