To be clear, I am completely against welfare. I support legal immigration, with the condition that the citizenry of the country gain something through the transaction. Illegal immigrants, be definition, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" as defined by the 14th Amendment. Consequently, one should not trust someone who has already evidenced fraudulent intent. As for legal immigrants, I am quite in favor of many of them. I point to the example of my Greek-born, naturalized boss. It took him 17 years after getting his Ph.D. and immediately applying for citizenship to get it. He is such a high producer that is an honor to work with him and for him. What I am opposed to is a system that punishes those obey the rules and those who produce, and instead rewards their opposites.

I'd like to point out that Aus. and NZ's policies on immigration are so anti-reason and freedom as to be scary. In fact, do you know who can streamline into Aus? young and white. how's that?

why do you stand on principle against the one concept (immigration) that is pro-freedom over the other (welfare) which is anti-freedom? and why on this post? I can only conclude by your arguments that you have a philosophical problem with immigration separate from welfare. In fact, I think the cultural arguments you have made on the post are quite telling.

There were no large social programs in the Constitution. 1913 is the critical year. In that year, states were no longer represented through appointment of their representatives to the U.S. Senate. At that point, the U.S. became a democracy instead of the Constitutionally-limited republic it was founded as. The large social programs became possible via the other amendment in 1913: the income tax. 1913 made the government monster possible. Prior to that, the US was a constitutionally limited republic that was as close to an Objectivist paradise as this world is likely to see.

I wanted to do (and did locally) the hard work to be up in arms about the underlying ideas that formed the nation. Since then I have shrugged. Mazlish said that a sufficiently large minority was necessary to protect Constitutional ideals. With President Zero's effective elimination of the Tea Party via IRS targeting, that minority is no longer sufficiently large, and it is hard to envision it ever getting that large again. There are too many moochers. Romney errored in the percentage of moochers that he thought the US had.

They should have been too proud to accept altruism. They were exchanging value for value in their transactions with those who employed them. The problem really is the welfare system, but the immigration system exacerbates the welfare system problem. A country can survive "open borders" if they have no welfare system. No country can survive long term if it is has a welfare system, regardless of open borders. A country with both a welfare system and open borders is doomed.

you agree with policies which react to how govt is currently implemented, not with the Constitution.
1. where are large social programs in the Constitution?
2. Where is democracy mentioned? we are supposed to be a Constitution based republic
see, everybody is up in arms over Immigration and no one wants to do the hard work to be up in arms about the underlying ideas that formed the nation. This post is not a political one, but a philosophical one. Please check your premises.

The law of supply and demand dictates that if supply is increased and demand is constant (more or less true), then price goes down. This applies to special visas for skilled workers, or to those doing landscaping, roofing, etc. Australia and New Zealand's immigration requirements are so strict that, not only are they guaranteed that such immigrants will not be moochers, they are quite likely to employ citizens, thereby increasing wages and providing value to the citizenry in the immigration transaction.

1) The government is an open-ended monster.
2) The values I am referring to that are being diluted include a) the idea that government should be limited in its scope and powers; b) the freedoms in the Bill of Rights (Many who come to the US from elsewhere have no appreciation for the right to keep and bear arms, think it is OK for government to search and seize, think that "objectionable" speech should be limited, etc.
When those immigrants become citizens, they cancel out my vote, thus diluting me of one of my property rights.

Suppose, for example, that Galt's Gulch had an open borders policy. It would not take long for looters and moochers to outvote producers. Two wolves would decide that the one sheep is dinner by popular vote. Vote dilution is a serious problem. In my part of Florida, the central east coast of Florida, many liberals from the Northeast move down either to work or retire, and they bring their values with them. Now, the government cannot and should not take sides in that sort of situation between citizens. However, it does have the right and the responsibility to protect citizens from vote dilution by non-citizens.

wow. government gone wild if implemented. Every time I come back to the US, I have to sit on my hands and bite my tongue as I answer questions as if I am a criminal. I now quietly repeat: I am a US citizens. Are you detaining me from entering my country? what is the reason for detainment. I am a US citizen. now you want me to take a personality test? every japanese tourist? every german tourist? am I on an O site?!

In your country, non-citizens have very few rights and no access to a moochers' magnet.

On migrant workers. US citizens are paid more in welfare than to take a job picking strawberries. which is why there is a huge illegal problem with migrant workers. I worked with migrants, both in Iowa and in Colorado. In both cases, the people were so proud they would not accept any help or donated clothing and food. We would have to go through machinations to get them help. For two years, I transported clothing and food to the San Louis Valley. We set up "stores" and priced the goods for sale. It was the only way we could distribute the donations. Most of these people came into southern US for the season and then went back to Mexico and other latin america countries when it wasn't harvesting season.

