But it is a free for all. You can only impose your morality on another by their consent or force. Otherwise, why would murder be immoral but okay in a war? Your view of what is moral can only be upheld if you are stronger than those you consider immoral. While they may not be able to change your view, they can force you to acknowledge their ability to enforce their view.

this is the Is-Ought debate. As long as you choose life as your goal, then morality is completely objective. If you do not choose life, it is negation of morality. You can only have values if you are alive.

excellent point, j

separate out ideal (way the world should be) and the practical.
Under ideal, if you own yourself, basis of natural rights which is the basis of this country's formation, then clearly you have a right to move about anywhere in the world, unless there is a reasonable suspicion you are guilty of infringing someone else's natural rights. Innocent until proven guilty.
Practically: Milton Friedman put it best I think: You cannot have both a welfare state and open immigration. great you tube with Friedman speaking on this subject, Rozar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
DK is absolutely right that the regressives/socialists want as many illegals to become legal so they have a larger voting base, by promising goodies, and one of those goodies is you're a citizen.

When my grandparents got to Ellis Island in 1905, no one was there to give them food stamps, or free medical care, or subsidized housing. They had to work their buns off to survive and they did. The only thing they got in America was a chance to succeed or fail based on their own efforts.

Would the illegal immigrants be here today if there were no freebies?

I apologize if you thought my intent was entrapment, I didn't intend to use a loaded statement as a title. I do have an agenda and it isn't hidden, my agenda is to have an educated opinion on the subject of immigration.

I agree that no one has the freedom to unlawfully invade another country. I'm concerned about why it should be against the law in a moral government.

I feel I should also note that I'm not discussing the United States government nor Mexico's but a morally correct government, which for now I will assume we both agree on what a moral government is until it becomes apparent we don't.

The left may want to expand their voting base I don't doubt that, but if we had a moral government that didn't have the ability to take away the fruits of our labor, a government that didn't redistribute wealth, why should THAT government keep innocent people out.

Also I'm not indicating they have a right to a home or anyone's land.

hey,did you ding rozar? I think this a great discussion, including your comments.

I'll take a stab at this. First, what is an immigrant. If it is one who moves from one area to another then everyone in the Americas is an immigrant, some across a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and others by ships across the Atlantic much later.

Now, is ownership of an area defined as being the first there or being the one who can control that area? While common courtesy would dictate first there owns it, history says it is whoever can control it and there is no such thing as common courtesy. When you own something, you get to make the rules provided you can enforce the rules you make. If you can't enforce your rules, then someone else is making the rules and they must own it.

You mention how a moral government can deny you the ability to act in your own interests. But what is morality? Morality is determined by consensus of a group. I'm sure the Nazis believed they were moral while most of the rest of the world did not. And how was the issue settled? The physically stronger triumphed.

So there can be no moral government. There are governments you agree with and ones you do not. Why can a government deny you the ability to act? Because it is stronger and can force you. Think of it this way, what is the difference in a rebellion and a revolution? Is one moral and the other not? No, you simply win a revolution and lose a rebellion and morality plays no part whether you win or lose.

Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.