Yes, you have THAT Situation which is a primary driver. But then you add Chain Migration, and the ability to vote into the mix... and the group that thinks far enough ahead, realize that they can run the country by beating us at the polls.

What's sad is that they USE THE LAWS AGAINST us, while breaking them, to USE THE LAWS AGAINST us to change them, to USE THE LAWS AGAINST us to in the end and take our country and turn it into their very countries they ran from.

Freedom to move to another country has nothing in common with invading someone's home as private property. A nation is not private property and government does not operate as an individual by right.

Open Borders = A Darwin Award
Open Borders = Sanction of the Victim
Open Borders = RIP USA

Ayn Rand defended the right to immigrate but not open borders. She was not an anarchist. There can be literally open borders between regions like states with a common individualistic culture and laws in common defending rights and defending the nation, but to equate that with any country with any kind of culture and any kind of government is to abdicate both the entire field of foreign policy and the right to internally maintain a country defending individual rights.

Ayn Rand defended immigration against the conservative's collectivist economic protectionism of today that insists immigrants should only be allowed to "improve the country" and not come at the expense of "jobs", but she did not advocate submitting to what amounts to an invasion by terrorists, illiterate religious fanatics seeking to change the form of government to sharia law, or those exploiting 'entitlements' as welfare for the third world as they overwhelm us in numbers to replace capitalism by socialism. Immigrants can come from anywhere, but must be checked at the border to see what they are and whether they pose a threat to us.

She defended the right to immigrate, as a basic human right, in the context of normal life and normal economic affairs in a free country, and that is all she said about it. Specifically, in answer to a question in 1973 she properly opposed blocking people from coming to the country out of protectionist fear that they would compete.

Rights are a moral concept. Individuals have rights in accordance with their nature as humans requiring the use of reason to think and act in order to live; they do not have rights depending on what part of the planet they were born on or what government decides to give them to "make society better" or "protect jobs".

But there is much more to the broader question of immigration as a legal principle and how to implement it, especially with today's problems, which were not an issue in 1973 and which Ayn Rand was not asked about when she spoke about immigration in a brief response to a question limited to protectionism for economic interests. She was not discussing hoards of religious primitives coming to this country for welfare statism and/or the spread of sharia law. She simply rejected using force to prevent another human individual from peacefully pursing his own productive economic interests under economic freedom by moving from one country to another.

1. Her sole public statement on immigration was in a spontaneous answer to the question on protectionism at her 1973 Ford Hall lecture on censorship. I don't know if the question period is included in the recording, but you can listen to the Ford Hall recording at https://estore.aynrand.org/p/16/censo...

The edited transcript is in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, p. 25. The question addressed there is: "What is your attitude towards immigration? Doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?"

2. She once disparaged in a single statement the leftist hippie mentality of objecting to the legal necessity of passports, showing that she did not approve of the idea of open border anarchy.

The topic is expanded on by Leonard Peikoff in two of his podcasts:

3. "What is the proper government attitude toward immigration?" 7/5/10, 10 min http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07/05/wha...

4. "You said that if a country had laissez-faire it should not control immigration. What if New Zealand, with a population of 4.5 million people, had laissez-faire? Would it be obligated to accept all immigrants, even if that resulted in its becoming Muslim and having Sharia imposed?" 9/13/10, 4 3/4 min.

The current "Objectivist" position of literal "open borders" by Yaron Brook and Harry Binswanger is not Ayn Rand's. It seems to be based on a combination of taking Ayn Rand's 1973 position out of context and the fallacy of trying to base political philosophy on "free markets" or "freedom" as a floating abstraction without regard to the fundamental moral principles of rights and the proper purpose of government.

Perhaps this will put to rest the false alternatives that either the country should restrict immigration on the conservatives' collectivist grounds of what is best for the "economy", or the misrepresentations that Objectivism promotes "open immigration" no matter what -- including terrorists, welfare statists, and supporters of sharia law -- based on a "right to travel" in border anarchy or anything else.

I do not think open borders are a problem at all. It is welfare, public schools, healthcare, etc that is the drain on us and the draw for illegals.

Open Borders = A Darwin Award.
Open Borders = Sanction of the Victim

I believe she would be for open borders with appropriate restrictions for potential terrorists.
However, only in the context of no Welfare State benefits until they became citizens (given the WS does exist at all).

Based on what I have read, Yaron Brook appears to think the opposite of these comments. I think he is deviating from AR's beliefs, and perhaps living in California, has succumbed to their far left radical ideas.

One can not maintain a nation-state without borders. While many in the ARI like to cite Adam Smith and the free movement of labor as the sign of a free economy, it is forgotten that the underpinnings of that free movement of labor are a common set of laws and culture (philosophy). Part of declaring one's borders is to declare which set of rules and allegiances are expected to be followed within a geographical area - especially the rule of law. To advocate open violation of immigration laws to advocate a "free market" exposes the poor logic behind such and the evidence of that can be seen in the meltdown of American culture in the past 50 years. Indeed, today we have many who describe themselves as hyphenated Americans - people who want to be attached to two different cultures at the same time - even when some of those cultural mores directly conflict. Compare that to the immigrants of the 1800's who came over and were willing to set aside their old ways and cultures to become Americans. The mind which can openly embrace such antagonistic values is not a logical or rational mind at all.

No. Ayn Rand was not a pathetic pinhead.
Open Borders=A Darwin Award

The borders of Galt's Gulch was closed even to Dagny until she would agree to accept their basic beliefs and assimilate.

I think not. The old adage of "Good fences make for good neighbors," applies here.

The so-called Constitutionality (I would argue it is not) and availability of welfare is the key to the whole discussion (and the existence of many if not most politicians). Absent welfare, and without education or English language knowledge, those desiring to come here would be reduced to a legal and manageable trickle.

Yes they would and they would find there is no such "Utopia" of everything is free, be what ever one whats to be, when ever one wants to be it...

It's Just NOT reality!

RE: "I use the example of a neighbor that would knock on your door and respectfully "Ask" to come in. Coming into our country is like entering our home." Bingo.

It's simple civility, a quality that has declined in our society quite a bit in the last 50-60 years. But those who advocate open borders also sanction someone walking into their house without asking. But I bet they would call the cops!!!

Open Borders == Looter Invite. If there is no limit to those entering the country, there is no limit to the number of looters that will come in. In fact, Producers will avoid coming in because of the number of looters waiting for them .
so I think MS Rand would oppose open borders.

Not under present conditions. Immigration is nothing like it was in her day. It has devolved into a poker game with a bunch of card counters.

I would like to think that AR would argue the same case I do on this issue: We can never have open borders until Everyone on earth respects the property rights of others; the basic unit of which, is the individual.
If we as a global society ever reach that point, we will have no need for government either.
I don't see this happening for thousands of years if ever.

Also: I use the example of a neighbor that would knock on your door and respectfully "Ask" to come in. Coming into our country is like entering our home.

That's probably why the open border creatures are against property ownership too!...except their own property of course...they would be the favored class as in every socialist, communist or marxist country...soon to be progressive countries as well, lest we all wake up in time.

sorry

http://www.americanthinker.com/articl...