Nice work, Lucky

Binswanger came up in Mike Marrota's thread here:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
which referred to
http://www.hbletter.com/what-is-natio...

The article has serious logical and factual errors. See the 2nd para from bottom-
Philosophically, though, it doesn’t matter. .. ..
This para implies a conclusion by making a common statistical error, that of combining two disparate populations and using a statistic from the combined population as if it were meaningful. The populations are 1. legal, and 2. illegal, migrants. Quite different behavior.

Nicely said...

How about answering the question I actually asked, instead of comparing it to an unrelated question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?"

As to Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, context is important here. Her remarks were made during a question-and-answer session, and were not intended to be the Objectivist last word on the subject. Furthermore, her response was to a questioner that was advocating restricting immigration because he claimed it would lower the country’s standard of living. Clearly this position is inconsistent with Objectivism. But it would be overreaching to declare that her remarks constitute an endorsement of unrestricted immigration, with no objective standards or safeguards in place. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” An immigrant crossing a national border will, by definition, be attempting to access and use property that does not belong to him. Since he has no right to the use and disposal of other people’s property, he has no right to cross the border. (He can certainly do so with permission, but we’re talking about unrestricted entry here.)

I don't believe I've missed any point.

Please supply a link directly to what you wish me to read. A search "Harry Binswanger" came up with a long list and I'm not about to spend all night and all day tomorrow on this.

Edit add: I have not down voted any of your posts. I wish whomever did would state why.

The question is not about immigration it is about illegal entry into this country. The second issue is the entitlements that encourages more mooches.
Ayn Rand did not sneak across the border. She entered legally. Her family was persecuted and she would qualify for asylum.

"How does one acquire a "right" to access and use the property of others without their consent?"
That's like asking "show me how somebody going about their business, on their way to work or something, doesn't violate rights. Like I said, you need to learn what "rights" actually are.
Also, the country and its border is not analogous to a property owner and his property, which you are still stuck on.
And an example of Ayn Rand's support for Open Borders is:
"You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)"

You've missed the point entirely. Classic liberals and the "policy" of the constitution is rights protecting government, which means open borders.
Immigration does not violate rights and so cannot be "illegal".
This has nothing to do with national sovereignty and I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website, which addresses this exact topic.

Laughing...

I speak Spanish, but only when I am speaking to someone who doesn't speak English! I think it is rude to speak another language when English is our first language. When people do this, I know when they are talking about me and I can embarrass them easily. I do and I did. Two very penitent young ladies called me an ugly name and I corrected them in their language! Don't be deceived by blond hair and green eyes.

We must push back on that "Re-definition".

Unfortunately, becoming an American is being redefined.

As long as they become Americans and speak English.

What is Objectivism? I like the definition in Atlas Shrugged from the Judge:
There is government but there is not much of it.

To Objectivists the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights.

Only? No. To protect the rights of who?
Quick answer, all those who are legally present. Those who have 'standing' respecting those rights. A person not legally present has limited or no legal rights.

Another legit function of government is to enforce contracts. Government has a contract with voters to protect borders and set rules determining who and how borders are to be crossed.

Agreed, much land is not private property, but non-private land is not free-for-all. Such land is managed by governments on behalf of and for citizens thus governments can make rules such as- if a non-citizen, then no automatic right to enter, if an illegal- no right to enter at all.

Yesterday I was watching a tv program "Velocity".
The show was about an auto shop in Texas that built/rebuilt American automobiles. Several of the guys were kidding around with each other and one of them of obvious latino heritage said that pretty soon white/anglo's will soon need a green card to work here. They all kinda laughed. But there are many indicators that he is right.

Interesting article. The big truth the author left out is the "golden age" of various socialist systems ended mainly because they ran out of other peoples money.

I've said before, "Socialist policies can appear to work as long as there is a strong enough capitalist base to support them." Venezuela killed the base and ran out of other peoples money.

Technically, the phrase I believe you are referring to is not on the Statue of Liberty and never was. It was put on the base, which was built after the statue. It was from a winning poem in a contest created to raise money to build the base. It is not national policy as allowed in the Constitution. I don't think the classic liberal had any problems with LEGAL immigration, including those who steamed passed the statue and were legally processed into the country, and I don't think anyone here does, either. The borders are open to LEGAL immigrants. The operative term here is "LEGAL" and each sovereign nation can set its own LEGAL immigration policy.

Show me an instance of Ayn Rand advocating "open borders". And please give some evidence to back up your assertion that "Crossing said border violates no rights and so should be perfectly legal." How does one acquire a "right" to access and use the property of others without their consent?

Of course people can access each other's property without "breaking and entering." They do it every day, with the property owner's permission, to engage in trade and other voluntary and mutually beneficial activities.

"You’re right, entering property you don’t own is not analogous to entering a country by crossing its border. It’s an actual example of such trespassing."
No, it's not. A countries border simply denotes the jurisdiction that a particular governments laws apply. Crossing said border violates no rights and so should be perfectly legal.
By your logic, since Objectivists support capitalism and the private ownership of ALL property, no one would be able to go anywhere without "breaking and entering".
"And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of national sovereignty, which is an integral element of limited government that Objectivism upholds."
Again, completely separate issue. I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website which addresses this exact point, far better than I can.
"Ayn Rand was an immigrant, but she never stated or implied that there is an unrestricted “right” to cross a national border."
Yes she did. She was an advocate of what political illiterates today call "open borders".
"Nothing in Objectivist ethical theory supports such a “right”."
Then you need to learn what "rights" actually means. Objectivism is pro-"open borders," although that word is a packaged deal.

Yes. LEGO movies are now communist propaganda for the young. The Brain washing starts young , now The satanic Lady Gaga performs with the muppets . Funny thing is she was selected because of the content of her character.
See link https://goo.gl/images/yXaTmP

You’re right, entering property you don’t own is not analogous to entering a country by crossing its border. It’s an actual example of such trespassing. The land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on their behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no right to its use. And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of national sovereignty, which is an integral element of limited government that Objectivism upholds. Ayn Rand was an immigrant, but she never stated or implied that there is an unrestricted “right” to cross a national border. Nothing in Objectivist ethical theory supports such a “right”.

I use to go down to Corona every couple of years during the summer. Its a days drive away and great beaches. Just a fun place to hang out. About 20 years ago it started to have a very unkempt look to some of the buildings, which slowly got worse. More and more people in the area spoke only Spanish. About 10 years ago I quit going, its become a place that is not safe. So yes its a real problem. I do not know if its still creeping north, but in the early 2000s it was and so were the associated gangs.

Exactly. But a naive gringo's smattering of Spanish will lead him to the belief that all nouns ending in "o" are masculine and all nouns ending in "a" are feminine.

Some counter-examples beyond "problema" are el dia, la mano, and la foto.

Here is some research: https://spanish.stackexchange.com/que...

They have been made in the image of parasitical humanoids.

And there inlies the problem: respect for the property rights of others. That is the problem that open border advocates care not about, we can't have open borders until everyone is willing to knock upon your door before being "invited" in.

I suppose that is why lefties, socialist,.. want to take property right away.