Hear, hear!!

Sigh, people are not good or bad because they are born in the US or not. I didn't say that nor I imply that, and you know it.

People born outside the US are not US citizens and are not entitled to being in this country, living in our society, or deriving a livelihood without prior permission. Those who come here without that permission are illegally in this country. No one I know, including me, is against legal immigration, just the bogus right to travel freely irregardless of national boundaries.

what? human beings are human beings. People are not "good" because they were born in the US! From the most recent article I posted from Objective Standard:

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment. " GEORGE WASHINGTON

The south to north border crossing has been getting steadily worse over the years.

Back in the 80s when I was stationed in Southern California, I used to go to Mexico regularly. It was a quick process in both directions back then. Five minutes going South, and only slightly longer coming North.

Now it is a nightmare, and our northern border is getting bad too. I went to Canada two weekends ago....3 minutes going north to Canada, over an hour coming south. Our government can literally turn anything into torturous nonsense.

more collectivist thinking

Everyone not-American is considered not-American and are are treated as guests entering our country/society. A guest calls, gets the green light to come over, arrives at your house and enters your front door with a greeting (good guests bring wine or cake too). You can, for whatever reason you decide, choose that you don't want company.

That is not what we are getting now. A guest doesn't just show up unannounced, climb in your window, eat your food, spend your money, and sleep in your bed.

Everyone is assumed guilty until they prove their innocence?

Yes, the minute you violate my property or the safety of others we have law enforcement to deal with the problem. I never once have advocated for anarchy on this site and am well known for that. So I do not see that argument as relevant unless we are not working with the same definition.

There is certainly the tyranny of over regulation and too much government. That does not imply that we should choose anarchy. Rand was certainly no fan of the anarchists.

Governments do have a role in enforcing private property and, I think, a legitimate responsibility to manage the use of public property.

private property enforced is NOT an international border keeping people out. Please see the difference. Everytime you force groups of people to obey laws enated for their protection, you end up offering opportunities to violent people. No guns allowed in the theater, schools. Law abiding people wait hours to cross the border while criminals escape across a border. focus on thereal threats. They have denied you a booming economy because the govt weakens your property rights. They have passed draconian regulations, they enact laws by the thousands to control you-Obamacare. I wait for hours to cross the border at times. HOURS. I walk across into Mexico and the guards wave and tell me to enjoy me stay. I don't think anyone has EVER looked at my Visa.
It's always a creeping thing. a few questions, make sure you are not sick, bringing disease in...now we need high walls and moats. Feudal-middle ages. a govt nobody deciding if you could enter or leave. gah

The first time a group of people gathered as a tribe, built huts, penned animals and worked the land, private property was born and travel became restricted.

Unless one lives alone in the world or had his/her own continent there will always be somewhere someone has marked off his or her own private place.

Unless there is no right to private property, dare I extend that to possession in general, there can be no realistic right to travel as a natural right.

Slippery slope using Nativism. In this subject, you're aligning with the open border, one world government/no government ideology.

Travel restrictions go back further than Rome without a doubt. Records get so scarce then, it becomes difficult to prove.

"The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here.
All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.
The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.

Nativism is the arch-enemy of the freedom to travel, as its adherents believe they can use the coercive power of the government to impair the freedom of travel of persons who are unwanted not because of personal behavior, but solely on the basis of where they were born. Nativism teaches that we lack natural rights and enjoy only those rights the government permits us to exercise." [bold and italics added for emphasis]