There can be little doubt that citizens and people with visas, green cards, etc. have a legal right to reside in a country. But when it comes to illegal immigration, at which point has the illegal immigrant crossed over from “don’t have a right to be here” to “DO have a right to be here?”
(Not a thread about illegal immigration in general, only about this one thing in particular…)
Most people on the political spectrum would probably say that someone who just crossed the border illegally at El Paso or disembarked from a ship illegally at Sicily doesn’t have the right to be in their new country - otherwise, everyone has a right to be anywhere as soon as they cross a border, and then borders might as well not exist. But if that migrant stays there for years, undercover, have they gradually established more and more of a basis for “right to reside?”
Never.
It is a Nation-States privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, its not a Nation-State, its a jumped up province or municipality.
Please note, the difference between law and policy here is stark. While law should leave complete discretion to the country, it as a matter of policy will often be better served by having at least a soft border, if not an open one. On balance that’s an advantage as it attracts talent and highly successful polities have typically been ones with inclusive tendencies. The Romans, the Arab Caliphate, the Ottomans Turks, the US etc. These two things should not be confused.
I wanted to make it as general as possible - not just about, say, the USA, but rather, about someone’s right to reside in any or all of the 190+ other countries without legal authorization.
Whenever they move there, presuming they are not fleeing felons (exceptions made for political refugees), foreign spies or an invading/occupying force. In other words, the exact same point that a citizen of California has the right to reside in Illinois. It shouldn’t be illegal to move.
Certainly not, but as I understand the OP, this is about the concept of human rights.
No criminal record (being in a country illegally is a civil offense, not a crime). Gainfully employed. Ties to the community, including school-age children or volunteer work. Possibly not participating in “chain migration.” After ten years or so, you’re good to stay. It might be legally cumbersome, but I’m OK with giving a green card but not allowing naturalization.
It really is a matter of property rights. Individuals have a right to person and property. If an “immigrant” is located on property where the owner has no qualms with his presence, the government should have no right to “deport” him any more than warlords have a right to kidnap him.
“Publicly” owned land is not owned legitimately. The legitimate owners of this property should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and then the rightful owners can decide who can exist on the land.
I suspect the vast majority of “illegal” immigrants reside, work, and otherwise exist on land legitimately.
The illegal immigrant has no right to exercise government privileges such as voting, welfare benefits, etc. Similarly, legal immigrants and lifetime residents have no such right to these privileges, but politically it is more difficult to revoke these privileges from non-illegals. This is a very minor issue for me. I don’t think immigrants move to the US to vote Democratic and collect welfare, but I’m sure some try to get some of the benefits like good Americans.
A hardcore libertarian policy position would be to increase illegal immigration and hopelfully with that, tax evasion. A second-best solution would be a variation on various guest worker schemes.
The length of time a person spends within the bounds of government jurisdiction is irrelevant to the matter of rights.
In the early 2000s Nigerians were recruited to work in low paid jobs in Britain (as staff of care homes, sheltered housing schemes, etc.). After 5 years they could become British Citizens and were free to take any job they wished. A Metropolitan Police internet page claimed that this scheme was being used by Nigerian criminals to settle in Britain.
This guy’s wife visited the Sheltered Housing Scheme I lived in in London and spoke to the Nigerian staff there … after her visit they became extremely dominant towards me and some other residents. Ibori had a house nearby. What was going on I don’t know … but I’m sure it wasn’t legal. I eventually abandoned my flat and most of my possessions and moved out if London
At the point where they go through official channels and either get a work visa or apply for and are granted citizenship. Until then it doesn’t matter if they are here 5 minutes or 5 years.