Not from many countries. In many countries. Language can be so insidious; There are scant few persons relatively speaking, who are not already citizens of a country, and if not so, due to no part played by themselves or their parents. Citizen of other countries have their own boundary jurisdictional authorities to worry about them and vice versa. Separately, the US is not unique in its historical displacement of persons as a nation, nor is it uniquely responsible in places where displacement occurs in which it may have played a role. Displacement even in itself does not alone argue for open immigration and/or citizenship policy. The US does not have the capacity for supporting countless displaced persons.
"In" and "from" aren't mutually exclusive. The insidiousness lies in thinking we can easily separate them.
Obligation to others includes are fellow citizens who are most vulnerable - which low-wage immigration hurts the most by crowding schools, depressing wages, lowering property values, etc. In other words, exacerbating inequality. Of course, this is lost on the well-to-do urban liberal who is happy with cheaper labor and "cultural enrichment" they get out of their foreign low wage workers, as well as selectable "ethnic cuisine" establishments that they help support. The standard immigration moralizing line about "fellow citizens of the world" is vapidly self-serving if not hollow simply due to ignorance.
Are you accusing me of being ignorant to the fact that an influx of immigrants drive down property values? Because I'm well aware of that, but it doesn't strike me as an argument against immigration.
As far as crowding schools and depressing wages go, maybe what we need is an overhaul of the education system and rethinking of how we allocate wages. One of the greatest lies we've been told by economists over the past several centuries is that the market works out to everyone's benefit; but that's not true. The market just works. That doesn't mean it's unfeasible to adapt market policy in directions it wouldn't go "naturally."
Sure, the US currently allows them some personal property (now in event of deportation, there are constraints as to what is carry-able). Not all countries allow non-citizens personal property rights. You argument over agency and body-as-property though seem in direct contradiction of so many positions you've argued before. Never the less, no one is arguing that they don't have agency, nor that they can't engage in otherwise legal actions (eg purchasing from the market rather than shoplifting). This is about the source, extent, and norms of rights.
Your comment that immigrants have no rights other than those "granted by said authorities" was confusing and implied a denial of agency, to me. Let's forget it, since we're not talking about it apparently.
When a person breaks into your house, every conceivable action is unlawful. When they sleep on your couch, they're sleeping on
your couch; when they eat your food, they're eating
your food; when they watch your TV, they're watching
your TV. It's not merely the act of breaking in that's illegal, but all contact with your possessions--every step they take.
When immigrants enter this country illegally, their occupancy doesn't violate your private property rights. They're not taking unfair advantage of what's yours. They're not unlawfully using your shit.
The broader, systemic effects of unchecked immigration are of crucial importance for discussion; but this isn't what's happening now, and no one is saying the U.S. needs to sustain unchecked immigration indefinitely. From the very beginning, I've been objecting to your simplistic and problematic analogy between the United States and a person's private house. These aren't comparable institutions and comparing them invites nasty and unnecessarily hostile attitudes towards illegal immigrants.
