ouch! I am so in awe of your arguments. I can see why there are no States anymore in the US with free migration and no real consequences. oh wait there are states and they do function! I also see why the European nations have disappeared now that movement in between them has no real consequences either.

and you should search YouTube for Milton Friedman talking about immigration, and why, absent the welfare state, free immigration would be the best policy. but I presume you're quite a bit smarter than Milton Friedman.

Fine, as long as they do so legally. Welcome them and their ideas! Hooray. But my family came here with their ideas, but also legally. And they loved it. And made something of themselves.
Now to your saying that all the characters in AS broke the law. Yes. They did. Because their ideas and life's work were getting bludgeoned by moochers who wanted a free ride, and looters who wanted something they hadn't earned. Illegal immigrants didn't play into the picture.

I agree with enforcing the immigration laws, but your language suggests there is a limited number of jobs and not enough to go around, so we must ration them to our citizens. In reality, jobs are just people finding someone's need and fulfilling it for money. There's a potentially infinite number of jobs.

The US is an idea and anyone who comes here who wants to share that idea should be welcomed with open arms and open borders, and if they're willing to work harder and add more value than other people, they should get the jobs, and we should cheer them on - that's Objectivism.

Which is where you are in terrible error. You are confused that illegal is wrong. the heroes in Atlas Shrugged all broke the law, because the objective of the moochers is to make us all break the law by doing what is right, and thereby they gain control of us using the force of the government. Do you really think that ObamaCare is a good law that people shouldn't break if we could? Everyone in Atlas Shrugged who quit their jobs, after 10-289 made them slaves, were law breakers, and you think therefore we should pack them off into prison because they are "illegals"?

And "Open boarders = no nation" may take the prize for being the stupidest thing I've seen on this website. That is one of those stupid things the Tea Party believes. You are saying that prior to the 1920's we weren't a nation, and even more, a nation with an already distinctive flair for liberty and individuality?

The US is an idea and anyone who comes here who wants to share that idea should be welcomed with open arms and open borders, and if they're willing to work harder and add more value than other people and they should get the jobs - that's Objectivism.

I have no problem with people immigrating LEGALLY. What I find objectionable is paying for the freebies for ILLEGALS. They are taking jobs away from those who are here legally, or are already US citizens by birth.

Completely consistent. My statements are: Immigration of anyone wishing to be a value added member of society should not be illegal, what is more is that if we can restrict "rights" to freebies like income, healthcare, etc., then we should have a completely open border. Tea Party wants a completely "secure" border and wants to deny citizenship to even hard working, productive illegals. Both are anti-objectvist policies.

Make up your mind. Illegals are feeding off the freebies in this country...how is THAT good for a free society?

Hmm I think the TEA party would agree with what you just said. You might want to rectify that.

I guess we have a lot of protectionist Tea Party members on this site. I hope you reconcile those beliefs with Objectivism; I just can't see how.

I love Dryer, always have. Maybe it's time we put another actor in the White House. The last one did a hell of a job.

I have always thought all laws, rules and regulations should have a sundowner clause of a very short duration if not used for some time like blue laws.

Well said. Reagan had his head on straight. Things went down hill after him however. Keep up the good fight!

He wasn't screaming anything. He was speaking out against the current regime's abuse of power. Coming from an actor, out of Hollywood, is cause for celebration. Religion? What are you talking about?

I found it to be very poor article. No specifics. And the anti-immigration sentiment in the tea party has NO basis in constitutionality, those folks are just screaming protectionists. Also, I would think for most objectivists the many religious aspects of the Tea Party are quite objectionable, such controlling tendencies have zero room in a free society.