"There seems to be little interest in Ayn Rand on this forum"
You are insulting to the devoted fans that number in the thousands on the gulch who are very interested.
Maybe you were down voted as a general rule, vote up what you liked (and want to see more of) and vote down what you disliked (and what you want to see less of).

This NYT article called "Proud to live in a nation of holers" at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/op... does not say to take in literally anyone no matter what he is. It doesn't even address the question of why different people want to come here for different motives, and naively ignores the bad motives -- and their consequences -- of many. It does not address the question of immigration standards or mention "open borders".

It does emphasize that people who want to come here to live as Americans and who should be allowed to are not restricted to predominantly white European nations.

No one lives in an unconscious state of mind. Consciousness means the state of awareness. No one lives inside his own head without awareness of the world. Humans that aren't conscious are literally brain dead vegetables, i.e., no longer human.

It is impossible to live totally irrationally. Those who try are still conscious. Insulting people as not conscious denies the essence of human beings with a conceptual consciousness who must use choose to think and who must use their rational faculty to live at all, and denies the possibility of the efficacy of philosophic thought in any realm.

Running around denouncing enemies as vegetables not responsible for their state is itself a complete lack of comprehension of the state of the world and its cause, and denies the possibility of changing it. "Downvoting" posts that reject the repeated denials of human consciousness is profoundly anti-intellectual and is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand and her ideas. It's insistent repetition is perverse nihilism and ignorance that does not belong on this forum. There seems to be little interest in Ayn Rand here.

I believe she would have our nation act in its own ethical self interest.

Open borders is not in our nations self interest.

A non discriminating immigration policy.
That has a pre determined limit .
Screening candidates By deciding who could be a threat.
Who would have a negative impact on our prosperity.
Who would assimilate to a free capitalistic country.
Who would not interfere with our happiness
Who would respect the indivduals freedom and private property.
Who does present a health risk ( infectious disease ) without a healthcare provider contracted for care or treatment.

If they didn't meet that criteria they would be rejected.

Not so fast . Many people live in an unconscious state of mind. Maxine Waters comes to mind

The conscious mind that is intentionally accessed it is will power, long term memory , logical thinking , critical thinking.

The subconscious mind acts on beliefs , emotions , habits , protective reactions , also long term memory, imagination, and intuition .

There are a lot of people who don't know $/?! from Shinola because they don't use their consciousness.

Thanks, puzzlelady.
"If there were not so much contention for land by ever-growing populations,"
Open the new frontier (in the asteroid belt, for example.) Liberty requires it to flourish.

She would favor open borders with the caveat that the people that came to this country would be responsible for themselves. No free government health care, free phones, food stamps, disability, etc., etc., etc.

As some of my liberal friends like to remind me "Everybody pays taxes."

I think their purpose in this statement is to both eliminate the focus on exactly who pays how much of the taxes (or rather, from whom the majority of the taxes are taken) and that when an individual receives state benefits (welfare), that is all fine and well since everybody, including the welfare bums, pay taxes (such as sales tax when purchasing their breakfast bottle).

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” ― Frédéric Bastiat

Another way of saying this -- The State is the great fiction under which we all survive through mutual parasitism. Of course the math doesn't work -- it can't work -- but never let reality stand between a liberal and their parasite-endorsing ideology.

In an ideal Randian world, everything would be private property. If people still wanted to group themselves into territories, nation states or self-defined associations, roads would be available for anyone to travel, probably for a fee. So anyone could go anywhere that open roads exist. Individuals from anywhere else could visit, and if they found jobs, lodgings, properties for sale, they would be free to relocate, subject to practical considerations like language and fiscal responsibility. There would be no government welfare whatsoever, only voluntary charity. The functions of government would be limited to protecting individual rights, dealing with crime, and its basic Constitutionally specified areas of responsibility.

When the land was open and supposedly not owned (never mind the tacit shared possession of territory by tribes), any number of migrants could show up and stake out sections for themselves. Early ownership was catch as catch can, soon bureaucratized by improvised rules. If the King owned everything and could dole it out at his pleasure to favored individuals, initial notions of private property took a foothold and became established as social norms.

