Here is what I was trying to say as stated by Ayn Rand:

National Rights

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation — a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens — has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
“Collectivized Rights”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103

The Right of travel would only apply to common areas, of which there is little left to travel upon in the modern world.
You have no Right to enter my home, nor me yours.
So, if a group of people declare a group of homes and land to be theirs, then you have no Right to travel there. Unless you are willing to fight to overwhelm their mutual declaration by force and declare that area to be of "your" common area.

Some Rights are grandiose and pervade all of life, yet some are not.
A citizen may have rights that a foreigner does not.

So you have no answer.

Language is that which allows man to communicate in clear and concise meanings. To do otherwise is just plainly fraudulent, an attempt to obscure.

The fact that ANY politician needs to ask indicate how UNFIT that person is to be in government. The reality that voters put those people in office is a clear indication of the decay of our society (emphasizing the lefts dominance in indoctrinating children). Pathetic.

Semantic bubbles to play with, now?

Law and legal are two different concepts, to which are you referring?

That's not rights, that's privileges. Privileges can be revoked whereas rights are endowed by your creator and are inalienable.

I was born on the land but I'm not a citizen of either the fed or state but have full rights as a sovereign individual.

Poland was never captured, just the people had to face a new set of tyrants that are now gone but for how long? Actually now Poland has many new sets of tyrants including the US and the EU.

If you are born on the land and subject to its jurisdiction, you have rights. If you are not subject to its jurisdiction (a la, anchor babies) you have no rights. And tell Poland that their country was not captured in September, 1939

So you are saying that because I was born on the land I can claim this country is mine. That is absurd.

Conquest can only capture a government, not a country. That would just be the exchange of one tyrant for another.

"By what right does one claim a country?"

Historically, by birth or conquest by another nation. If Mexico conquers the USA, all the Mexicans in Mexico (and Los Angeles) can claim that right.Until that happens, Mexicans (and other's without jurisdiction), have no "rights" in the USA.

The USA had did away with slavery during the 1860s, but it was still being mean to American Indians during this time also.
Looks like Hawaii got even by becoming a state, me dino said, trying to make a ha ha.

By all means enlighten me.

I would suggest you perhaps research the history of Hawaii as your premises are in error.

Law can be stated as two concepts: 1) malum in se (evil in itself) and 2) malum prohibitum (evil by prohibition). The former is a function of natural law whereas the later is based on the prohibitions of man. Illegal falls into the later category and means nothing unless you are a slave of another.

The two main concepts by the common law is trespass and trespass on the case wherein trespass is with violence and trespass on the case is without. However both require another to cause damage. The whole concept of common law is based on the commons wherein all provided by nature is within the commons. Only the labor of man separates property from the commons but that is not total as one of the fundamental rights is the right of travel which knows no bounds so long as one does not encroach upon what another has claimed by his labor.

By what right does one claim a country?

Invasion of another's country is the domain of a government, like the US in it's short history has done since inception during the coup of 1887.

Gangster and banana republic stuff.

We're working on it! We're working on it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQY8E...

Yep, as fast as they toss the proverbial hat in the ring. That should include POTUS candidates.
Thinking especially of the glass-ceiling crashing entitled Cackles The Evil Hag.

Kind of makes me shake my head in amusement when the volcanoes then evict the self-righteous clods. I probably should be more compassionate toward those poor souls who paid a million bucks a pop for property with a beach-front view even though it sits on top of an active volcano. Let me think about that for a moment. Hmmmm... Definitely a tough one - almost as tough as people who build below levees in known hurricane zones.

I doubt that the Clintons have a monopoly on it. It's been around since the dawn of mankind. They've just employed it often and never gotten punished for it.

Gee, that sounds kinda Clintonese to me dino.

Me dino has previously heard there are Hawaiian racist places white people may not visit~or else.

Like it...make it so.

I think every Senator and everyone in the house, the cabinet members, everyone holding any federal position of power should have to pass a test on the US Constitution!