Do you have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness? (I am listing some of the natural rights)
Jeo were are going to disagree on here for we have different definitions of what is natural rights and which rights are natural and which ones we think are not natural. Aka our circles of the concept overlap different bunches of things even if we believe the concept exist we have different ideas of what it should include.
---
People want to have the natural right discussion but people will not change their opinions on the natural right discussion on what it includes, thus we for "practical" purposes shift not to the discussion we want to be having but instead to another discussion of what is "legal."
But the question of what is "legal" will never satisfy. It will never provide satisfaction. Note here I am not using the "gratification" definition of satisfaction but instead the older religious definition of satisfaction with 1) "to make restitution" 2) mending what has been broken 3) or paying back what was taken 4) building for the future.
---
No this thing is about moral question and not legal questions no matter how some of us have the instinct to try to shift the discussion to a legal area. But we should resist this instinct for no satisfaction will be found there. Instead we most confront this issue and both state our beliefs and also realize what parts of our beliefs we will never compromise and which parts we have not fully thought out.
---
To me this is about religion (yes I am agnostic still), for those passages in things like Deuteronomy 10:19, Leviticus 19:34, so on and so on (there are multiple similar bible passages located throughout it, and remember these passages were written sometime hundreds to over a thousand years apart) are some of my foundationial beliefs of who I am as a person but also I believe is a duty for society. Except I do not based those beliefs just on christian morality but also other sources. I merely started with Christian first for it is the one many people are most familiar with.
For it is about our duties / obligations to one another for if we turn on ourselves than we have nothing.
https://imgflip.com/i/2qrkix
(sidenote Jeo please tell me you are watching The Good Place.)
It is about Claims and Obligations (William James, The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life) and sometimes the other side of claims and obligations is never easy with a direct 1:1 system you can create, and that itself is good, how we resolve this caustic question. It is good to sometimes live in paradise but then once realizing what paradise is built on that we should walk away from Omelas. The highest ethical life is to struggle with these questions, and while struggling to practice benevolence (also called loving kindness), compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity. Life is not easy, but we need to struggle with the hard questions for that is what it means to be human and what it means to be a just human.
What was right?
Who was there to acknowledge it? Who was there to permit it? And who was to bear the burden of sin?
Facing the bombshell tossed from the darkness— in reply, a resounding and concrete sneer.
A foolish question. That goes without asking.
The King will acknowledge it; the King will permit it. The King will bear the burden of the entire world.
Yes this is a "liminal space" subject matter and this scares some people, but we humans must rise up in said chaotic spaces and answer the most important questions for it is only in these spaces do we find the right answers.
---
I don't care if they were born in the US or were brought to the US at 1, or 7, or 14.
If they have obeyed the peace and they are productive members of society then I think they should stay and you are not going to change me of this belief Jeo.
If they create harm to another member of society they should be separated from society either via locking them up and putting them in jail (temporary or permanently depending on how they harm another person) or they can be deported as another option.
The important matter to me is not where they were born, or how they got here, but instead how they interact with fellow members of society. To me it does not matter what citizen says in the US Constitution or a US law but instead the whole concept of denizen (where we probably got the word citizen from before all these language-meaning-shifts), denizen as in one who dwells, from French "deinz" (within) from Latin "deintus" (from within.)