Immigration Ought To Be Recognized As A Human Right

I recognise your point, however, I will do the same and address your argument then I will address mine: 1. The Edward Snowden is a very interesting point, that I agree with. I also agree with the fact that he was somewhat justified in his behaviours... However, we must call into question what constitutes a violation of a constitutional amendment. The fourth amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If we read it carefully, we can see many things particularly about searches and seizures. However, we don't see particularly in the context that it involves anything about the individual privacies of people. The 4th amendment simply says that the police has no right to search your house or your personal belongings without a probable cause. Do not misunderstand, I do enjoy my privacy, but we need to as a nation understand the words rather than the "justified" meanings. On your point about "unreasonable searches or seizures" that however is a strong and valid argument; that I cannot oppose. But, for those of whom were illegitimately charged or penalised based on data collection, there is the 4th amendment that protects them as that proves that an officer accused someone of doing something that isn't possibly true. But, on data collection and technological surveillance, there are no constitutional rights that are being violated because there is no amendment protecting people from technology in any way. The use of technology to search and seize someone is not a constitutional violation. Edward Snowden absolutely did have a very justifiable reason for revealing the many government records that he did. Of course, he did want to expose the government for the alleged wrongdoings that the nation very much accused the government of doing. And your point about him not wanting to harm anyone is definitely valid; that I cannot oppose at all. However, we must take into account all of the possibilities that can happen anyway. His intention may not have been to hurt anyone however, it still could have. The possibility that is could put anyone in jeopardy is always (when best to assume) is 50/50. We don't know what those records can contain and furthermore, we don't know if that has anyone's personal information that could put their lives in jeopardy. Not only that, but he put the records publicly which only increases the threat to those lives he may have jeopardised. Moreover, we don't know if criminals may be looking for those records to gather as much intel as they can, should it ever happen that something terrible will occur. International criminals and other governments like Korea could be spying on those records to see if they can gather information that could be detrimental to the civilians of this country. In my personal opinion, if he were to be charged here in the US if he were to come back and they capture him, I don't think he'd be detained primarily on the released records, he would also be detained on the fact that he could have destroyed the public peace and the homeland security. I do understand that Snowden was a citizen of this country, however, that does not promote any difference for our criminal justice system's way of punishing someone for a crime. 2. On the use of Rawls' theory of justice, I want you to reflect the words of which is stated there and please understand the next few sentences of what you are about to read. Liberty- freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. http://www.dictionary.com... If liberty is restricted for other's liberty, then your entire argument about Edward Snowden is invalid for multiple reasons: a) Take into account the age of which we live in; cyber security and privacy... If you say that liberty is restricted for liberty, then that proves true for this technological age... We ourselves give up our information, for the sake of protection. Take it from my perspective for a minute and understand that we give up our right to our privacy for the sake of our protection. In order for the government to keep us safe from terrorists, they must watch us under a controlled screen. In order to recognise terrorists, and the event where terrorism may occur they have to be there to recognise it. Because we are no longer in the age where technology is a futuristic idea, we have to see what people are doing for many reasons. Cyber attacks occur a lot more often than before. Now that technology is available all over the world, people now no longer have to travel in hiding physically by digging tunnels and driving long distances. They instead can now just log onto any computer and infiltrate an entire network and steal a lot of information, and do exactly that Edward Snowden did and release it to the public for millions to see so that criminals and cyber criminals can take it and use it for nearly just about anything these days. In another scenario, where a terrorist group decides to terrorise a country they no longer have to go to a suspicious place to plan, they can easily just sit at a computer or use a smartphone to communicate with each other at any time. That can endanger the lives of millions of people. Therefore, the government in order to protect its people must keep a level of security not only to secure the country but also it's citizens. Otherwise, anyone's information if not handled by the mobile carriers or OEMs can leave information open and vulnerable. 3. Yes, you make another good point about immigrants and how they improve the country and that I cannot oppose as even I made that in my argument before. However, that was not the basis of which my argument was coming from. My argument was proving the statement that a country's infrastructure may not be able to support the amount of people there or migrating. Take China's situation for example with the overcrowding. The country is definitely bigger than the US, however, there is just not enough space to hold all of those people. If we allowed people to freely migrate wherever they choose and they decide to all migrate to Asia or Europe or others may decide to migrate here, and they decide to stay permanently and more and more do the same, especially all in one place, that can cause the country to become crowded to the point where we will have to limit the amount of imports. Plus, if you are a New York City resident as I am, you are already starting to see that in our schools, our homes and in our city streets. And if you have more and more immigrants working there and they mostly work minimum wage jobs, that will cause the minimum wage to rise and taxes to rise as well, to support those who can't work or do not make a good living wage. Plus, it would increase inflation dramatically that could ruin the economy. Again, if you live here in NYC, you see it a lot and you would understand. It would be good for the economy and small businesses, but it can cause a lot of havoc in some ways. You make good points in your argument and I understand absolutely. But the matter still lies that a lot of bad things can happen as well. And idontexist, in the comment section makes a very good point that supports and solidifies my argument, about the weakening of national security. Please go and check it out.