group think is anathema in here

Did Michelle Malkin's accident of birth upset your life in any way?

I am not sure the self-preservation of others inhibits yours.

Your comment is so terse that I don't understand to what you are referring. Nor what your comment means.

I have thoroughly read both the Constitution and the works of Ayn Rand, and cannot recall seeing anything about the "right of freedom to travel". Could you please explain what this means, and where it came from?

I fundamentally disagree. This was not emotional at all. Self-preservation is the most fundamental of all forms of self-interest. If one does not protect his own life, he will lose it.

If one accepts people with fundamentally opposite views of morality, as outlined brilliantly be bsmith51 elsewhere in this thread, any nation will cease to have any values. A view to the contrary is ultimately self-destructive.

emotionalism, not logic

hear hear

4) Because, by definition, a faithful Muslim is commanded by his Qur'an (every Arabic character of which is regarded as the direct, unassailable word of Allah) and the Hadith (the word of the Prophet) to convert or subjugate and tax or murder every non-believer. Further, they are commanded to do these things until a world caliphate is established. They are also invited to use deception among non-believers so as to infiltrate and subdue them. The ability of any "Muslim" to peacefully coexist with any non-Muslim is directly related to that Muslim's willingness to bend or break the text of his own holy books, rendering him guilty of apostasy and inviting a sentence of death. Even family members are invited to rat out their own who even question the word of Allah, and following the execution of such member, the family is considered stronger for it. So long as this is the case - until Islam accepts a reformation - its very existence on this earth is antithetical to peaceful coexistence with any "non-believer."

Yes, the Jeffersonian founders would have opposed most of the actions of the feds today. If the feds didn't do all that unconstitutional rubbish, then an open border would not be the disaster it is given present federal over-reach.

Back in the founders' era, there was no welfare state. You could not come to the US, and be a moocher. Under that more Objectivist system in that era, a free immigration system would be entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, America has been re-founded ... by the Roosevelts, Wilson, etc.

Also, back in the original founders' era, Muslim immigration was non-existent. I have had hundreds of Muslim students, some of whom will be lifelong friends. I respect them as individuals, and have no problem with their immigration here, provided that they do not choose to enforce their belief system on me. Thus far, in Florida, they haven't. When I lived in Michigan, not far from Dearborn, they did.

I respectfully recommend that everyone reads the words of Calvin Coolidge regarding immigration, as summarized by the Madison Project:

http://madisonproject.com/2013/05/cal...

A key quote from Coolidge follows.

“Restricted immigration is not an offensive, but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American. - See more at: http://madisonproject.com/2013/05/cal...

In summary, Coolidge, acting as the representative of a duly elected government, helped pass legislation that acted in the self-interest of both those people already here and those who were considering coming.

Hi k; I don't know much or care to, about Malkin--though it's obvious from both her writings and what she chooses to write about that she's not a thinker.

As to the Founder's thoughts on immigration and the Individual Right of freedom to travel, today's conservatives are arguing from emotionalism, encouraged by nationalism and state-ism, and resulting in attempts to alter history. The Founders, not including the Federalists such as Hamilton, fully knew and appreciated all Individual Rights. They didn't so much think from the stand-point of exclusion, as much as they thought from the stand-point of developing and maintaining a country that would attract men of certain attributes and would be unattractive to men without those attributes.

But at the same time, they never could have imagined this country as socialist and democracy based as it has become with concepts of civil and human rights over-riding and replacing Individual Rights, nor did they ever desire the nationalism and imperialism that conservatives preach today. However they were convinced that 'citizenship' rights were properly exclusionary, being reserved to those, that after a substantial time and assimilation to the ideas of the country, as well as demonstrated self sufficiency and desire could and would want to apply for that full citizenship. Those that couldn't or wouldn't satisfy those expectations would fail, leave, or contract or indenture themselves into some form of servitude.