"You seem to think that paperwork with a country’s name on it"
Is that what you call your country's constitution?
It's the land of your country first, without a country and without a (1T/yr) army, you might have the right to land, but not its exercise. The right to your land is guaranteed by your constitution, and in the same breath it defines that they are sovereign to all of the land in the States. It's not your land first and then the state's sovereign, but the other way around.
Since we are on the subject of the constitution,
"“The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
“To provide for the common Defence…”
So I wasn't too far off with the argument of your neighbours having a say on who you invite over to your land. It seems you are the one with the contrarian viewpoint.
sneak
I’m not sure if you are intentionally moving the goalposts, but I was referring to a passport.
Citizenship or lack thereof doesn’t tell you whether or not it is a risk to have someone participate in your society. People who believe it can serve as a proxy for this decision are mistaken.
Is that what you call your country's constitution?
It's the land of your country first, without a country and without a (1T/yr) army, you might have the right to land, but not its exercise. The right to your land is guaranteed by your constitution, and in the same breath it defines that they are sovereign to all of the land in the States. It's not your land first and then the state's sovereign, but the other way around.
Since we are on the subject of the constitution,
"“The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” “To provide for the common Defence…”
So I wasn't too far off with the argument of your neighbours having a say on who you invite over to your land. It seems you are the one with the contrarian viewpoint.