# At what point does someone have a right to reside in a country? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255 "2018-01-09T18:22:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/21 "2018-01-09T22:48:09Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Nonsense. That’s as silly as saying that a corporation cannot own property. No it isn’t. Governments can’t own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/22 "2018-01-09T22:53:29Z")
[From Here:](https://www.sysselmannen.no/en/Visitors/Entry-and-residence/) > [@](#): > > Everyone may, in principle, travel to Svalbard, and foreign citizens do not need a visa or a work or residence permit from Norwegian authorities in order to settle in Svalbard. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/23 "2018-01-09T23:05:31Z")
You can kind of see why Norway is cool with anyone (generally Russians) settling in [Svaldbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard). > [@](#): > > The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 established full Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago. The islands are, unlike the Norwegian Antarctic Territory, a part of the Kingdom of Norway and not a dependency. The treaty came into effect in 1925, following the Svalbard Act. All forty signatory countries of the treaty have the right to conduct commercial activities on the archipelago without discrimination, although all activity is subject to Norwegian legislation. The treaty limits Norway’s right to collect taxes to that of financing services on Svalbard. Therefore, Svalbard has a lower income tax than mainland Norway, and there is no value added tax. There is a separate budget for Svalbard to ensure compliance. Svalbard is a demilitarized zone, as the treaty prohibits the establishment of military installations. Norwegian military activity is limited to fishery surveillance by the Norwegian Coast Guard as the treaty requires Norway to protect the natural environment.[6][74] > > The Svalbard Act established the institution of the Governor of Svalbard (Norwegian: Sysselmannen), who holds the responsibility as both county governor and chief of police, as well as holding other authority granted from the executive branch. Duties include environmental policy, family law, law enforcement, search and rescue, tourism management, information services, contact with foreign settlements, and judge in some areas of maritime inquiries and judicial examinations—albeit never in the same cases as acting as police.[75][76] Since 2015, Kjerstin Askholt has been governor; she is assisted by a staff of 26 professionals. The institution is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice and the Police, but reports to other ministries in matters within their portfolio.[77] > [@](#): > > Although Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen Agreement, Svalbard is not part of the Schengen Area or the EEA.[81] Non-EU and non-Nordic Svalbard residents do not need Schengen visas, but are prohibited from reaching Svalbard from mainland Norway without such. In theory it would be possible to do a visa-free airport transit at Oslo Airport, but this is not allowed by Norway. People without a source of income can be rejected by the governor.[82] No person is required to have a visa or residence permit for Svalbard. Everybody can live and work in Svalbard indefinitely regardless of citizenship. Svalbard Treaty grants treaty nationals equal right of abode as Norwegian nationals. So far, non-treaty nationals were admitted visa-free as well. “Regulations concerning rejection and expulsion from Svalbard” in force.[83][84] Russia retains a consulate in Barentsburg.[85] > > In September 2010 a treaty was made between Russia and Norway fixing the boundary between the Svalbard archipelago and the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Increased interest in petroleum exploration in the Arctic raised interest in a resolution of the dispute. The agreement takes into account the relative positions of the archipelagos, rather than being based simply on northward extension of the continental border of Norway and Russia.[86] I don’t think this is applicable to, oh, say the US as a whole. Or even the rest of Norway… ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/24 "2018-01-09T23:22:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No it isn’t. Governments can’t own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court. Your opinion is duly noted. As is the case in all countries, it is rejected as being inconsistent with accepted norms. As for the basic question, it appears to me that the question is asking whether or not the concept of adverse possession should be applied to issues of residency. That is, if I manage to avoid deportation, or if I am legally present in a country I am not a citizen of, is there some point at which my adverse residency must be given legal status as a basic right of my humanity? I think that’s not going to be an accepted position of any country. One of the basic ideas of nationhood (as noted upthread by **AK84** is that nations get to establish the rules by which you can enter and reside. We can get into a discussion of whether or not a nation has the right to terminate citizenship, but I don’t think any nation will give up the right to terminate legal residency, and certainly not the right to reject those resident without permission. Out of curiosity, does the OP have any rationale for why a “right” to remain in a country you have resided in for a period of time should exist? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/25 "2018-01-09T23:39:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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?” No, I don’t see that it becomes any less wrong just because they do more of it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/26 "2018-01-09T23:57:16Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You can kind of see why Norway is cool with anyone (generally Russians) settling in [Svaldbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard). > > I don’t think this is applicable to, oh, say the US as a whole. Or even the rest of Norway… But the topic isn’t about the US as a whole. Or even the rest of Norway. