Thank you Coaldigger. THIS has always been the real problem in the contemporary immigration debate, not the immigrants, or even the legality of their entry. As is so frequently the case, government control is the fundamental cause of the problem it is trying to "solve" with more control.

As a caveat, I have to add, that the very recent epidemic of religious and racial terrorism certainly adds a new layer of complexity to the issue

"Give me your tired, poor.
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This made us great because it gave us cheap labor looking for opportunity and willing to sacrifice the present for a better future for themselves and their families. This does not work in a welfare state where we attract more moochers and those that do not contribute more than they take. It is also difficult to bar those that have elected to be our enemy as opposed to refugees from a state that coerces its people to act in a hostile manner to us. Our immigration policies are out of date and do not reflect current conditions. As long as we refuse to address the issues honestly and revise these laws to work in the best interest of the country and the immigrants we will have a problem. We have made immigration an emotional issue for political purposes without any thought of how it should work within today's conditions.

Strawman.
Nothing has changed in the past 90 years so we should just compare Rand's situation 90 years ago as if it was identical to the situation today.

Or could you call her a "refugee"? Ayn Rand was Ayn Rand, what is the point to give her or anyone else for that matter a label that evokes a stereotype for some positive or negative sentiment. The problem with immigration policy is the sheer numbers make it incredibly difficult to judge each individual based on their own merit.

Speaking the language is not the issue here...and we didn't have a problem like today back in ellis island.

No one today is qualified to properly vet anyone that wants to come here.
Why the hell would you bring billions of moochers into our country, How the hell would that be good for the economy...these are not the days of our grandfathers...what worked then Does not apply now...it's a very different world.

You didn't read the whole thing, people that have skills and a desire are good for our economy...not the creatures obobo and gang are letting in.
Enjoy your pizza and give that some thought.

Just generally incorrect all around. Sorry I'm drained today and don't have the energy to refute.
Immigration is good for an economy.
Speaking "the language" is irrelevant to whether an immigrant is "doing it right" or not.
Ellis Island didn't "vet to the max." We did just fine with those immigrants.
Do you really trust a DMV employee equivalent to vet an immigrant?

That's al I have the energy for. Off to happy hour and pizza.

One important thing about Rand...she just didn't sneak in, she made it right, spoke the language, assimilated and became a citizen.
That is something immigration officials can not detect, nor can they track, never mind have the will to do anything when they over stay their visa's.
Illegal immigrants that do not announce their presents, have no excuse and should be deported when caught. NEVER should we give them so much as a library card, never mind taxpayer services. There is no law that says everyone else in the world has the right to come here and their is nothing in our constitution that says we have to.

To the bigger question: Should we increase the numbers of immigrants in this country...the rational answer is No. It would only cause more problems at the taxpayers expense. At least in my state, there is just not enough jobs to go around.
I often wonder why anyone would want to come here as of late anyway because it's clear we about to become just as bad as the country they probably came from...maybe even worse.

As for limited immigration, Vetted to the max, sure, our country has thrived upon individuals like that, they usually become among America's staunchest defenders.

As for islam/muslims?...well they will have to grow up a bit first. They must gain a conscience and have sufficient self control, not to mention accept our laws the way they are and ask for no special treatment.
Right now, We absolutely have no ability to vet these people out. It is imperative that we get it right. The confounding factor is that they are all taught to lie in their mystical book in an effort to conquer the non believer.
So, until they can demonstrate they have reformed, gained a conscience and self control and wish to Become American...we can't let them in.
Some liberal government creatures think that mere exposure to our culture would cause spontaneous awareness and therefore ascend into a conscious human being. That is just not so. Even if it did, it would take several generations to do that provided there was no pull from the world they came from. Never mind, the fact that the political and idiot-ilogical climate in western societies do not intend to allow or to empower, that to happen.

Interesting. I did not consider questioning the validity of the source.
I would ask, however, would such actions be immoral, if they were true? If so, why?

I was told by Michael A. that Reason Magazine, and Shikha Dalmia in particular, were not credible on the subject of Ayn Rand and her immigration status when I brought this same subject up several years ago when this article first came out.

I cannot answer your call, but I will guide you to important thinkers who will boost your arguments :)