Obama and FDR have much in common. Their blatant hatred of Jews, and their social reformation of America. FDR, however was in love with the British, and precipitated the USA entry into the war to help Churchill by fostering the Pearl Harbor attack. It is interesting that Wilson, Kennedy, and Roosevelt, are all revered by democrats but if looked at objectively, were failures as presidents. Obama, however, is such an enormous failure that I doubt if he'll get into the revered category. But then, who knows? There seems to be no limit to the irrationality that the suitors to power can sink into.

When it comes to the issue of Muslim immigration to this country we need to apply the context of: "What do you get when you mix food and poison?"
Or, in the Christian context: "Don't throw your pearls before swine."
If we allow Islamists to freely invade (and that's what it REALLY is) we are going to lose this country and probably civilization. These people live to kill and live to die. This is the religion of anti-life or in Christian terms: Anti-Christ.
Get them out and keep them out and we will live in relative peace.

The article does an excellent job of establishing that at least some of the founders did not believe in unregulated access to their new country. But that is all it does: the conditions that the founders observed are 200 years out of date. They do not pertain to us today, other than as wise words taken in context. We do not now have 3000 miles of territory to fill; they did.

On the topic of religion-based screening of immigration, it is not necessary. All you need to do is apply the general immigration rules, taking the usual amount of time and voila! you have no immigration problem. The Problem is in trying to stuff thousands of people (Mexican or Syrian) through the immigration process in a hurry. Don't do that!

There is a subsequent problem of whether or not the newcomers integrate into the American culture. What is the answer to that: Law. They have to abide by the same laws as everyone else (no sharia) and since English is the Common Tongue of the US, and they have to speak it to become citizens...that is the way it is. Insofar as keeping their own culture distinct is concerned: I Like Oktoberfest.

Jan, xenophile

FDR really did most of the anti-founding. Obama seems to idolize him and doesn't seem to have very many new ideas of his own, even if he does use Alinsky's tactics.

the issue is not "immigration" like the fascist demo/repubs/media wants you focused on...it is the "trojan" horse...and there is a cancer inside the horse...

arm yourself with knowledge of what islam/muslim represents...intolerance, hate, and destruction...read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali...go to her website...www.ayaanhirsiali.org...

I have argued before that property rights supercede freedom of travel. And other people have disagreed with me. Where are they today? Seems like they are tacitly agreeing with me by not entering this discussion.

It's Obama's brand of jihad.

As ever, the Founders had it right. Obama is the Anti-Founder. Some folks attribute his actions to inexperience or ignorance. I doubt it. His vision is of a unfair, prejudiced and guilty America whose usurpation of global commodity happened by the occupation of a land that was able to produce exportable product, thus enriching the country. A Republic whose wealth was created on the backs of slaves and lower class labor. In Obama's eyes, America has nothing to be proud of. He will grudgingly provide us visually with the minimum display of patriotism, but only after voices are raised in protest and his advisers tell him he'd better comply.

With Obama, it would not surprise me in the least bit.

A very bright woman she is. outstanding article with information I was unaware of.

bh0 does not belong because he has no respect for you and I, etc. I also submit there are many who walk the halls of congress who do not belong any more than him. Yes he 0 is a catalyst working on the destruction of the nation but he sure does have a lot of help.

You have me thinking motive.
"Fundamental change."

I think that's a fair standard.

Myself, I start from a basic property rights standpoint. If you do not own the rights to a particular property or item, you may only use such as a guest by permission of the owner. That includes crossing "public" properties such as roads, sidewalks, etc. As a citizen, we hold property rights by virtue of ownership - even in cases of public property. We have joint rights of ownership according to the agreed-upon communal usage of the property. However, if one is not a party to that ownership agreement, one is then relegated to "guest" status. That guest may be granted conditional use of communal property pursuant to their status as a guest, but they retain no right of use in any amount whatsoever. The only granting of right of use comes by ownership - either by outright purchase or by inclusion into the group of owners through citizenship.

No, I'm not in disagreement with either of you. I would be one that believes in free travel to an extent but cannot justify the argument in cases where the traveler intends to do harm. I feel that meets an Objectivists standard. I asked the question to see if someone can poke holes in my argument. Enough holes to make my logical brain buy it.

I don't think you are in disagreement with either myself or jbrenner. There are others, however, who have argued a "right to free travel" and that such a right supercedes the responsibility of a nation to control its borders and protect its citizens. It doesn't make sense to me, but one of them can chime in if they choose.

I have to agree, travel and immigration are separate issues.

I'm coming at it from an employers perspective. I asked myself, is there any difference in letting someone into our country and letting someone work for my company? Seem to me the answer is no. Objectively, I would not hire someone who would not provide a value to my company and especially would not hire them if their intent was to destroy it. Why would that be any different to a country? As far as the travel, I could give a tour to a potential hire but would not even consider it if I knew for a fact that they wanted to do harm to me. Is that not Objectivist? If not where an I wrong?

Agreed.

According to many in this forum whom regard themselves as Objectivists (and I don't disagree with them on that), the right to travel supercedes the principle of value for value exchange. With that assumption, then there is no reason for a nation to exist. Wouldn't it be ironic if the upholding the right to travel of non-residents resulted in the dimunition of the one nation that people with Objectivist values would actually want to travel to? That is the contradiction that has been at the center of Gulch debate in 2015.

The question comes down to whether the right of individual citizens to delegate immigration decisions to the nation they helped found or defend or protect has any standing vs. the right of a non-resident to travel. Travel to me is one thing. Immigration is another.

This makes sense and here is something I cannot get my mind around.
Why would this not be considered an Objectivist position? Can you or someone make this make sense?

I think that Objectivism argues that people should be productive and add value and I agree with that principle. I think the part where some may disagree is on the principle of border control in the first place. And I definitely disagree with many who claim that Objectivism necessitates an "open-borders" policy. I stand with Madison and the Founding Fathers on this one.

From the linked story, Michelle Malkin intersperses her opinion with James Madison.
In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted;

“Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/immig...

On this issue, I agree with James Madison over Objectivism.

And Obama just set America back 220 years!