With property came power, and vice versa. Such a system could become abusive against a fast-growing population who would be left impoverished and consigned to a lower class. Keep that going long enough, and a class war would start. Since not everyone was equal in ability, intelligence, opportunities for productive work and commensurate prosperity, more and more people would be left to virtual serfdom and misery. In such an atmosphere, it is easy to sow the seeds of envy and claims of injustice. Property rights were thrown into doubt, and the great divide between individuals and collectives formed and grew. After all, before property rights became a thing, clans and tribes lived in states of communal sharing, ruled by chieftains, the alpha males whose power was accepted until a rival overcame. Reverting to that formula in an industrial age took on names like socialism and communism, professing to be the new ideal.

The meme of leaders and followers has not been weeded out. It may have social survival value, as with herds and hives. The dream of an individualist society is a long way off in evolutionary epochs. If there were not so much contention for land by ever-growing populations, societies would not be driven to rule-making for crowded conditions and resort to wars for acquisition and territorial control. Borders get closed when new arrivals would compete too much for diminishing resources. New arrivals would be considered as potential predators and a threat to available life support, and the degree to which the threat is severe, resistance will arise. Close the borders, build a wall, eliminate the unwanted, decapitate the tyrants. History is splattered with the harsh results of survival struggles, including redistribution of wealth to those most willing to resort to violence.

Yes, in a "free world" borders could be open, with no fear of expropriation to either side. Galt's oath, if universally accepted, would protect both.

Respect for the property rights of others is a basic requirement for a free society, unless the means of acquisition can be drawn into doubt. There the totalitarian formula raises its ugly head: unobstructed acquisition by individual merit, or equal distribution to all by government edict and enforcement. A world of progress, or a world of universal poverty.

Now we are in an era of universal exploitation, political power games, and mutual cultural rejection. Whether borders are open or closed is immaterial. Borders don’t stop bombers and missiles. The world is heating up with fear and hatred, instant animosities, brainless emotions. What is needed is an end to physical violence and its threat, an end to interference in other nations’ internal affairs. Our preemptive hostilities only serve to create and reinforce enmities and backlash. Stop all wars now, use diplomacy only. Build our country by our best values as a model for the world, one that others will want to emulate. Then someday we will have world peace – and open borders.

If access is controlled for screening it isn't an open border. The only way to get in is through entry points where people can be checked and denied if they don't meet the qualifications.

I agree with Adam Smith in that all labor and development should be free to move as it chooses. If it is not free then all are slaves. The problem isn't that America is great and it entices criminals to come. It is criminal in its intent which draws the criminal mindset to it. America has become like the rest of the world. Nothing but looters. When asked why East Germany allowed to wall to be torn down I replied; "Because there is no difference between the East and the West so they no longer need a wall to keep them separate. The socialists understood this but the dupes on the side that thought they were for freedom did not.

Boy did you misread me. I wasn't talking about her morality.

The fact is, our country has dramatically changed since Ayn Rand was here. It is the changes in our country that make it dangerous to have open borders. It is us, not them that has to change before we can have open borders.

So you are saying Rand was immoral? She would Take the life and value of others?...Morality is the basis of everything good and Rand, in my observation, expected everyone to be moral, ethical and just within objectivism. (rational celf-interest - starts at the cellular level.).
That's my take anyway.

And That is a basic Disrespect for the property of others. The Individual and the values he creates, both of which are his property.

$5Au is certain Saint Ayn would approve of anything that keeps the moochers out.

It came through my FB page on my iPhone. There is a picture of Yaron and date stamped yesterday at 9:25. I don't know how to insert into this page.

Where did you hear such things?
She would never give Lib. that much credit. Lib. morality would not allow it to be the political expression of Obj.

Could be I listened to the wrong person. It was Rand.

No. Not with the current Welfare State.

I change my minds based on facts. And Rand said no such things. Too much gossip; you were probably listening to the wrong persons.

I did assume a welfare state, because that’s what we have.
You’re right that if we followed the Constitution and Fed/State laws (and enforcing them) we would have a much, much smaller problem. That’s why I fight every day to return the Country to the Constitution and our Founding Principles.

You are apparently much younger than I, because used to argue the same way. Except, I argued against her inner circle explaining being a libertarian is the political expression of Objectivism in that it advocates the NAP (which Rand seemed to think she invented, but has a 3,000 year-old history. Frankly, I have better things to do than rehash crap I have seen for the last 50 years on Rand and libertarians. I doubt you will change your mind no matter what I say. Cognitive dissonance at work.

You dropped the context of a non-Welfare State.
And upholding the constitution and rational Fed/State laws, that would not be the result.
But of course we don't have that environment....

That does not sound like Brook; think that is a misrepresentation. But you could provide a link to the article.