Who said anything about a “right to enter”? This is just about not massively invading visitors’ privacy for no good reason.

Of course, if you just don’t want anyone with intelligence or dignity to visit the country, this is great policy.

▲

zahlman an hour ago | parent | next [-]

As explained upthread,

> You are within your rights to say no

Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened.

If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.

▲

tempfile 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

This argument is absurd.

If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.

If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong?

If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.

▲

xp84 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument.

Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine:

> If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.

Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled.

> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face,

Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes.

He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food.

> "nothing wrong has happened"?

I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato.

> If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.

That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required."

That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.

	▲	tempfile 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Every ethical problem is vague and undefined. If you can't find an infinitely precise specification of the ethical problem, that doesn't make it invalid. However, even at the level of policy, your analysis does not go through. It is routine and unproblematic for laws to exist that prohibit "you can't enter this bar if you're black" or "I won't hire you because you're a woman". It simply does not follow that employers are "forced to hire people". They are forced to apply consistent, legitimate rules when hiring people. Whether a rule is consistent and legitimate is usually decided by a judge. This is not an unusual thing. P.S. are you writing this with an LLM? If you aren't, I'm sorry. But it really sounds like you are. If you are, please stop.

▲

Detrytus 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, by offering food for punch in the face you changed it from charity to free market transaction. Basically you gave them a chance to earn their food instead of just giving it to them. If they deem the price too high and refuse your offer then again, nothing bad happened.

	▲	tempfile 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not all free market transactions are reasonable. Selling yourself into slavery is a "free market transaction" I hope you would not consider legitimate.

▲

rdtsc 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Not op and may not agree with them but the original comment was how I read it "...we ostensibly have rights but the exercising of rights is ...".

We're talking about a non-citizen on a visitor visa and there is just simply no legal right to enter if the port of entry official don't like their answers or behavior. They can't say "you have to let me in, it's my right".