Liberty. It's a terrible a precedent to restrict freedom of movement on a forced personal health decision. It's basically subverting your body to the state.
This isn't rocket science. I don't know where people get this idea that international travel was some kind of libertarian utopia before covid. There are a lot of things that restrict your ability to travel, and vaccinations are one of the least problematic.
You are obviously not referring to the EU, where, within Schengen, international travel was a libertarian utopia and one of the main reasons this bureaucratic construct had so many supporters despite the downsides.
For, and only for, EU citizens. Which is a good start at utopianising travel, but not complete.
Seems like you had to follow rules regulations when travelling before, so explain to me what is the exact difference now?
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
Immigration to the U.S. is of course, a regulated activity. They can make you take a physical, pay a fee, inspect your background, call your mom and make sure you're a good person, etc, before accepting you as an immigrant. Sure. There's no limits to that, because there's no U.S. Constitutional protection for non-U.S. citizens and immigration can be stopped altogether if desired (assuming it's enforced).
The fourteenth amendment plainly says “people” not citizens. There are others, but this is the most obvious one.
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
But this kind of arguments are precisely the point when it comes to concern about precedents. It becomes less of a barrier to adding new rules just because the law already has vaguely similar rules.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/europe...
All rights have limitations of course.
If you don’t want to take measures to protect others, you can sit home for a while. It won’t kill you, and it won’t kill the people around you.
How is limiting state power during a particular emergency situation a terrible precedent? The state can always grab more power at a later emergency, as history has shown. The difficult task is getting them to give up power once it is no longer needed for the emergency.
There is even a ECHR decision to this effect.
Or are you arguing that the vaccines don't work?
You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered.
"I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home"
"I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home"
"I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home"
It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.
Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act.
100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.
If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.
And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.
Your right to not be vaccinated does not trump public health concerns, or shouldn't.
Note however that we still don't know exactly what long-term consequences Covid19 may have, so even with this, if we can avoid infecting young children, we should.
Is it? Far fewer of them still will get severe symptoms. And this of course requires the unvaccinated person to actually be infected. From what I read, my risk (of at least an unpleasant time) is worse if that person had some other virus instead, since I'm much more likely to catch it and guaranteed to have unpleasant symptoms if so. At some point there needs to be a cutoff in risk level where it's low enough for a free society.
A bigger concern in my mind is that as long as the virus is spreading it is mutating, potentially becoming dangerous again to the vaccinated too. But this seems to be increasingly not likely with this particular category of viruses.
Agree, let's not be reckless–restricting movement for public health only has over seven hundred years of precedent [1].