I’m not trying to prove that I’m always right; I’m just killing time here, like everybody else (I presume). Most of it is bullshit, so take it easy.

BTW the question of whether countries have quotas for asylum seekers is not a “largely irrelevant, unimportant detail”. It is morally important and it was a big political issue recently here in the UK.

And in any case, your original claim, which you have never had the grace to concede, was that “in the case of asylum they have quotas”.

I do find it slightly depressing that the latter part of this thread has consisted almost entirely of

(i) various people calling you on your bullshit
(ii) your spirited defence of the eternal leftwing principle that abb1 is always right.

If they have to admit too many asylum seekers this year, then they will reduce the quota for the refugees next year, that’s all there is to it.

You don’t know this at all, do you? You are just making this stuff up.

The refugee quota is, of course, much higher than any realistically possible number of asylum seekers.

Anyway, this is largely irrelevant, unimportant detail. The point is that the government, the state controls the inflow of refugees; this is the only important fact here. If they have to admit too many asylum seekers this year, then they will reduce the quota for the refugees next year, that’s all there is to it.

I don’t see your point, do you have a larger point?

Asylum seekers are people on your country’s territory who claim that they would face persecution, possibly death, if they were to return to their home countries. If you set a quota for the number of asylum seekers permitted to remain, then you would have to face the question of what to do when the total number of successful applications exceeded the quota ie. what to do with people who the courts have recognised as facing persecution in their home countries and whose only failing is that they came too far down your list. You would have a number of options:

(i) Forcefully send them back to their home country in the knowledge that they will be persecuted there and possibly killed.
(ii) Keep them waiting in an offshore detention centre until there is “room” for them in your country. (Inhumane and contravenes the UN Refugee Convention.)
(iii) If the travelled through another country before they reached your country, send them back there. (Even though it is not clear that any state would consider asylum applications from people who have already been recognised as refugees in another country).

Needless to say, none of these options look very attractive.

I doubt it. This maybe the case with Cubans and other special groups, but in general I’m pretty sure it does have an effect.

As for conscription, Legal Permanent Residents (green-card holders) are subject to conscription in the US if there were to be a draft and must register with the selective service program. I have no idea what other countries do here, but this does not seem especially problematic to me, especially since, if the LPR objected to the war strongly enough, he could simply return to his home country.

When you elevate immigration to be an inalienable right, you’re in effect advocating destruction of this institution and thus the destruction of the system of law and order as we know it.

Well, so what – right? Maybe it’s not such a bad idea? Well, except that it does sound like a bad idea to most people, so that when you say:

Otto, that is correct, except insofar as a general respect for private property is sufficiently beneficial to the poor that they (explicitly or implicitly) consent to it.