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/27 "2018-01-10T00:50:40Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 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. Well, yes, on one level. But on another level we need to dig a bit deeper. Suppose a nation-state enacts a law saying that, e.g., Jews are stripped of citizenship or any other status they may possess which permits residence, and therefore have no right to reside in the country. If we see rights as purely the outcome of positive law, then these Jews now have no right to reside in the country. But if we see rights as moral claims antecedent to positive law, and as standards against which positive law can be judged, then we would probably say that this Jews do have a right to reside in the country, and the recently-enacted law can be criticised for infringing that right. You can apply exactly the same analysis to laws dealing with rights of residence for people who have migrated into the country. You can argue that when people have formed attachments, put down roots, made a contribution to society, etc for long enough, they have a moral claim to be allowed to continue to participate in the community of which they are now members, and the community has a moral obligation not to exclude them from doing so. And it’s the boundaries of that moral claim which the OP invites exploration of. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/28 "2018-01-10T00:54:53Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Go through the legal steps to enter the country and become a citizen. That’s impossible in many cases. There is no legal avenue, for example, for an average Mexican to legally immigrate to the United States. The same is true for people who want to immigrate to America from China, India, the Philippines, and a number of other countries. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/29 "2018-01-10T01:02:22Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Yes. > > It is a Nation-State’s privilege to decide who can and cannot reside within its borders. Otherwise, it’s not a Nation-State, it’s a jumped up province or municipality. Both statements are equally true. My point is that a country can establish any law it likes in regards to immigration and citizenship. Saying that nobody has a right to become a citizen because the law doesn’t give them that right is begging the question. Change the law and you’ve established the right. You can’t argue that something should be illegal because it’s against the law. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/30 "2018-01-10T01:11:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You can kind of see why Norway is cool with anyone (generally Russians) settling in [Svaldbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard). Interesting how the fourth largest ethnic group in Svalbard (after Norwegians, Russians, and Ukrainians) are Thais. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/31 "2018-01-10T02:34:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No it isn’t. Governments can’t own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Not always; they can also acquire it due to lack of claimants or, in the case of monarchies, the personal property of a lord (who did not necessarily acquire it through violent means\*) becomes the country. - Very often when there is a mess whomever acts like he knows what to do (that is, the first person to start giving orders that are not completely imbecilic) is instantly In Charge. If that was solved satisfactorily, people start coming to that person for advice. Eventually that’s the person who gets people brought to when a traveler says “bring me to your leader”. One of the roots of the feudal system was the recognition of people like this; it wasn’t always (like people tend to think) conquest or royal appointment. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/32 "2018-01-10T02:40:30Z")
The legal steps thing can be enormously difficult for refugees. If your house was in flames, would you stop to pick up your diplomas? If you spend seven years in five refugee camps in countries bordering yours, where do you get those diplomas certified by your country’s ministry of education? Many of the refugees currently in Europe are educated people who in peacetime would have been able to immigrate directly to our middle or upper-middle classes, but who right now don’t have a way to prove that they’re more than a pair of hands because the procedure for that is completely paper-based; any merits-based procedures are closed to them. Some countries have been better at finding alternate ways through this (Germany) than others (I’m looking at us, Spain). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/33 "2018-01-10T03:14:07Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Fwiw, the UK naturalisation system works on 5 years residency. I guess at that point it it recognises a committment and a contribution: [Check if you can become a British citizen - GOV.UK](https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-british-citizen) > > At some point an individual deserves and has earned certainty. Not when they committed the original sin of violating our laws. This doesn’t mean I oppose amnesty, just that it isn’t “deserved” or “earned”. Much like Christians believe in salvation it’s a gift from us to them that they did nothing to earn and could have never done anything to earn. As for the OP, the answer is obvious and there is only one: voters have an absolute right to decide who is a citizen, who is a permanent resident, who can stay temporarily, and who can’t come at all. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/34 "2018-01-10T03:16:11Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > You meant to say “you are still residing illegally”? A person can not be illegal. This is a fair point that is often made, but it’s not nearly as clever as its proponents think. People ARE illegal in terms of being illegal residents, illegal workers, etc. And what do you do with people who are illegal? Do you punish them? Jail them? No, you put them where they are legally supposed to be. Now if we’re conceding that these people are committing an illegal act, then that changes things, but not in a way you’d probably like. