Seems pretty common to not necessarily be allowed to go anywhere you please just because you want to. Maybe it is an extreme example, but I know I don't want people freely circulating inside my house.
If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want?
As for the justification for why it's a basic human right
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
> Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
> It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem.
We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.
We generally solve these purely hypothetical problems that never actually occur by ignoring them.
It was overwhelmed... yes it was a design flaw. That's the point.
I think that's called "having a warrant out for your arrest" and it's always mystified me that each state keeps their own list of personas non grata