Is there a human right to immigrate to the US?

It's just a straight up question as to whether there is a human right to immigrate to the US so that any restriction thereof is illegitimate.

I use "human right" to distinguish from rights derived from US statutes and constitution, so nobody can say "you have no such right under US law" or "What about people born here?"

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

under the big ho's skirt - made out of fishnets so it won't truly protect diddleysquat.

Did 'Lady Liberty' protect them when they arrived?

My ancestors felt as though 'she' was a welcoming sight. I am forever thankful for that.

In this day and age, if someone has to 'sneak' over the border to catch that same glimpse of lady liberty as my ancestors did, more power to them. I cannot find ANY of my family who came to this country through 'legal' channels but does that make me any less of an American than you?

a "right to immigrate" but there is a human right to seek a better life for you and your family.....

Why else leave?

for me to really have an "absolute" view on...

I think a country - any country has an immigration policy - ours obviously needs an overhaul

I don't think any person has an absolute right to become a citizen of another country nor do they have an absolute right to become an illegal citizen of that country - but in that same thought I don't think one a criminal for trying by any means necessary to create a better life for themselves and their families.

I don't have anything against a person doing what they think is right for themselves or their families - I do have a problem with the businesses that exploit people or a government or corporation saying that "Americans don't want these jobs" when what they really mean is we can pay sub-standard wages and increase our profit margin if we don't agree to pay the wages and live up to the standards of labor laws and the supply and demand of our country's labor force.

Like I said - much too complex for me, I don't know what the answers are -

Otherwise it would be a right to immigrate de facto.

But if I'm a dirt-poor Mexican with a modicum of ambition and love for my kids, I save my pesos, hire a coyote, and, in the dead of night sneak across "la frontera". If that makes me a criminal, I'll take my chances.

Got something against Hispanics? Calmate, amigo. No es necesario estar tan enojado!

in many of these threads, you wouldn't be asking that question.

Pero tal vez con las otra personas aqui que hablan mal de los Latinos

But what laws a person might break is different from saying there's a right.

Some standard of suffering in their home country. Not a right, or at least, not a right that isn't heavily conditioned.

If there is, I haven't found it. It would be a really nice feature.

It's the manuel version of the poll filter.

You know, and click on a different on. I do it all the time. Some thing I'm just not interested and something I am.

all 6.5 Billion people. There are people that go through the legal channels that take years. It certainly be debated that there many people that live under worse conditions that Mexicans.

I think it has a place. Assuming that Mexico/most Mexicans wouldn't allow free immigration, and the US/most Americans would not, could they be wrong? Or does the fact that one doesn't justify the other? Does it have to be two way or no way?

and an absolute duty on all states to grant "asylum."

as to whether this is the most asinine poll posted this, day, week, month, year or forever?

We can start with the most direct one, the derivation of asinine. Asinine has two senses: 'unintelligent; stupid; silly', and 'of or like an ass '; the word is pronounced like ASS-uh-nine.

This word does not stem directly from ass with a suffix -inine. Rather, it comes from Latin asinínus, from asinus 'ass ' and the suffix -ínus, an adjective-forming suffix meaning 'of, pertaining to, or characteristic of', equivalent to English -ine (as in Alpine, crystalline, or, closest to our question, equine). This explains the single-s spelling of asinine and the ending, though it's a good question--when I first encountered the word I thought it was "ass o'nine," was stumped by a new word for a multi-stranded whip meaning 'foolish'.

Asinine is also, as you point out, more respectable than ass. There are several reasons for this, but a prominent one is the confusion between the two ass words. The one we've been discussing chiefly means 'a donkey', with a derived sense of 'a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person'; it is from Old English, probably borrowed from Latin asinus (mentioned above) by way of Old Irish. The other one means 'the buttocks; the rectum' and is from the word arse (still the standard form in Britain) with a loss of r before s as in passel, cuss, bust, etc.; it's related to similar words in other Indo-European languages.

The word ass 'donkey' has become increasingly offensive over the last few hundred years because of the pronunciation of ass 'the buttocks': as the latter word underwent a change in pronunciation from arse to something closer to ass, the original ass 'donkey/fool' became less appropriate, and donkey became more common. In America, where the 'buttocks' word has pretty much always been ass, ass 'a stupid person' has always been somewhat more offensive than in England.

Since asinine avoids the association with ass 'buttocks', it is less offensive than ass itself, and asinine is not vulgar at all. The other reasons that asinine is less offensive than ass are that the former is Latinate, and thus seems more respectable; and that describing any particular decision, action, etc. by an adjective is less offensive than referring to the person who made that decision with its equivalent noun. For example, if you substitute words in your example, you'll see that "that's a foolish suggestion" is much less offensive than "that's the sort of suggestion a fool would make."

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980617

98%probably happiER in their own home countries.

This is such an arrogant fallacy. It cant be a human right if the vast majority dont want to have anything to do with it. I vote stupid poll premise

That's what makes it a right.

I'm not sure what you mean by "premise". Maybe you mean the question is immaterial, given the percentage of people who want to immigrate, but that's incorrect. It's a huge difference in one's attitude toward immigration if it's considered a human right, and those few percent that want to immigrate add up to a substantial absolute number.