The Legal Principle and free movement

Property owners are free to deny or invite access to anyone they choose

• Trespass is always a violation of the Legal Principle.
• The converse is also true: any competent adult owner of real property always has the right to invite/welcome any other person, located wherever in the world, to enter the owner’s property.
  • Private property owners have an absolute right to determine under what conditions another person may enter or must exit their property.

International borders

• No person has a right to violate the Legal Principle, regardless of which side of an international border a person stands on.

  • If someone intends to violate the Legal Principle within a community, the inhabitants of that community are justified in immediately stopping that person.
  • Similarly, it is justified to stop any aggressors trying to cross an international border. If we appropriately determine that someone plans to enter a country to violate the Legal Principle, it is permissible to refuse to admit that person.

• People who create substantial risks to others, including those crossing an international border with the intent to injure others, should be immediately stopped.

• It makes sense to briefly stop all people who intend to cross that border to reasonably and fairly determine whether they intend to violate the Legal Principle. Such a brief check is not possible without an enforceable international border. Immediately securing control of the international border is a required first step.

  “If liberals won’t enforce borders, fascists will” David Frum

• Precisely what constitutes sufficient evidence of a reasonable suspicion to further detain or probable cause to deny entry to a person at an international border is a grey area upon which reasonable minds can and do disagree. We can say the same about what hearings are required to challenge such determinations, the burdens of proof applicable at those hearings, and the relevant appellate procedures involved. We should enforce all laws and implement rules carefully, fairly, and with due process.

Types of immigrants

• The only relevant inquiry in this analysis is whether the person seeking entrance violates the Legal Principle. The race, nationality, ethnic background, language, religious beliefs, sexual preference, cultural practices, or relative wealth of the person seeking entrance is entirely irrelevant to the analysis.
• Consistent with being an excellent human, the 3L Movement seeks to create a world where civilized people welcome and celebrate such differences.

Welfare and immigration

• Other than child and guardianship issues, no person has a right to live at the expense of another person.
• Some people object to immigration because they do not want the government forcing them to fund social programs for immigrants. This objection is entirely valid to the extent that immigrants qualify for such social programs. We should not force anyone to fund social programs, whether for a citizen or non-citizen, as this would violate the Legal Principle.

Government discrimination