db and Kh: blarman has solid logic for his position. A nation without borders ceases to be a nation and would no longer have a reason to exist.

Let us suppose that a free illegal alien trespassed on my property. Would the US government, acting on my behalf, have the right to infringe upon that alien's rights? Not only does it have the right, it has the responsibility. This falls under the "common defense" clause in the Preamble of the Constitution. Any society that fails to recognize that will soon be overrun, much as Europe has been overrun in the last generation. Providing for a common defense is the reason why nations exist.

I agree with Amy Peikoff's response. I also think
it is important to repeal those parts of the 1964 so-
called "Civil Rights Act" which interfere with private
property rights (leaving in place those which abolished
state-mandated segregation, of course). And to do away with the welfare state. And, of course,
the requirements for citizenship should be more
stringent than the requirements for entry. But the
government is not, properly, an abiter of ideas.

Still, there is one thing I don't think either
one mentioned. We could, privately, set up and
finance classes in citizenship. I don't mean the
government should do it. I mean that those who
believe in individual rights (and Objectivism)
could finance and set up associations to teach
proper Americanism to the new arrivals. I think
that this kind of thing (of course, this was pre-
Objectivism) was done in the past during big
waves of immigration.

The Bill of Rights is not about citizenship! and so, the Bill of Rights applies to the govts interaction with ANYONE. the only implied exception was War. People do hurt you by crossing a border, speaking another language, and govt and You have no right to interfere unless you suspect them of criminal activity. Blarman, think of db and I. We live in another country, my spanish is not that great. Do I need to understand the archane laws and structure of the Mexican govt in order to be "worthy" of being in Mexico?
There comes a time when Conservatives run up against Objectivist foundations which they do not like. I get that. Pleas check premises. :)

The Bill of Rights was to establish where the Federal Government was constrained with respect to the People - the citizens of the United States. You seem to imply that those constraints fall upon the government even when dealing with foreign nationals. I can't quite reconcile such a position given the following legal analysis:

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-i...

I also refer back to the following words: "We the People of the United States of America..." It doesn't say "We the free people of the world."

If you are a citizen, they should establish such and let you go. Case closed. But I support the necessity to ask the question.

As far as a personality test merely to enter the country, that seems a bit extreme. To be a citizen, however, you should be willing to swear fealty to the Constitution of the United States and forswear all other allegiances you may have to other nations. I like the way Bobby Jindal put it the other day: you aren't an African American, or an Indian-American or a Mexican-American, you're just an American. No conditionals.

Honestly, I have no idea what your argument is.

Those who are citizens of this nation enjoy the rights of citizenship, which include the ability to use taxpayer-funded institutions such as roads, sidewalks, etc. as their right. "Public" lands, etc. are administered by the Government as a trust, but ownership belongs to the People - the citizens of that nation. All others have conditional privileges only. Those conditional privileges are extended to guests (non-citizens) under the condition that they respect the rights, properties and people within our nation as befitting good guests. As long as they act as the guests they are, they should be treated fairly, but if they abuse those privileges, we have every right to ask them to leave and to expel them where necessary. Unless they are suspected of a crime or breach of that trust as a guest, they should not be bothered by unreasonable law enforcement edicts, I agree. But if they are suspected of a crime, I think it would be foolhardy to constrain law enforcement to treating them like normal citizens when they are not subject to the same laws!

The conditions upon which we choose to offer invitations for guests is certainly up for discussion, but to deny that there exists a difference between citizens with rights and guests with privileges lies at the heart of the anchor baby phenomenon we have going on right now, not to mention the problems with guests overstaying their visas or those coming here on false pretenses. Their dishonesty does not imply a duty on our part to accommodate them or to facilitate their status as moochers. Their guest status and privileges are wholly dependent on their good behavior.

No the constitution was written to apply to the US government and it has not right to infringe the rights of any free people on its territory. Pretty straight forward.

Care to explain without using the ad hominem?

Was the Constitution written to apply to the Netherlands? Or Tunisia? No. It was written for the benefit of the thirteen colonies and their peoples. It was submitted to each in turn for ratification, and every territory since included under the umbrella of the United States has in turn ratified the authority of the Constitution as binding in their geographic area. The borders so established dictate the extent to which the Constitution has authority and does not extend past those boundaries until such a time as an additional territory is added through petition and acceptance.

governments are stewards (trustees at best). It is not a simple subject. They do not "own" anything. A govt may have dominion over the property. Ownership is the result of creative work. and collectives do not do work or add value. Each individual does productive work, adding value, and so they individually own the results of their work, because they own themselves. A government cannot own "itself." Believe it or not transferring title to property can be a messy business. I had friends in NM who bought a house and the title went back to Spain.

even if privately owned (I build the beginnings of a city) the roads are passable for all in order to get people to buy lots. The history of the US were toll roads not to mention the fact that no one makes the surface of the ocean productive, they just travel on it and other waterways.

