But the government does own the land that isn't owned by an individual. Each of our titles to our property has a linkage back to the government which sold/gave it to someone.

There is a difference between the 'collective' of considering the state more important than the individual and the simple use of the word collective to imply people working together.

What is the difference between a country and a private club? Both control the rules that govern what you can do in the territory controlled by them. Both have some means of selecting a leadership which sets those rules, hopefully on behalf of the members.

About the only difference I can see is the club is subsidiary to a country and the country is sovereign -- except the leftists want to make countries subsidiary to the U.N.

The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was not a country with a government, it was private property protected from a collapse of civilization in the outer world. There is no political similarity between that and this country today regarding immigration.

The conservatives' "uniformity of government" and "everyone must agree on laws and be subject to them" without regard for what they are is a thoroughly statist and collectivist premise in opposition to a free society based on the rights of the individual. The premises of the statism of conservative nationalism versus opening the country to what amounts to an invasion of illiterates sucking off welfarism and voting for more Democrat socialism are a false alternative.

The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was a private "club" -- by invitation only on Midas Mulligun's private property. It was not a country, and conversely a country should not be treated as a private club. People should be free of government prohibitions on travel, but the right to emigrate is not the 'right' to anarchy and the right to emigrate is not the 'right' for a swarm of illiterates to politically take over a country in what amounts to an invasion, intended or not (which it is by mostly Democrat collectivists like Obama).

Unlike many conservatives today (like Mark Levin) who demand to allow immigration only by people they decide is "good" for the country, including protectionism for 'jobs', which is equally collectivist, Ayn Rand was properly strongly in favor of freedom of immigration. Without it she could not have come here and she had every right to do so. Obama and the left versus Mark Levin and the conservatives is a false alternative.

You completely missed my point. Free people can travel freely. But not on private property if they are not allowed. People still have to get around. There are plenty of private property owners that will allow you to travel freely over your land. We didn't shoot the neighbor kids for cutting through the back yard on their way to school, for instance.

We do not "collectively" own all the land in the US. it's an us against them attitude. You are continuing to push this anti-freedom point of view. I have given valid, pro-freedom solutions to the Immigration issue. The Gulch was a club. Countries are not. People are not "born" into any sort of legitimately functioning club. Men are free and they own themselves.

no Taco Bell :)
it's significantly cheaper. I live next to a beautiful, basically deserted beach. I am in a roughly americanized subdivision next to a small town. I feel safe
If you live outside the country, your taxable income drops hugely. I am less than 45 minutes away from an international hub, so I can get back to the states easily. This is not third world living, but second. Think US in the 60s except with smartphones, internet and Cable.

I'd like to hear more about living in Mexico as a potential "Gulch" from you and K and DB - people who actually live there. Most of the news I hear makes it sound like a corrupt third world country - students being slaughtered, drug dealers running entire states, etc. But the cost of living is certainly less, from all reports. How about a separate post, with a Q&A format, maybe? If y'all are willing and have the time. Maybe to kick things off, each of your top 5 best and worst things about living in Mexico?
Thanks,
VG

Are you sure?

Let us suppose that I were to agree with you. If someone walks across the border as an uninvited guest, on what logical basis can I expect to trade value for value with that uninvited guest? That person has already done something that is contrary to one of my values. Can I expect an honest trade with someone who has already dishonestly obtained passage into my country? No, I cannot. In fact, the logical thing to do in such a situation is to be suspicious. In a society that puts honesty and integrity first, I should not have to be suspicious by default. Remember how refreshing the section in Atlantis was where the woman was homeschooling her two children. They were being raised in a society free from such suspicion.

By tolerating one law broken, I have to expect all laws to be broken as a matter of habit. I see no reason to sacrifice (word choice intentional) a society based on honor so that one or more person who has proven himself/herself dishonorable by violating just laws has freedom.

You question my "cultural arguments". If several of us were to establish a physical Galt's Gulch, would you and db not be among the first people to insist upon people taking Galt's oath? Of course, you would, and you would be correct to do so. Your establishment of such an enclave would be worth defending against invaders, both people who fail to recognize territorial boundaries and those who wish to tear down (or dilute) the ideological purity of such an enclave.

No it is not. Walking across a border is not attacking you or the country.

I respectfully disagree. A free person can not travel onto MY property without my consent. When a person is free to trespass on my property, then I leave that country, because MY freedom has been infringed. I don't have a fence on my property because I don't like them, but if people were free to trespass on my property, then I would construct a fence. Who was it that said that fences make good neighbors?

Freedom to travel does not include the freedom to trespass. The definition of freedom that you and db are making is in direct contradiction with my definition of property ownership. If your increased freedom abridges my freedom, then it requires a sacrifice on my part that I am unwilling to make.

Regardless of what you think, Kh, "Don't tread on me." is not "collectivist thinking". It is precisely the individualist thinking that prompted people to move to America.

