The idea that private property ownership entails a “natural right” to secede from the nation in which that private real property is physically located is just pure nonsense. And to suggest that anyone who doesn’t believe that nonsense is a socialist or a communist is just plain nuts.
In your previous post, you unintentionally conceded that the difference between secession and immigration is the withdrawal of the physical property. I won't let you take the back. I've only proposed that someone who is ideologically defined as a socialist should be nominated as one as well.
There is a political entity called the sovereign people of the United States.
It is an indestructible fact of history that the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to define a type of super-national citizenship which had not previously existed.
Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were executed in their name, and ultimately, by their will and authority.
And in all foundational documents the term "United States" is grammatically plural, not singular. No, there was not a single sovereign political entity called "the People of the United States". The idea is anachronistic and revisionist. It is an indestructible fact of history that the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to define a type of super-national citizenship which had not previously existed.
I don't know why the editor clipped and pasted that fragment like that.
Your post makes no sense. Of course there is a difference between personally leaving the country, which you’re perfectly free to do, and laying claim to a non-existent “right” to arbitrarily take some portion of the national territory away from the people of the United States. You’d have to be a blithering idiot not to recognize the difference.