[tsdlts]

So if she instead put "Nobody has the right to enter this country illegally" it would be fine because she's just restating the law?

[marshray]

"Entering the country illegally is illegal" is restating the law. Such a statement would likely take on more meaning given the context in which it was said.

"Nobody has the right to ..." is your opinion.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well, "nobody has the legal right to..." is restating. And to me, the "legal" is rather obviously implied.

[cromka]

INAL but it is your right to illegally cross the border of a Geneva convention signatory country and seek an asylum. So no, not the same.

[marshray]

I don't agree the implication is obvious at all. Interpreting it that way make it a total truism - nonsensical unless interpreted within a greater context.

And it looks to me that's just what the GP poster was trying to do - challenge others to argue with a truism while pretending that the context in which it was stated isn't relevant.

[muglug]

That would be appropriate (in this analogy) if the website was advising employees on how to jump over border walls.

[oh_sigh]

What about a website for lawyers who defend illegally-entered immigrants?

ICI consultants isn't a criminal organization as far as I know, and without really knowing anything about them, I would assume the consulting services they provide don't tell companies to perform illegal acts.