I have always believed that America was an idea and not a geographic location. Even though I spent 21 years defending this once great place in the US Navy, I am ready to take my ideal somewhere else and live my dream, as I can no longer say that I can find it here in the good ol' USA. My biggest problem is that as a military retiree I cannot give up US citizenship or I lose my retirement pension, which is a major portion of my retirement funds. So, I am unfortunately tied to the US Dollar $$$ and the monetary death spiral that the US Government and the Federal Reserve have us in.

Sadly most people miss the "idea" part.

You clearly do not understand Natural Rights, the very basis of the US. Galtsgulch was not a country.

The essence of the idea of America was stated best by George Mason in his Virginia Declaration of Rights
"A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgini...

Without property rights, which should be absolute in my view, the others are rendered meaningless.

There is no such freedom, however. No country exists without borders and enforcement of them. It's a complete myth to believe otherwise.

Over whom does the Constitution preside? The People of the United States of America. Yes, it absolutely espouses principles at its core and it is those principles to which we claim allegiance rather than a 200+ year-old piece of parchment. The problem is that those of other nations have sworn their allegiance to their own governments - not ours. The Constitution to them is a curiosity or scholarly paper rather than a foundational document of freedom. They hold no allegiance to those principles, however, except indirectly where those principles coincide with those of their own country.

Let us also remember that freedom is not inherent. It comes with responsibilities of action to act in defense of that freedom. It is not an unlimited entitlement, but an honorarium paid for by that oath of allegiance and continued action on the part of the individual: to vote, to pay taxes, to serve on a jury, etc. We are not afforded the protections of the Constitution until the time that we swear by it and act to uphold it. That we may be treated as guests is true, but we should be under no false assumptions about our status.

The Gulch was no different. Dagny was permitted to stay as a guest for a time, but she was also informed that all who wanted to stay in the Gulch were required to take the oath. There is no difference between that and a nation.

Do nations exist? If they do, then presumably they have the ownership of the "public" property within their boarders and can place the same restrictions over access that any private property owner can.

An idea is when one thinks it to him or herself, and keeps it there. But when that same idea is spread out to the masses, that is when the arguments start flying. It is truly a shame that as a people we can NEVER agree on anything forever.

In the future please let me know, some kind of code word, when I should only say amen and listen.

I thought you were for freedom. You have been given a perfectly valid pro-freedom solution to immigration. Instead you push the collectivist, anti-freedom ideas of the USSR, and Nazi Germany where we need papers to travel around. And you consider that reality.

And thats what a national border is no, a sign/wall saying "keep out." That, to me, impedes the right-to-travel anywhere you desire by placing restrictions on where you are able to go

Okay, I thought you were talking about reality. I must remember that sometimes in here we're talking solely in Rand defined ideological terms. If this isn't the case I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. Its intellectually dishonest to point out that you can't freely roam at will, wherever you choose, when there is private property? Somehow that violates constitutional amendments.

I never said you were advocating anarchy, I was pointing out the Achilles heel in the argument by using example.

AJ what you did was intellectually dishonest. You know that I was not advocating anarchy. You are evading the issue that your position is in violation of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment and then you want to pretend you are for freedom and the constitution. -1

Private property is just that. If you don 't want me to walk on it say so. Otherwise I 'm minding my business.

Context dropping? I'm not evading the issue in the least. What I said is practical in the world we live in. We have countries, countries have boundaries, those countries boundaries have governments who regulate entry into their land. Access into that privatized land is regulated by knowing who is coming in, how long they are staying, and what they generally intend to do. Those who don't or won't meet that requirement are kept out or caught and thrown out (theoretically). How is that, reality, evading the issue you presented?

If I put up a fence around my property (I actually have a 6' block wall) can you or anyone cross simply because you choose to? Or is land ownership something that goes by the wayside too for the individual right of free mobility?

I'm not being difficult, I'm genuinely curious.

AJ that is context dropping. Of course not. Your right to travel is based on the fact that you own yourself, just as are property rights. But the idea that the government can stop people at the border is a collectivist idea.

Then you can have no private property. As long as there is private property man is not free to roam like a nomad or an animal.

Freely means without papers, without permission, without harassment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Travel freely is kind of vague. Do you mean travel at will or at whim or simply to go where you want?

"The idea that life is not meant to be endeaurd by enjoyed. The idea that if we have dignity, if we have justice, leave it to us; we'll do the rest."
Yes!!