Well -- finally, a well defined, rational post on immigration, sans agendas, emotion and political usage. The only problem is that those who irrationally propose open borders or variations of it, will stop reading at the first sentence that disagrees with them. However, for those who have had a problem articulating their reasoning, this is a rare gift.

at some point the discussion of immigration will end without a logical conclusion because the people we the people have chosen to solve the problem will not, regardless of the input from people like us who are trying to offer some semblance of sense to the problem. Those who are employed by the government for short periods of time like the president or the congressmen will as they say in d.c. kick the can down the road for the next person or group to consider what could be an appropriate fix.

To paraphrase Mao, government authority is enforced at the point of a gun. Illegals are invaders, and until the cost of invasion becomes too terrible to bear, they will continue to invade. A lesson from history is that empires that allow open borders fall, as their institutions and laws are rendered moot by those who do not respect them. The path to legal immigration needs updating to reflect the changes rendered by the global economy, but the penalties for illegal immigration must become increasingly harsh, or the invasion will only get worse.

No matter where you go or what you talk about, once on the web, always on the web!!!

Bad comparison. Atlantis was a private community like anyone's property. Do you think Dagny did not understand the use of "scab"?

I don't see the difficulty of enforcing objective immigration policies. Name a problem that can't be solved?

Govt's role is to protect its CITIZENS. If we had a legal-only path to immigration, those entering would have basic rights protection but not the societal benefits of citizens; and they should have sponsorship incl. a place to live. Have an E-verify system that enables the tracking of them and ability to deport them if they violate the rights of others.
Remove the welfare state and we won't have an immigration problem.

Immigration was mentioned numerous times in the referenced article, although citizenship was the primary focus. Madison's comment in particular emphasized what he thought the purpose of an immigration policy should be.

J, the referenced article concerns citizenship, neither freedom or the right of travel of an individual man.

I don’t see why immigration would be a major issue for an Objectivist nation. Anyone coming into such a country could do so only with permission of the owner of the property that he or she landed on. Thereafter, the immigrant could only travel on or otherwise use this property in a manner that was acceptable to the property owner. The same would apply to any other private property accessed by the immigrant. Under such circumstances, mass immigration would likely not exist and thus would not become a huge political and social issue.

Actually a number of the Gulchers were living there full time, and quite a few more were preparing for it.

You are correct that the constitution does not list all rights. However, the one right that is in conflict with your right is enshrined in the 4th Amendment regarding "the right of the people to be secure in their persons". Based on this amendment, I do have a reasonable expectation that visitors will be screened at the border or international airports for passports and/or visas. There is case law from 1985 specifically regarding the 4th amendment as a basis for searching cars at international borders, for example, as well.

After that, the visitor should be free to pursue his/her happiness, provided that he/she is not putting a burden on existing citizens by not paying for services such as public education for children, emergency health care received for which the provider is not allowed to not provide, etc.

An abuse would be inspections of cars tens of miles within the border, as happened several years ago.

I do not consider the passport process a "collectivist perceived safety net".

The Gulch was meant to be simply a retreat. NOT a nation-people weren't even to be there fulltime. I think the dissonance here is related to a plot device in her fiction, while ignoring what she said in her non-fiction. and you choose to support a collectivist perceived safety net over the rights of man. "your" rights do not trump mine. The Constitution enumerates only some rights. It is clear that it does not list ALL rights. 9th Amendment

I have not confused the concept of a Gulch with that of a nation. The Gulch represents what Rand's highest vision for a nation should be. Objectivism represents what Rand thought the constitution for an Objectivist country should be. And she was right. As I said previously, the biggest difference between a Gulch microsociety and a nation is that the nation has to be even more cautious about admission of visitors than the Gulch was. The enforcement (word chosen very carefully) of Galt's oath made Gulch society more uniform in thought than a nation could be and thereby made it easier to identify potential threats to the society's existence.

Going back to the article, the primary reason for a nation to exist in the first place is to defend its border in a better way than a smaller group (or in the extreme case, individual households) could. A nation with an open borders policy has no reason to exist.

Let us look at the most recent example of an open borders policy: Europe. What has happened in Europe is that looters now have an entire continent to plunder rather than just individual nations. Look at Greece, and soon Portugal and Spain and perhaps France. Their voters have voted themselves a higher standing of living than their production should permit them, at the expense of European producers. Have you ever considered the consequences of a one world government? It would be a field day for looters and moochers, all at our expense.

