Collectivism is a tribal and clan concept--much more primitive than your description. It was Marx that moved collectivism and economics into common terminology for the simpler man that really didn't understand either.

Those are very attractive concepts for men of low self esteem that prefer to rely upon their associations rather than their own accomplishments and the ideas of their own mind.

I don’t assume that all Objectivists owning land across the border would agree with my interpretation. I’m simply pointing out what Ayn Rand clearly stated, and what conclusions I derived from her statements. And “existing property owners” can set the terms of entry either individually or by joint agreement. However, if one or more landowners in an Objectivist country decided to grant immigrants access to their land, those immigrants would not thereby acquire the right to enter neighboring properties without the permission of the owners.

Yes.

You continue to attempt to apply words such as us while discussing this topic with Objectivists. There are no 'us' benefits except in a collectivist or socialist sense.

Why do you assume that all Objectivists owning land along the border would agree with your interpretation? And using the phrase 'existing property owners' implies a collective decision, rather than the individual's choices.

To respond to your points in no particular order:

The owner of the road would have the same ownership rights as the owner of any other property. Restrictions on the owner’s use of that property would be by voluntary contract and agreement. In principle it would be no different from granting a long-term lease in exchange for monetary or other considerations. For example, if you granted someone the right to drill for oil on your property in exchange for a share of the profits, you could not suddenly decide to put a supermarket on that land if it would obstruct his ability to drill for oil. Most legal contracts of this scope are very precise as to what the owner and the lessee can and cannot do on the property. The owner retains ownership and the lessee acquires certain rights by virtue of the contract between them.

My goal is not to “seal” the border, it is to provide reasonable protection by the government for those whose property is adjacent to the border as well as those whose property is further inland. This could include measures such as responding to a mass influx of border crossings with an increased police presence; prosecution of trespassers with appropriate penalties, rather than merely sending them back across the border to try again; voluntary covenants among property owners to not allow the use of their property by those who have entered the country illegally; and any other measures within the scope of the rights of property owners in our hypothetical Objectivist country. This would not prevent 100% of illegal crossings, but it would render unlikely the type of mass migration that exists on the southern U.S. border today.

I would speculate that a considerable number of prospective immigrants without a history of crime, espionage or terrorism, would be offered jobs or access to property within an Objectivist country. The current immigration quota system would not exist, and immigrants would not be denied entry on the grounds that they were “stealing” jobs from local workers. Under such circumstances, the rate of immigration could conceivably be as high as, or higher than, the number currently coming across the southern U.S. border. And as long as reasonable efforts are made to allow productive people in and keep criminals out, that would be fine by me.

Property ≠ land. It is simply 'the thing owned'.

There is no such thing as "our self-interest", except for the oxymoronic amongst us.
That concept is socialist/statist.

did you just take a point away from ME? I am SO patient with you

this also means educating and supporting the Constitution instead of wasting time on "keep them OUT!"

with your twisted logic, women should not vote. Since women have gotten the vote in the US, they have consistently voted for welfare programs in large margins. HOw about young voters? They as well, tend to vote for welfare programs. kick out the women! :)

Given the open immigration I advocate in 50 years America will be immensely wealthy and the third world (along with the rest) will be trying, again, to emulate us to make themselves wealthier.

Of course we will have eliminated the income tax so that everybody will be included in the system, including immigrants. We will have put a stop to the war on drugs so that the criminal element is not drawn so heavily to us and we don't make criminals out of those already here. We will have eliminated welfare so they must support themselves when they come here. We will have eliminated the minimum wage so that the young and/or uneducated can get a job and get a start in life. We will welcome their hard work, productiveness and innovation. And we will have beaten the ever-lovin shit out of our enemies so badly that they will be afraid to show their heads out from under their rocks.

But all this requires a morality that absolutely rejects the violation of the rights of an individual.There is no riddle. We cannot get there from where you stand.

I agree. Excellent argument. And one "executive order", or something similar, "legalizing" current illegals and the popular vote would be "D" forever...why do we think they are getting such tolerance and "sanctuary" now?

Again I am in agreement that a wall would not be a practical endeavor although Trump does claim he will make Mexico pay for it. And if your goal is to seal a border, how else would you do it? Build a train on a 50foot wall?

Also, we seem to be in agreement that the owners of roads would have different conditions guiding their ownership of the property than any other property owners. Speaking of roads in general, it follows, then, that the owner of a road could not suddenly change his mind and build a supermarket there instead. He would block everybody. Suddenly, his property rights are a little different than everybody else's. So where does this difference come from? And why is it right?

Your position is well beyond the "immigration restrictionsist". You have entered supremacist territory.

you will enjoy it -- I bet!!! -- j
.

Keep on twisting. Keep on misrepresenting what has been said. Keep on reversing cause and effect. Keep on offering false alternatives.

Your position is not based on right, it is based on whim. We already have a system based on whim. It just doesn't happen to be your whim so you just want to adjust the details. Well, half the country doesn't like your whim. More than half or we'd have a sealed border already. Does that make them right? No it doesn't. Might does not make right. Only the rights of individuals can be a proper basis for a government policy. Rights that you would uphold or deny based solely upon the good or bad fortune of one's birth.