I'll reply one last time to your philosophical/moral vacuity:

The foundations of libertarianism is a belief that individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.

A "moral" system that deprives people of human rights, is amoral, and not worthy of honor or respect.

By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others. It was justified by the Nazi moral framework.

This is why moral relativism is a bane, and a curse, and the source of many evils.

With regards to immigration, you have no right to demand the loyalty of others towards you or anyone else, or make it a precondition to alleviating the deprivation of their rights.

You have no right to restrict who I can engage in commerce with, or really to restrict any sort of interpersonal relationship I can have. You trying to prevent me from doing so is a violation of my freedom.

Visa restrictions are similar to banning interracial marriage. Interracial marriage means X race has more competition from people Y, Z races. Great.

I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.

> Either way, I think they're in my interest.

I think I told you in my parent comment, that I give zero fucks about your self-interest, as long as you pursue your self-interest in a manner that respects the rights of others.

> ... the physical power to make us .... Yes, it was, and so they did it until someone more powerful made them stop

You're basically saying, I will continue to violate the rights of others, enslave others, oppress others -- until someone more powerful stops me.

In other words, your moral framework can be summed up in three words: might is right.

What a terrible moral framework.

Well, I don't believe in the Nazi-Darwinian crap. I believe in basic human dignity (as mentined in the EU Charter[1]), and in the inalienable rights of man, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence[2].

Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? No. I would fight against it, and with violence -- if necessary.

> If you want very badly to get what you want, and are not powerful enough to make it so, then you have no choice but to convince those that are powerful enough

Or I don't try to convince you under your depraved moral framework, and instead I get my gun, and shoot you and kill you.

All I'm asking for is that you respect my basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, I am justified in using violence against you, in self-defence, as I try to defend myself and others against the violence you try/wish to inflict upon me and others.

Things do get to the point of violence, in a situation like this, when parties can't agree on what is morally right. One party is willing to deprive the rights of others to forward their self-interest. The other party believes in respecting the rights of all human beings. When such a strong disagreement on such a fundamental moral issue occurs, violence ensues. I can't convince a slave owner that their self-interest won't be affected by them losing their slaves. Similarly, I'm not going to make a self-interest-based argument with you. This is about funamental human rights, which you seem to despise.

[1] http://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/1-human-dignity

[2] http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jef...