The open borders policy may be freedom for the visitor. However, it is a flag that says, "Tread on me" that sacrifices the citizenry. Do you remember how bullies used to post "Kick me" on the back side of nerds when you were growing up? When a country advertises open borders, it puts the "Kick me" sign on itself. Any country that does that deserves to be plundered for its stupidity. I can only conclude that a country with an open borders policy has a personality disorder, usually acceptance of unearned guilt.

You have consistently confused the concept of a Gulch with that of a nation. And individuals with groups. If I was raised in 4 corners, which state am I from? Does it matter to anyone else?

This is a very interesting subject to ponder. With regard to "Can the government, in the interest of protection of individual rights, act with such a preference ...", the answer to that really ought to be determined by the country's founders. To see what the US founders thought, see the link below from when the subject came up in 1790.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founde...

Within that stimulating discussion, Madison's position best mirrors my own.

The author makes a tremendous leap in context from, the Objectivist described proper role of government, of protection of rights of the individual (within a jurisdiction) by applying retaliatory force against an actual offense and bringing the offender before a court, and stopping attacks on individuals from foreign entities (outside a jurisdiction) by applying military force, then leaping to prevention of attacks by foreign entities, whether countries or individuals. But the government's abilities to act outside a jurisdiction to prevent, instead of to stop, is limited to the threat of retaliation or war against the foreign country's government or people.
---------------------------------------------------------
From the Article: "The first principles of government in a free society is that it exists to protect individual rights. Objectivists hold that the government should consist primarily of police to protect individuals from local criminals, an army to protect against foreign threats, and a court system to settle disputes. The pertinent aspect of this principle for immigration is how it relates to the government's obligation to protect individuals from foreign threats.

While individuals have inalienable rights by their nature, not as a privilege bestowed by government, it is a fact that the government which protects those rights must exist somewhere within proximity to those it represents.....

Since other countries exist outside this jurisdiction, and may or may not agree with our principles of government and may or may not be a threat, one of the functions of the government, the body of representatives that deal with issues of state, is to provide for a common defense. With respect to immigration, essentially, the problem boils down to the question: is the person a threat or not? It is important to emphasize that this question must be asked if the government is to perform its proper function. That is why there must be some immigration policy. The idea of a completely open border with nothing but a welcome sign would represent a violation of this principle. Such an "open" policy provides no means for the government to ascertain whether persons are invading or immigrating, much less whether they are known criminals or carry infectious disease."
----------------------------------------------------
In reading that excerpt from the Article, one readily sees that the author has added a function that is beyond the scope of the Objectivist described 'proper role' of government--that of preventing threats against the individuals within it's jurisdiction by and through absolving itself of it's duty of protection of individual rights at it's border.

The questions we must address as Objectivists is, "Does the proper role of government include all individuals, or does it only include individuals it recognizes by geographical permission?" And "Can the government in the interest of protection of individual rights, act with such a preference as to deny certain individual rights for certain individuals, or is it properly commanded to recognize and protect all individual rights for all individuals it encounters and interacts with?"

I'm interested in the issue and have thoughts. I assume that the reason to post discussions is to discuss. The two of you post quite a few comments, it's quite likely that some of them are on issues of interest to me. There are many discussions I don't have any comments on and I don't post. Let's not get paranoid here.

The issue of immigration has divided Objectivists. That should not be surprising. In Anthem we see why Rand left the USSR to come to America and why she was quite reasonably as pro-immigrant as she was. Yet, in Atlas Shrugged, Atlantis has some rigid restrictions not just for citizenship, but for immigration. A radar-based invisibility cloak was meant to be an impenetrable barrier to outsiders. "We have our first trespasser." - Dr. Hendricks
Didn't Ragnar refer to Dagny as a "scab"? I wouldn't call either of those responses "welcoming" to immigrants. I have tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to present a consistent immigration policy that is reasonable to both the immigrant's freedom to produce and to the citizenry's protection from looters and moochers. There is no easy answer to this question, but there are a lot of wrong answers.

you follow Dale around. why?

The author, Doug Reich, and I are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

Freedom to travel is at odds with property rights. If you own property, then you have the right to say who can trespass on it. Every inch of the planet is owned by someone.

You deny governments the right to control property and the access to it, but cede them the rights to enforce contracts and protect your rights. One of the rights to be protected is access to the street in front of your house. The government controls how it is used.

If not, then someone might build a house there and how would you get out of your driveway?

Freedom is a moral principle that applies to all people. Crossing a border does not change this, if you are for freedom. I disagree with this article completely.