There is a difference between yearning to be free and looking for opportunities. Many people from the State of New York come to Florida looking for opportunities, and bring their socialism with them. The same is true for immigrants, both legal and illegal. Coolidge's point was that what made America uniquely desirable to Objectivists can be lost if too many people who do not appreciate America's values are admitted. Until the legislation he signed as president was superceded by Ted Kennedy's legislation in the 1960s, America largely still held what are traditionally called American values. Now roughly half of America's citizens, not counting legal or illegal immigrants, vote to loot from the other half. This is precisely what Coolidge warned against in the quotes I shared earlier. Speaking of the founders, it is what Ben Franklin meant when he said that he had "given us a republic, if we could keep it." We have had an immigration policy consistent with what you wanted for the last 50 years, and now producers are here in the Gulch, trying to grasp a remnant of what made America uniquely successful. We are on the cusp of losing the republic.

I am a conservative not because I don't like change. I am a conservative because the foundational principles of America are worth preserving. I am quite ready to change. It is time for a "spring cleaning" to sweep out the looters and moochers.

we would have no basis until he committed a crime. yes! tht is the standard US citizens live by. why would it not apply to all free men?

no. persons who are looking for opportunity. I live in Mexico. My de facto freedom is greater than yours

few who come do not come for that purpose. That the PResident sponsors large numbers of refugees is not the way it should work. but trust me-the vast majority of latin americans crossing the border are looking for opportunities for themselves and their families

+1 for your first paragraph CG

I completely agree with that paragraph.

We differ on the second bit.

Having open borders to a welfare state is a recipe for bankruptcy. Welcoming immigrants do not wish to assimilate into the prevailing culture creates factional strife. Harboring enemies that wish to do us harm is inviting the Trojan horse to overturn our society.

We struggle with these issues more today than ever because we have changed our society. Past immigrants were not all that different from those of today but the agar in the petri dish is much different. Immigrants had no support system that allowed them to exist outside of the established norms. They found a job, any job that supported them. They realized that better jobs, better pay and a better life could only be obtained by learning the language, getting more education, developing desired skills, obeying the law and blending in with the majority. As long as they resisted doing so they were branded as foreigners, called names and excluded from desirable activities. It may have been tough on a generation or two but they succeeded. The harsh reality melded them into one people and many that were foreigners yesterday are the most intolerant today.

Our Constitution, as written by the founders is very wise in allowing for interpretation and experimentation. Perhaps we need to be more critical of the experimental results and willing to reset to the default positions when something that worked so well is bogging down and threatening to go blue screen.

They were able to assimilate because they wanted to and were encouraged and supported in doing so. (Not by the government of course)

The problem is assimilation is no longer encouraged but discouraged.

Since not even the use of english as an official language is official policy, government entities translate their mountains of outgassing into over 200 languages. Schools in cities have anywhere from 20 to 80 languages spoken in the school.

Those two things massively discourage assimilation. Why learn the language and assimilate? Its a lot of work and no problems if you don't.

The government forces everyone to accommodate you, but you are not required to accommodate the prevailing culture. Not even to the basic level of language.

Effectively you wind up with insular communities who keep the culture they came from in many respects rather than adapting to the host culture.

I concur. but that is the case of ideas, not immigration-else how did 10s of thousands of Asians assimilate? not even from a western culture.

Open borders as a concept and effective policy is a recent change. Primarily post 1965.

A change that was never put before the people directly.

America has always controlled her borders and periodically have shut those borders completely to allow assimilation time.

You wonder about culture dilution? That is the intended consequence of the deliberate balkanization that has replaced assimilation in this country. Too much of academia and media is part of the anti-America bandwagon.

Without cultural assimilation you have a dogs breakfast of insular cysts of foreign culture with no inclination or desire to consider themselves Americans.

When you are a hyphenated-American the label that is important to you is before the hyphen, not after.

Really? Persons who enjoy repression?

look to when it was written! exactly how do you think business was transacted then? so you are so literal that you get none of the obvious implications of the law. there's nothing more for me to say here.

it is a symbol. even as a gift, it represents something intrinsic to our country. everyone worries about the dilution of US culture, which of course, is due to the Constitution and Amendments and Bill of Rights

actually that is already occurring.

Tech it had nothing to do with the travails of traveling, it had to do with the attributes of who could survive and prosper in this country.

Yes, and isn't it one of the saddest commentaries one could make about the site and the members we've attracted and let take over the site.

Not true, the Right of movement and the rights of the individual require the easement.

That's true of any Right.

We've just had 8 years of destructing the country in increments. Anything in the opposite direction will be an improvement. If Hillary had won, you might have seen immigrants pouring into Mexico in order to get jobs.

But can one own all property surrounding another's property but not grant an easement for accessing the property? That seems to be a role for government to plat land layouts if not to be owned by a single party.

OK. It's time for an example. Let us say that Fidel Castro had decided he wanted to move to America. By your standard, we would have had no basis for keeping him out. Of course, we have a basis for keeping him out. He does not respect the rights of others. That is the basis for keeping Castro and anyone else who likewise disrespects the rights of others out.

Just because Castro would want to extend his own life does not give him the right to emigrate. Despite what you and/or anyone else thinks, emigration is a privilege. And that privilege can be taken away.

IF we ever do...it to their advantage to keep it an issue.

I think that once the immigration BS is resolved, we can return to letting decent people who don't have a trade or profession in so they may develop the chance to do what's necessary to achieve success.

yes, I know tech :)

Culturally, people on the opposite side of borders still often have very different values and interests. The conditions that created borders are still very much with us.

I'm a rule of law guy K, you know this.