The exchange of value for value is supposed to be between the immigrant and the citizenry of the country to which the immigrant is moving to. The government is supposed to act as a representative on behalf of the citizenry. The problem is that the government's representatives are acting in their own best interests (to get further crony capitalist dollars or to get more future voters) rather than in the interest of the citizenry. At that point, the citizenry is not being represented, and thus does not get value in the transaction. Mooching only exacerbates the distortion of the transaction. The problem is not in free people moving freely. It is in identifying whether or not the immigrant is providing the correct value up front. This shows the wisdom of Australia and New Zealand. By requiring financial compensation up front, their citizens are guaranteed of at least a reasonable value in the transaction.

free men contracting is not wage supression. If you would like to discuss the special Visas to bring in skilled workers, I would reply that is a government created problem. Those who enter on the Visas are highly restricted. They cannot leave the company they come into the country to work for, allowing the company to underpay and no competition. That is evil and I am against those visas.

well the post is a philosophical one and I wonder. Why is the world so much more dangerous NOW than prior to 1900, when people really could cross borders unimpeded. and frankly, I live outside of the country. When I enter the country I live in-no one stops me for papers. So maybe it is a problem of first world countries to 2nd and 3rd. Procedural rules can change, but the underlying philosophical concepts do not.

Hi K,

I'm not sure I agree with "not a legitimate function of government to impede the travel of free people". At least not in practice. Is there ANY country that currently has truly open borders? No border stations, no passport checks?

I'd like to see the world become a place full of reasonable, logical people who all treat each other with respect. But the current situation is that governments feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have an obligation to protect their citizens from "evil outsiders". And many, if not most, citizens expect that from their government.

to your first point-under that interpretation of the welfare clause, then the govt is an open-ended monster. 2. to your second point-that is not a legitimate function of a proper govt. Is this j I'm speaking with?! :)

Of these, the wage suppression is the biggest violation of property rights. Moreover, it largely goes unseen by the general public, yet its effect is quite real. Just because someone is not trespassing does not mean that they are not affecting one's property rights.

agreed. which is the problem then-free people moving freely or mooching?

As for the youth of current immigration policy, the reason that immigration was not a problem prior to 1930 was there was no welfare magnet to attract moochers.

There are at least two issues here:
1. Should we test immigrants for personality?
2. HOW would we test for personality?

Taking number 2 first, there are tests such as the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which have been used for the purpose of filtering out certain personality disorders. I had to take one, followed by a visit to the shrink, to work at a nuclear facility. The shrink visit was particularly interesting, and he explained that the test (and the grading thereof) is actually quite complicated and sophisticated in its approach. I'm an engineer and in no position to vouch for the test's accuracy or usefulness, but there are tools to do what the author suggests.

But on the first question, I have some problems with the use of a test like this by the government. What traits are they going to screen for? A government may be interested only in people who follow their own ideology. They might screen out rugged individualists, and let in those who are easily controlled and believe whatever they are told. To put it today's terms, they might let in only those likely to vote Democrat (but it could go either way).

The current immigration policy is fairly young in the U.S., but naturalization policy goes back to the late 1700s. What the government is doing (or not doing) to limit the number of immigrants, legal or illegal, has very practical applications of the beginning of the Constitution. The large influx of immigrants means that 1) wages for citizen workers will be suppressed (the RINO reason for not enforcing a border; This is part of promoting the general Welfare.). 2) Values enshrined in a culture (such as those in the Constitution, as opposed to religious values) will be diluted with values from the countries (or states) that the immigrants have left (example: Arizona's changes due to Mexican and California immigrants); 3) By ignoring border enforcement, the US has not provided for the common defence, not insured domestic Tranquility and not established Justice, as exemplified by the chaos near the border in the American Southwest. Consequently, the US has a less perfect Union.

immigration policy is fairly young in the US. 2. What are you protecting yourself against with a free person moving freely? As long as no property rights are violated, there is no offense. 3. the other stuff you said is real but noise. sorry

The United States government, as part of its role as trustee, does have a legitimate function in acting on behalf of its citizenry to impede the travel of free people. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states: "To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization". The purpose of this comes from the beginning of the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Yes, you do own yourself, but you only have a right to enter a country if you are born or naturalized into a country and are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This latter part of the 14th Amendment is important and misinterpreted by most people. Children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", as are all illegal immigrants. During the passage of the 14th Amendment, the question of whether the children of Native Americans (Indians) would be citizens came up, and the answer was no, because they are subject to the jurisdictions of their tribes rather than the U.S. government.

countries are not clubs. The governments should not own the land, just a trustee. It is not a legit function of government to impede the trave of free people. This follows from property rights and owning yourself. You own yourself so you have the right to go wherever you want as long as you are not stepping on others' rights.

I agree with Amy Peikoff up to the last sentence of the excerpt. The difference in the ideological screening of immigrants and prosecution of "hate crimes" is a flaw in premise. That flawed premise is that the immigrants have to be accepted into the country in the first place. I am very much for legal immigration of those who are going to add to the country that they are immigrating to. Australia and New Zealand might be a little bit excessive in their immigration requirements for me, but their policy of requiring a very substantial upfront fee ensures that no moochers will immigrate there. Likewise, admission to the Gulch in AS required ideological screening of immigrants as part of the invitation process. The "open immigration" policy arguments made by some Objectivists are thus inconsistent with AS.