When a guest comes uninvited, the burden of proof that they are going to do no harm is on the guest. The "right to travel freely" is a presumption whose premises should be checked.

sounds good to me. I hire mostly "illegal aliens" because they work better than the entitled americans. Makes us both criminals currently.

I meant that workers coming from Mexico should be able to easily get a work permit allowing them entry. Not sure why we force someone who is working here to sneak in. Once documented the visa could be cancelled if laws are broken.

True. Many of them have very little in terms of a "digital trail". to follow.

I disagree that we should deny work permits because american jobs would be filled by immigrants. This only perpetuates inefficiency and lets american workers slack off. If american workers charge more than other workers, we need to up our game.

Damn, very good.

The problem with vetting refugees seems to be that the countries that people flee from dont have the systems in place to know who the people are and what they have done or havent done. Forget syrian refugees completely in my opinion.

there is a purpose behind having a border- protection from people who would violate our rights. In vegas, we have gated communities with access restrictions for that reason. Canada and Australia have much tougher immigration and visitation restrictions than the USA does. Try to visit Canada if you have had a DUI in the last 5 years (I think it might also extend to 10 years depending...). I could forget establishing residency in Canada even though I would be a very productive and law abiding citizen. And working in Canada- pretty much forget that !

I have a wall around my house, and wouldnt think of letting in "immigrants" such as syrian refugees ! I might however consider letting in "immigrants" who offered something of value in return. Its just common sense I think.

I agree. immigrants should respect our culture and bring something of value. its not difficult. Try to get into canada or australia ("border security" on netflix). We have just been stupid in terms of enforcing immigration standards.

the problem is not difficult.
from 1850 till say ww2 the people who arrived on the shores of the usa brought with them skills, knowledge etc and if you look around you see what they did.
those who want to come to the usa today bring nothing of value! I know that here and there is a perso with promise of great accomplishment but so what. most who want in are let in for political reasons developed by OUR politicians, so OUR peoliticians can garner votes. in addition we do not have enough opportunity for employment for born citizens so we really do not need more people who will ONLY be put on the backs of those who do work and pay taxes. in objectivism we should have open borders but it would be done at OUR peril.

Good points. Dennis Miller once said "We don't mind if you come in, we just want you to sign the guest book on your way in".

If we recognize that the very first border of any consequence is the border of our own bodies, do we not consider violation of it to be a cardinal offense? Absolutely. There is a delineation point between one object and the next which must be identified and respected because those lines indicate zones of control aka property rights. If we first acknowledge that we have the right to own ourselves, we make the claim that we have primary rights over the substance in our persons. That right is sacrosanct because all other rights flow from it. So too with a nation's borders: those who are citizens have the penultimate control over who is allowed entry into this nation and for what reason. Thus control of a nation's borders is no different than control of one's own skin.

Now can one argue that because there are multiple claims of ownership upon a nation's borders that control is shared? Absolutely, which is why representative government then is delegated the power over such matters - so that a single body can set policy as agents for the rest. But the argument that since border control is shared that it means that there can be no control is simply belied by the reality of borders in the first place. To argue for open borders is to deny the rights of ownership and control derived from citizenship.

Thanks OA.

"In late 1925 she obtained permission to leave Soviet Russia for a visit to relatives in the United States. Although she told Soviet authorities that her visit would be short, she was determined never to return to Russia. She arrived in New York City in February 1926. She spent the next six months with her relatives in Chicago, obtained an extension to her visa, and then left for Hollywood to pursue a career as a screenwriter.

On Ayn Rand’s second day in Hollywood, Cecil B. DeMille saw her standing at the gate of his studio, offered her a ride to the set of his movie The King of Kings, and gave her a job, first as an extra, then as a script reader. During the next week at the studio, she met an actor, Frank O’Connor, whom she married in 1929; they were married until his death fifty years later." http://aynrandlexicon.com/about-ayn-r...

I'm not sure why we can't have a simple work permit program so the workers come in legally. This would greatly reduce the number of people we need to vet.

Rand, herself, came here illegally I believe. It's a tough issue that needs to be debated.

Excellent question. It is a much different world today and we need to figure out how to deal with current threats. I can see vetting getting out of hand so we need to be vigilant.

This argument presumes that terrorism has a head. Terrorism is more like a hydra. And, although the analogy has its limitations, terrorists operate under the morality of Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi from the original Star Wars: "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

I said much the same thing about a year ago, and was shot down by several prominent Gulchers.

I believe Ayn Rand said protection of borders was a legitimate function of government.

What is the justification for the border wall? That it keeps out illegal immigrants who cost the American taxpayer or job seeker. Or, that it keeps out terror cells.

The first part appears egoist.. but is it? Do highly regulated passages between the United States and Mexico yield a net positive income?

cost of wall + cost of international enforcement - cost of social services - cost of national enforcement = net income

net income + net tariff income = net resultant income

I am not sure anyone can plug in those numbers with exceptional accuracy, but perhaps it would be fun to guess.

So let's address the terror cells. This is not the main issue. The USA is not a closed system, and will never be a closed system. To eliminate terrorism, you have to cut the head of the snake. This means ruining those nations that support terror financially and ideologically.

A border wall is not anti-Objectivist, nor are other reasonable limitations on or
certain requirements placed upon people coming and going across the border.
One of the federal government’s primary responsibilities is protecting citizens
from threats beyond our borders. Threats are not limited to military incursions.
How could the federal government fulfill that obligation yet not be allowed to
limit who crosses the border?

I am "enjoying" the responsibility this week and will post about it after my service ends.

Not many would prove themselves. We are becoming less independent and more reliant on Government every year.