End the welfare magnet; let people come and go. Issue and track expiration of work permits and visas, but don't grant voting rights to anyone not yet a citizen. Citizenship should be handled in an expeditious manner where the language, history and basic civics of our nation are learned. The number of work permits should also take into consideration the affect on wages. Supply and demand does not discriminate; it just is.
If these things happened the numbers would be manageable and not seem like an invasion which the government has the responsibility to address.
If there is no border and no screening of any kind, how do we keep known criminals including those that we already deported from creating more mayhem? We have enough criminals of our own making. Do we need to import more? What is unreasonable about that?

What is much more important is that government obey the laws.

It is perfectly acceptable for citizens or people in the country to ignore bad laws. Every person in the US does this everyday or they would be unable to do anything.

Blarman you are not for freedom, you ignore the constitution, you have absolutely no logic for your position.

Who owns "public property"? The citizens of a country? The tax payers who maintain it? Every person on the planet?

yes, and violate the laws and be deported or arrested. The Gulch was private property. No one is saying anything about trespass. But you should be allowed to walk freely on a city street without fear you will be arrested due to your nationality! It's ludicrous

The problem is that not all ideologies are compatible. That is the great lie told by the left right now. They use the First Amendment to bludgeon us all over the head when we talk about immigration, but ignore the reality.

The reality is that a nation absolutely exists based on borders. Those borders indicate control and uniformity of government. If you advocate for the elimination of borders, you are taking an anarchist stance. Countries cease to exist when they do not control their borders and who is coming and going.

Second, it is absolute nonsense that people should be able to come into our country with impunity. As part of maintaining a nation and it's structure, we must all agree on the laws in play and we all must agree to be subject to them. Those who voluntarily choose to come to our nation must agree to uphold the values and ideals we uphold, or we absolutely have the right to deny them entry. Such were the values of the Gulch, as I recall: no one - not even Dagny - was permitted to stay without swearing the oath of fealty. I find it not only fascinating, but somewhat confusing to see so many Objectivists arguing for open borders given the strong case laid out by Galt.

I agree with Amy. . the health of this country requires that
the citizenry obey its laws. . the constitution is the law which
started it all, and allegiance to it should be required by all.

my immediate conclusion is this::: take an oath to obey
the u.s. constitution in order to vote. . learn the constitution
in order to become a citizen. . control immigration with a
constitution-supporting requirement rather than a rights-supporting
requirement. . I do not let just anyone sleep in my home
in order to support freedom. . the u.s. is my home. -- j
.

Yes, I have thought about writing about property rights from an objectivist perspective. You may also want to look up Adam Mossoff and some of his lectures.

I admit I have a lot to learn. Capitalism is on my reading list. I'll get to it soon, but I am a slow (careful) reader.

In the mean time, I would be interested in engaging with you further, if you would be willing to put in your own words some of these basic ideas.

a, that is much higher than us.

I agree! I realize there are cheaper accommodations, however, i do not have the funds necessary to utilize them. My SS is less than 1200 a month. Believe me, i would very definitely move to a 'Galt's Gulch' if one were available. Because of our government's confiscatory policies, i have been on strike for many years. I have read Atlas Shrugged many times; and the first time i read it back in the 80s, is when i began my strike. I have refused to sell my abilities without due compensation. By the way, i had no intention of having this post aligned where it is. I was trying to respond to another post talking about SS. I am still learning about this system.

I do not know you. from a practical point of view, look at Michael's posts. there are much cheaper accommodations than the US. Like you, I am frustrated and sorry. they have destroyed the value f your work. How is this not like putting a knife into your gut?

I am on SS. Without it i would be living on the streets. My income was insufficient for me to do invest anything towards retirement. I have had to live hand to mouth since 1974. Because our government chose to confiscate my money, didn't invest it (even in government bonds), and then looted the fund for their nefarious doings, is something that is beyond my control. However, i do believe there is a partial solution to the problem. We should demand that all elected government officials' pensions be stopped and all funds placed placed into the SS System. I realize that might only be a drop in the bucket for what is needed, but maybe it would wake them up and begin investing our hard earned money, which might actually bring the system our of the hole. I also believe that some other forms of investment should be allowed for the individual from the money the government wants to take. By doing these things it may actually be possible to phase out SS over a period of time.

you are not troublesome. You have contributed significantly to the site since we met you.

Property rights are not the same thing as legal dominion of a country. No one owns the Grand Canyon. Property rights are the result of creation. The federal government has dominion, not property rights.

Yes all 7 billion people could enter the US if the US was a free country. That is part of the definition of freedom.

Property rights are not granted by governments, they are enforce by governments. It is quite a complex subject and you seem to not understand even the most basic ideas See Capitalism the Unknown Ideal - on Airwaves and the essay on Intellectual Property rights

vido is on the scene. and I called an ad hominem so I will likely be banned for 24 hours. this happens. it will be fine, carry on!