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/35 "2018-01-10T03:18:35Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Well, yes, on one level. > > But on another level we need to dig a bit deeper. Suppose a nation-state enacts a law saying that, e.g., Jews are stripped of citizenship or any other status they may possess which permits residence, and therefore have no right to reside in the country. If we see rights as purely the outcome of positive law, then these Jews now have no right to reside in the country. But if we see rights as moral claims antecedent to positive law, and as standards against which positive law can be judged, then we would probably say that this Jews do have a right to reside in the country, and the recently-enacted law can be criticised for infringing that right. > > You can apply exactly the same analysis to laws dealing with rights of residence for people who have migrated into the country. You can argue that when people have formed attachments, put down roots, made a contribution to society, etc for long enough, they have a moral claim to be allowed to continue to participate in the community of which they are now members, and the community has a moral obligation not to exclude them from doing so. And it’s the boundaries of that moral claim which the OP invites exploration of. I think current law already gets that right. If you come here illegally, you will never be safe. Your children, however, who you gave birth to here, are citizens. We hold the people who commit crimes responsible. Not their descendants. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/36 "2018-01-10T03:20:24Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No it isn’t. Governments can’t own property legitimately not because they are organizations, but because they acquire property through violent expropriation instead of voluntary exchange or homesteading. Corporations do not deploy violence to acquire property. If they do, the facts of the matter are settled in a court. Almost all land on Earth that is owned by anybody, be it a private person, corporation, or government, was acquired through violence and/or theft if you go back far enough. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/37 "2018-01-10T04:22:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. That’s a milquetoast liberal position in a world where right-libertarians argue that [open borders are an assault on private property.](https://mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property) A hardcore position is that immigrants, feminists, socialists, and other collectivists must be purged to establish and protect a right-libertarian society. Reading the more vicious tendencies in the movement is interesting because they seemed to have, quite by accident, re-invented and argue old leftist topics such as the vanguard party, dekulakization, dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialism/libertarianism in one country. > [@gatorslap](#): > > Almost all land on Earth that is owned by anybody, be it a private person, corporation, or government, was acquired through violence and/or theft if you go back far enough. Yeah, private property relations requires state violence to maintain. When the European explorers set out they didn’t find the world dotted with ancap tribes. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/38 "2018-01-10T04:30:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is a fair point that is often made, but it’s not nearly as clever as its proponents think. People ARE illegal in terms of being illegal residents, illegal workers, etc. And what do you do with people who are illegal? Do you punish them? Jail them? No, you put them where they are legally supposed to be. > > Now if we’re conceding that these people are committing an illegal act, then that changes things, but not in a way you’d probably like. But your sole objection to them being here is that they entered the country illegally? If that law was changed and they were able to enter the country legally, you’d have no problem with those same people residing and living in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/39 "2018-01-10T05:19:15Z")
I don’t really have much of an opinion on what our immigration laws should be. I lean towards lots of immigration, as I think it makes our country stronger as long as we aren’t spending money on people en masse with Medicaid and food stamps. The reason why it’s not really something on the table is that first, the public wants less immigration, not more: > **[In U.S., Support for Decreasing Immigration Holds Steady](https://news.gallup.com/poll/194819/support-decreasing-immigration-holds-steady.aspx)** > > In the U.S., 38% say immigration levels should be decreased, similar to recent years. The same percentage want immigration kept at its present level. About one in five want immigration increased, down slightly from recent years. So we should maintain current OFFICIAL immigration levels, while reordering our priorities to meet demand a little better, and also our country’s needs. And between E-verify and enough agents and courts, we can make sure we never have millions of illegal immigrants again. In other words, my objection has little to do with the immigrants themselves and more to do with mass disrespect for our laws and politicians who believe the public needs to be lied to for our own good. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255/40 "2018-01-10T06:20:40Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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. Exactly. Now you can argue that the rules should be relaxed or interpreted liberally. That’s a seperate question from whether there should be rules at all. Applies to **Little Nemo’s** observations as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-does-someone-have-a-right-to-reside-in-a-country/806255.md?page=3)