Political errors?
Reagan had serious flaws; primarily, he was too religious and transformed the Rep. party. Her view had nothing to do his opposition.

She disliked Libertarianism for its lack of a moral foundation, etc., not claiming that they "stole" from her. Her politics flowed rationally from the rest of her philosophy. And as a philosopher, her focus was on principles, not the pragmatism of "real-life politics". If people followed her philosophy, there would be conflicts with real-life.

maybe I should have said it this way:
Cloward and Piven and Alynski.
"Make the powers live by the rules that they made. If we demand this to the Nth degree, they can't and we win."

UNexercised freedoms are lost

“The Powers” have little to do with it. They will be just as destroyed as the rest of us.
The people supporting open borders think that when all is said and done they will have their money and position, and millions and millions s who will vote for them and all will be well. But they are in for a surprise! The masses will take their money and property too, and the only help their position might be is an extra biscuit at breakfast - if that

+++++++++++1 .
That is the part of the book all the critics could not read or stay focused on to comprehend .
It is why many read it over and over I suspect.

From the #1 Comment in the linked article by hughaxton, In Rand's own words:

You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.

from Galt's speech

The problem with open borders is that nobody who has a stake in the country they live in would immigrate. Instead, those who would immigrate would be the poorest, the least educated, the least skilled. They would bring their slum-generated diseases, many of which are non-existent in the US. That’s already happening with the resurgence of tuberculosis being brought into the US by illegals.
Our social safety net would be totally overwhelmed and, in fact, destroyed. We would see third world shanty towns growing up around our cities. Crime and drugs, drug crimes and gangs would become rampant. The government would have to seize property, assets and bank accounts to try to meet the demands for benefits, but would ultimately fail because these people would keep coming and coming, and in the millions.
For these and other reasons I do not believe Rand would have stood for open borders for a minute.

Yaron Brook sent out an article by Bret Stephens were he states "Bret Stephens nails it". The article titled "Proud to live in a nation of holers". It basically proposes no borders, and take in anyone who wants to come to America. It also takes up the mantra that Trump is a racist.

She did not like Reagan, for a specific example, and he was sure a lot better than his opposition. For a general answer, she railed against Libertarians claiming they were stealing her philosophy --- which of course was patently not true. She then exhibited what I call Libertarian Derangement Syndrome and vehemently opposed all who called themselves Libertarians without regard to what any of those people said.
Real-life politics just wasn't her forte.

Roy Beck Of NumbersUSA, which is a group advocating lower immigration to the US and stopping illegal immigration, gives what is perhaps the clearest explanation as to why open borders and even liberal immigration policies are doomed to fail. In what I call his “Gumball Video” he explains that there are some 4.6 Billion people in the world who earn less that the average Mexican. And this mass of humanity adds some 85 Million additional people to the world’s population each year. He also explains that even at our current level of immigration the country will soon be overwhelmed, and the cost astronomical. See the Gumball Video here:
https://youtu.be/FM1YU-Ni_84

I believe that Rand would never stand for open borders because it would mean the total and complete exploitation of Producers to the point where they would by necessity have to become “moochers” themselves in order to survive. It would be the end of our country as we know it, the end of the American Dream, and the end of Capitalism. Even now there is talk about a “guaranteed minimum income”.
If Piekoff et al are standing for open borders, they are and have betrayed Rand’s Principles at the most basic level.

I don't suppose you have an example?

Don't think so, but you need to be specific.

Not necessarily; just talking about screening for our protection. Otherwise "open".

Monitoring the border with "appropriate retrictions" precludes an open border.

Everyone is conscious and has the freedom to think. The world is not populated with zombies.

It's both. If we did not have anchor babies, and illegals, we would not be a mostly Blue country.
And if we had better laws (not the 1965 Immigration Act) then we would not have the first 2.

Finally, what good are laws if we CAN'T enforce them? Florida is now sprouting Sanctuary Counties in the bluest counties... So that when the voting happens, Florida will swing Blue like CA all the time. One generation is all we have left for most swing states. And then it is officially over.

Please remember what the Electoral College map looked like for ANY Republican... None of this is an accident.

Powerful and rich people are playing their games and gaming their plays!

Rand made so many real-life political errors, I don’t think her opinion would be relevant.

I am kind of simple. There are borders around my property. I am careful about who I welcome on my property. No lottery to select guests, no chain migration, no refugees selected in basis of THEIR need. I pick guests who offer something to ME. If people get together to form a country, additions to that country should be selected on the same bases.

I go for merit based immigration of people who are consistent with my values.

We are not talking "immigration Law" here. We are talking No Law, No Barriers, No countries, no states...one big happy family. At the same time, open bordered creatures are not talking one culture made up of many (America), one language made up of many, (English language) nor one currency, although there has been a push for that.

That world requires everyone to be conscious, have the ability to introspect and control the temptations of their brain. It also requires a unified moral and ethical system. The new world disorder creatures advocate none of those things, therefore would create chaos, confusion and a world without a standard of behavioral norms.

At the rate of the present de-evolution of the conscious mind, it doesn't appear we will ever be a society in consensus at any time in the future.

Cloward and Piven and Alynski. Make the powers live by THEIR rules..........

Yes, so it isn't the illegals that are the problem, you see. It is our laws. That is what we need to change.

No. Ask yourselves why Midas Mulligan carefully hid his Valley, cutting off every road but one (and hiding that with 100 percent effectiveness). And why John Galt insisted that until Dagny "got it," he would not let her stay. Free movement of labor is fine, so long as worker and employer alike accepted the same rules.

She would sooner agree with Robert Frost's pithy aphorism: "Good fences make good neighbors."

The Valley was private property by invitation, not a country. Dagny did accept the same principles. The question was whether she was willing to stop cooperating with looters in the outer world during a strategic strike.

This is such a great question... Because if she could see the Refugee nightmare in Europe, I am certain she would say they are violating OTHER peoples property rights, and they are simply coming over and becoming looters.

Besides. What refugees are 95% fighting age males? Who do they intend to marry? How do they intend to start families?

I guess the other question for AR is: Would she have accepted the Trojan Horse as a gift?

Freedom to immigrate does not depend on what country one comes from or the observance of private property rights everywhere else. Freedom to immigrate under law does not mean open borders. The question here is the nature of immigration law.