"Proper routes of travel" in an Objectivist country would be very different from those that exist today. I would have no objection to the use of such routes in a free society. But in the current situation, are you in favor of protecting the property rights of landowners near the Mexican border? Their lands, which are violated daily, are hardly "proper routes of travel." And last I checked, Mexico is not a dictatorship.

'If some are not free---then no one is free." I don't agree. Freedom in the world today is a matter of degree, not an either/or, all-or-none condition. We are much more free than those living under the heel of ISIS.

And private property carries with it the right to exclude others from one's "territory". In a nation where all or nearly all property is private, this "territory" would be the entire country. Anyone coming into such a country could do so only with permission of the owner of the property that he or she landed on. Thereafter, the immigrant could only travel on or otherwise use this property in a manner that was acceptable to the property owner. The same would apply to any other private property accessed by the immigrant. Under such circumstances, mass immigration would likely not exist and thus would not become a huge political and social issue.

Regarding "It's sovereignty does not derive from it's citizens": Ayn Rand says the exact opposite in The Virtue of Selfishness: "Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."

Please define what you mean by "nationalism", and where you think it conflicts with Objectivism.

As far as I know, no one on this forum has opposed mass immigration in order to prevent economic competition. Plenty of non-Objectivists have made that argument, however.

She had relatives in America that were able to give her private assistance and help her get started in her career here.

too much utopia for my taste

How does defending my property rights amount to imprisoning others or initiating force? And how does upholding the validity of national borders become a “desire to be nationalistic”? These accusations have no basis in reality. My position is fully consistent with Objectivism. Ayn Rand has said that a free nation has a right to its “territorial integrity” and to its “sovereignty”. She has defended the right to private property, and trespassing is a clear violation of that right. I would expect that many, perhaps most, citizens of a free nation would welcome refugees escaping from a dictatorship, but that does not give such refugees the right to invade the property of those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to do so.

I would agree, but when the subject came up many people said they had the absolute right to use their own property so if I didn't like their burning tires or loud music I had the freedom to sell my property and move away but not to interfere with their freedom.

My point is that people toss around our rights but even here there is little consensus on what they actually are.

Private property. Rand didn't come here illegally, I think.

Only if you look at the issue from a Nationalistic viewpoint rather than an Objectivist standpoint.

Yes, and you have 'tort' responses to make to the mowing fraud and that damage to the peaceful occupation and use of your property.

No infringements are acceptable. Only retaliatory and retributive self defense, but the man that has infringed on another to trigger that self defense right has no Objectively moral rights at that point.

That's my debate stance.

This a direct quote from Rand's extemporaneous reply to another stating the exact same thing you advocate:

“You don’t apparently know what my position on self interest is.

“I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended.

“But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.”

Sure it does, and it has an Army (Navy, Air Force, etc) to make sure that other nations respect that with self defense against other nations attempts to inflict force.
It's sovereignty does not derive from it's citizens, it derives from "We the People" and "All men are created equal" and "have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

I simply can't understand individuals whom are supposedly and avowedly Objectivist that can buy off on the concepts of Nationalism. The two just don't mesh in any rational or logical manner.

I don't see why you insist on trying to say that all property in an Objectivist society would be privately owned. There is no Objectivist principle that even implies that. At best, all property would be available for private ownership. But you're also arguing for the right to imprison others with your property rights. That's the initiation of force.

If you want to buy a piece of property along the border and defend it against trespass, I'll support that, though the collectivist and statist governments we've allowed to take over our country probably wouldn't. But I won't support you because of your desire to be Nationalistic. Then I might buy the land next to you and build a road with a big sign, that says "THIS WAY TO FREEDOM"

Objectivism at it's core is life based, egoistic, selfish, and rationally understood to apply equally to all humans that accept and live by the Non Aggression Principle. It is not Nationalistic, statist, collectivist, or socialist. In fact it is the exact opposite of all those ideas.

The group excluding others from what it calls It's Territory is the epitome of Nationalism as well as the others. One cannot be Objectivist while at the same time denying or attempting to limit others rights, before those others at least demonstrate their intent to apply force to gain what they want.

As I've said in other comments, 'If some are not free---then no one is free.' One only loses that freedom when he runs into my right of self defense from aggression or force.

Think on it. Honestly think.

Yes, How can one claim that 'I deserve to be a free man' if one doesn't recognize the identical right for all others.

"any property"??? Come on, don't do that. There are proper routes of travel that does not need to include "any property" referring to private property. Is there a proper reason to restrict that person who is escaping from a dictatorship from entering another country? Give it at least a little bit of honest thought.

So its a single entity thing?

Only because 1 person owns the land it can be considered private. A group of individuals cannot delegate a person or group of people to manage their combined lands?

So you're saying that kings, communist countries, and a dictatorships that claim all land and all possessions as their own had it right?

Are you then saying that serfdom is preferable to representative government because only the overlord can have private property?

Yes, I'm being absurd..but I cannot agree with this right to travel fantasy. Not only isn't it practical it defies reality and reason where private ownership is concerned.

The Gulch was the private property of Midas Mulligan and those he sold or rented lots to. Since it was hidden by Galt's shield, there was no need to exclude or have guard shacks, though Rearden (?) did put together a just in case force for some of the passes up near the mine. The Gulch is not a proper comparison to the US.

Yes, individuals have the right of self defense which includes the right to exclude trespass on the property they own. But they do not have an Individual Natural Right to exercise those rights over property that they don't own. That concept is statist, collectivist, and socialist.

The Founders of this nation explicitly said that all men are born equal and have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not just those that are born here or are citizens and not just those we consider worthy. There is no authority over immigration granted in the Constitution, only naturalization.

Please quote my actual post, I said particular geographical location. Or is a person entitled to enter any property in another country, as long as it borders his own?

I concluded as much after having read JBrenner's Rans quotes. To me this makes entire sense. I'm not even sure why anyone here would object to anything I presented or support this right to travel.

Really? How can you exit a dictatorship without entering another "geographical location"? Contradiction.

Glad you're willing to learn. Otherwise this has been a great waste of our time. Eh?
Better than could be said for some.

Ok. I accept that rights are absolute -- except where they infringe on the rights of others.

And we can and will spend endless hours debating just what infringements are acceptable and which ones are not. And we won't agree.