Perhaps you need to reread Atlas Shrugged. Galt's Gulch was by invitation only. It was a ... club. One trespasser was permitted, but she was a very special case. Moreover, her special case ended when she was over her injuries. Unless I was the sole owner of such a club, I would not presume to choose who gets to belong. However, admission to the Gulch did require someone to take Galt's oath and mean it in the way Galt meant it.

no. that is not freedom.

Once again. Citizenship is not the same as immigration policy. There may be all sorts of reasonable requirements for citizenship. But there is NO justification for telling a free man he may not travel freely. Suggesting that there is, is the worst sort of collectivist thinking. Once again, why is it you won't focus on the real problems, the solutions of which would make everyone freer? You advocate for a club and choose who gets to belong-that is not what a country is nor a proper government

You conflate public property with private property. The government owns nothing. They are merely stewards. If no force is initiated, there is no slight. Free men walking freely is not force until they abuse your private property. This is very straight forward

The power to prevent entry is included under providing for the common defense.

+1 for making the correct distinction between the rights of citizens, the conditional privileges of guests, and the lack of such privileges for those who abuse such privileges (including uninvited guests).

In all of my arguments on this post, I was the one discussing trespassing. You should be allowed to walk freely without being in fear of arrest, provided that you haven't "broken and entered" into the country in the first place. Illegal aliens, as do all criminals who have intentionally broken a just law (as opposed to the kind often seen in AS), have to fake reality as a routine daily part of their lives."

No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever. - John Galt

No, you do not need to understand the Mexican laws and structure of government to be worthy of being in Mexico, but you do have to follow their laws. If you had sneaked through the border to go south into Mexico, then the Mexican government would have the right to arrest you for "breaking and entering". The relevant part of the Constitution here is not the Bill of Rights, but the "naturalization" article, the common defense clause in the Preamble, and the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment.

Yes;;; if the govt ignores laws, whether good or bad, we have
a problem -- just like the one in place right now!

and the disobeying of bad laws begins the process of
changing them ... I hope. . we should have sunset laws
on the laws in force ... except the constitution. -- j
.

I think we are going to agree to disagree on this one, db. The principle consistent with what I was writing is "Don't tread on me", and is foundational to what is right in the US Constitution. I do not mean this to be offensive, but it summarizes the property rights principle that applies to my argument. I do have a fundamental disagreement with the argument that you and Kh have about free people having the ability to go anywhere. If anyone who is uninvited trespasses on my property, then my property right supercedes that free person's "right to trespass". Otherwise, there would be a contradiction that could not exist.

This is why there is the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment. What that means is that the free person's right to move about freely presumes that he/she is going to follow the laws associated with that state, country, etc., including trespassing. If someone comes to a country without following that country's protocols, the country ought to assume that the free person is of ill intent because the free person is already an uninvited guest.

Example: If a total stranger from another country committed "breaking and entering" into your house and just plopped himself/herself on your most comfy chair, would you not be ready to evict that stranger?

This is the proper analogy. The illegal alien has already committed "breaking and entering".

I found this very nice summary regarding the Founding Fathers' opinions: http://leadershipbygeorge.blogspot.co.... I didn't feel the need to read further than Jefferson's remarks, as the rest is merely the author's case against illegal immigration.

The idea of open borders does not seem to correspond with how they saw matters at all. They saw citizenship as a matter of allegiance and affinity to a single set of principles such as those espoused within the Constitution. The Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically touches upon those matters in a rather unambiguous way and dictates that the rights of the Citizen were held to be substantially higher than that of the non-Citizen. Additionally, I would refer to the legal analysis posted above. I don't see anything in the Constitution which denotes that its protections apply to any peoples over which it does not have jurisdiction or those of whom no allegiance is sworn. You obviously believe differently, so I encourage you to present your case.


There is a difference to me in being a citizen and being a guest of a nation as a tourist, worker, etc. I lived abroad for two years and every 10 weeks had to renew my visa or leave the country and re-enter. Such were the terms put upon me as conditions for my entry into that nation and I accepted it as such. I didn't have a problem with that policy: their home = their rules. But my relationship to their executive powers was wholly different in form and function. If they wished to try me for a crime, any such claims would first be subject to review and intervention by my consulate. They had only secondary jurisdiction rather than the primary jurisdiction which is a result of citizenship. I am surprised that being a lawyer this important distinction slipped your notice.

As far as the right to interfere, I agree with you. Law enforcement shouldn't harass anyone until and unless they establish probable cause. However, that applies once one is already within the borders of the United States. I find no incongruity with a screening to deny entry in the first place. Please note that it is my opinion that a citizen should be under no such restriction, however, as they already fall completely under the jurisdiction of the laws of that nation such (as would be the case when you and db return to the United States).

As to your responsibilities as visitors in Mexico, they should be to act the role of good guests. And maybe to filter your water ;) I can't offer specifics beyond that, as I only visited Guadalajara once on a business trip.

I would make the same deal DB

No a nation without principles is just fiefdom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg3Xz...