Perhaps we need all conservatives to move out of the big states and move to the smaller conservative states in order to adjust the electoral vote. Why are we living here where our vote never counts anyway? We help them get more electoral votes just by being here and then they all go to the liberals. Somehow this feels similar in practice to 'sharing the wealth'.

Regarding “When a country has an open border, it is self-destructive. This is where Rand's arguments fail.” I think that Ayn Rand would not have supported open borders without government checkpoints, or an unlimited “right” to enter a country from abroad. Ayn Rand says, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) She also says a government has “the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task.” (The Virtue of Selfishness.) She also says that “’public property’ is a collectivist fiction.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

Taken together, these statements by Ayn Rand strongly support the conclusion that no one can cross the border into an Objectivist country, unannounced and uninvited, without violating the property rights of one or more of that country’s citizens. He would be violating those rights simply by the act of crossing the border. This is a major reason why government border checkpoints would be necessary and appropriate even in a society based on Objectivist principles.

Ayn Rand never said that immigration to America (or any other specific country) is a right. She never said that everybody is entitled to immigrate, regardless of criminal history, health status (such as having an infectious disease), ability to financially support oneself (or obtain support from a sponsor), or ties to terrorists or dictators. She never said that the government has no right (and no responsibility to its citizens) to investigate the background or current status of persons wishing to immigrate. She never said that the U.S. government assumes an unchosen obligation to uphold and protect the rights of anyone who shows up here, regardless of circumstances.

Ayn Rand says, “A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens —has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government.” This statement strongly supports the conclusion that the U.S. government’s first duty is to its citizens, and protection of their rights and property takes precedence over protection of the rights of non-citizens in its territory (except for instances in which the government has specifically taken on such obligations, for example through the issuance of visas). Objectivism does not permit unchosen obligations, either by citizens or by the governments that such citizens create and maintain.

Considering everything we know about her personal history and political ideology, we can reasonably infer that Ayn Rand likely would have supported a system that would have encouraged legal immigration by anyone meeting reasonable qualifications following a thorough background check. However, she likely would not have supported a policy of wide-open borders without government checkpoints, especially since such a policy would have permitted unrestricted access to America by agents of the country from which she had escaped.

For the above reasons, I don’t agree that “Rand’s arguments fail.” I consider myself an Objectivist and have derived my conclusions from Objectivist principles and from Ayn Rand’s published writings and speeches.

If we're going to amend the Constitution, what we should do is require all states to have their electors vote in proportion to the popular vote, rather than a slight majority in the popular vote getting you ALL of that state's electors. This would dramatically reduce the effect of big states like California (which is 40% D, 31% R, 5% small parties and 24% independents by voter registration) on presidential elections.

The key to all of this is getting the great silent majority off their asses and into the polls. Their population would dwarf any open border counter weights. I have longed for an election so interesting to the voters that we have 75%+ participation. This may be the time.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article...

I am currently in Germany. Have talked with many Germans, some friends. They are welcoming for the high skilled labor and students. Only about 30% migrating in are Syrian. Everyone admits it is overload. If you are fleeing a war torn region, don't you think you would be in emergency mode too? Germany tends to grant political asylum more easily than other European countries. You do come in illegally, but that process can erase the status of illegal, once granted.

most of the Syrian refugees fleeing into Europe have strong educational backgrounds and/or higher skills. Your comment is xenophobic/collectivist

The analysis is mostly correct, with 1 exception. The proposed solution is completely wrong.

The flaw in the analysis is saying that the Electoral College vote is based, in part, on the census count of total population. The actual problem is that the apportionment of Congressman in the House is being unconstitutionally based on total population (including illegals), instead of on the total number of U.S. citizens.

The proposed solution to base the presidential vote only on the popular vote is totally wrong. Democrats have been advocating this for decades, as one of the things they want to move us away from a Constitutional Republic (based on federalism) and toward a typical Democracy.

Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College to select the President? They wanted the President to represent both the will of the states and the will of the people. In our federated Republic, the U.S. Senate represents the sovereign states, with senators originally selected by state legislatures. The U.S. House of Representatives represents the people. The Electoral College represents the sum total of senators and representatives (plus 3 more for D.C.). It has a slightly more than 80% weighting towards the people (popular vote), with the rest representing the will of the states.

Democrats have opposed federalism from the beginning and have been working tirelessly to empower Washington D.C. at the expense of the state governments. Dems prefer strong centralization of power (which produces more corruption and infringements on freedom).

I will volunteer to help pay for Jeff's legal costs.

I believe that we should have closed borders and
that gun control is being able to hit your target. -- j
.

I will ignore your last comment, which I hope you will edit out. example: there was a PA who worked on Atlas Shrugged III. HIs parents have dual citizenship with Canada. He was born in Canada.. He is contesting to become a US citizen. The hoops and the time and the money he has committed. Ask Scott-Scott-should Jeff not be allowed to be a US citizen? why the time? the hoops? the craziness? He is a productive member of US society. He works, he promotes, he wants to build a life in your country. why must he wait for years, when his folks are US citizens? but the border debaters don't want this discussion. they want a wall. I do not think you have had the privilege of coming back through that border. have you? was it pleasant? [edited to change where Jeff was born]

The problem here quite clearly is that the Democrat Party has been de facto encouraging (if not outright encouraging) illegal immigration so that they can maintain power. Have you ever seen such an active campaign for a census as happened in 2010?

Many Texas Democrats have said openly that their goal is to import enough voters to turn the state "blue". The Democrat Party is exploiting this constitutional opening to their gain.

Who is my enemy? All looters and moochers, period, regardless of where they come from, are my enemy. They outnumber me (and us). The so-called "bar" should be that no one taking a government handout should be allowed to vote.

I despise the accident of birth argument. My birth was no accident, and neither was yours. It was the celebration of life and freedom of a couple who looked forward to a great future. Were I to live in some hellhole, I would not be having such a celebration, and I would not be having children. I would have risen to be a success in any culture, by the application of my mind, even if that meant that I had to go off into seclusion to invent for myself. At this rate, I may have to do just that.

You say that you are dog tired of this debate. So am I. When a country has an open border, it is self-destructive. This is where Rand's arguments fail. Rand's statement of life is fine. If she and the rest of this forum realized that the same self-sustaining actions are also required for a nation that are required for an individual, then Objectivism would not be ultimately self-destructive.

I am ... gone.

this puts no new spin on the open borders debate. Identify the problem. Is the Constitution upheld or not? Who is your enemy? I am dog tired of this debate. You do not get the convenience of being for closed borders but no gun control. they are opposite sides of the same coin. be consistent. who is voting that is your enemy? well, ahem, women. should we remove their vote? 20somethings. should we say you can vote after you turn 30? own a house? do you "own" your house? make the bar j. set it. accident of birth.

This puts a new spin on the open borders argument. I am sure that Objectivists here will say that this is no reason to restrict the right to travel of non-citizens, and they are right. However, the Constitution needs amended to base the electoral college on the number of citizens, rather than including all residents, including "undocumented" ones. It is quite obviously a loophole in the Constitution that the founders never intended to be exploited, but today's demagogues are.