Wow, it's almost like "human rights" are a cultural/political/ideological construct and not a legalistic one, and people might have varying differing opinions of what those rights are. And that there might be room in a democratic society for discussion of this, what is most just and sensible, and how we might accommodate a changing world situation.
But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Citizenship is a fixed construct. Migrants fleeing starvation and war and climate crisis are criminals. And all these borders set and conquered by force 200-300 years ago are inviolable.
> But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant.
Except of course, they're not, since the whole concept of restricting movement into the US didn't really being until about 1917 - before that you pretty much just showed up. (I know you know this, I'm just re-enforcing your point.)
But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable and constant. Citizenship is a fixed construct. Migrants fleeing starvation and war and climate crisis are criminals. And all these borders set and conquered by force 200-300 years ago are inviolable.
Migrant go home.