I don’t see why immigration would be a major issue for an Objectivist nation. 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.

I have been somewhat perplexed by the discussions on immigration because it seemed to me obvious that the purpose of a border around a country was like the purpose of a membrane around a cell: it allowed reactions to occur within the cell that could not take place in the environment. We (ourselves and our ancestors) have invested in the infrastructure that fills the cytosol of our country: roads, power, water, starbucks. These are all things that we need in order to innovate without having to chip our computers out of flint each morning. (This 'our stuff' and no one should get to mess with it unless they are our invited guests.)

Like a cell membrane, the border is semi-permeable. It lets through those things that the cell finds to its advantage and keeps out substances that would destroy the cell, or even decrease its efficiency. Someone who is going to contribute to the cell of my country is welcome to come through the semi-permeable border - legally - and pick strawberries or invent immortality. But someone who is going to just dilute the substructures already present should be kept outside.

I will add that substances seeking to cross a membrane also respond to the concentration of their like forms within the cell. I think that we will not stop illegal immigration until we solve the problem of 'why' people come here. (It is not always for welfare...it may be just so that no one will shoot at their family for the fun of it.)

Jan

"A lesson from history is that empires that allow open borders fail, as their institutions and laws are rendered moot by those who do not respect them".
This is the illegal alien in a nut shell. How many drive without a drivers license nor insurance. They have crossed the border, that is against the law. It is against the law to murder another..who cares?
This is why crime is rising in our country. Many citizens are not obeing the laws because the illegals are getting away with not obeying the laws, so why should they!?!?
The illegals have no respect for are
American values.
How many drink and drive (Americans too)
I could go on and on.
These are all individuals who are choosing to do this. If these individuals choose to obey the law, there would not be so much animosity toward them!

Well -- finally, a well defined, rational post on immigration, sans agendas, emotion and political usage. The only problem is that those who irrationally propose open borders or variations of it, will stop reading at the first sentence that disagrees with them. However, for those who have had a problem articulating their reasoning, this is a rare gift.

The author makes a tremendous leap in context from, the Objectivist described proper role of government, of protection of rights of the individual (within a jurisdiction) by applying retaliatory force against an actual offense and bringing the offender before a court, and stopping attacks on individuals from foreign entities (outside a jurisdiction) by applying military force, then leaping to prevention of attacks by foreign entities, whether countries or individuals. But the government's abilities to act outside a jurisdiction to prevent, instead of to stop, is limited to the threat of retaliation or war against the foreign country's government or people.
---------------------------------------------------------
From the Article: "The first principles of government in a free society is that it exists to protect individual rights. Objectivists hold that the government should consist primarily of police to protect individuals from local criminals, an army to protect against foreign threats, and a court system to settle disputes. The pertinent aspect of this principle for immigration is how it relates to the government's obligation to protect individuals from foreign threats.

While individuals have inalienable rights by their nature, not as a privilege bestowed by government, it is a fact that the government which protects those rights must exist somewhere within proximity to those it represents.....

Since other countries exist outside this jurisdiction, and may or may not agree with our principles of government and may or may not be a threat, one of the functions of the government, the body of representatives that deal with issues of state, is to provide for a common defense. With respect to immigration, essentially, the problem boils down to the question: is the person a threat or not? It is important to emphasize that this question must be asked if the government is to perform its proper function. That is why there must be some immigration policy. The idea of a completely open border with nothing but a welcome sign would represent a violation of this principle. Such an "open" policy provides no means for the government to ascertain whether persons are invading or immigrating, much less whether they are known criminals or carry infectious disease."
----------------------------------------------------
In reading that excerpt from the Article, one readily sees that the author has added a function that is beyond the scope of the Objectivist described 'proper role' of government--that of preventing threats against the individuals within it's jurisdiction by and through absolving itself of it's duty of protection of individual rights at it's border.

The questions we must address as Objectivists is, "Does the proper role of government include all individuals, or does it only include individuals it recognizes by geographical permission?" And "Can the government in the interest of protection of individual rights, act with such a preference as to deny certain individual rights for certain individuals, or is it properly commanded to recognize and protect all individual rights for all individuals it encounters and interacts with?"

To paraphrase Mao, government authority is enforced at the point of a gun. Illegals are invaders, and until the cost of invasion becomes too terrible to bear, they will continue to invade. A lesson from history is that empires that allow open borders fall, as their institutions and laws are rendered moot by those who do not respect them. The path to legal immigration needs updating to reflect the changes rendered by the global economy, but the penalties for illegal immigration must become increasingly harsh, or the invasion will only get worse.

The issue of immigration has divided Objectivists. That should not be surprising. In Anthem we see why Rand left the USSR to come to America and why she was quite reasonably as pro-immigrant as she was. Yet, in Atlas Shrugged, Atlantis has some rigid restrictions not just for citizenship, but for immigration. A radar-based invisibility cloak was meant to be an impenetrable barrier to outsiders. "We have our first trespasser." - Dr. Hendricks
Didn't Ragnar refer to Dagny as a "scab"? I wouldn't call either of those responses "welcoming" to immigrants. I have tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to present a consistent immigration policy that is reasonable to both the immigrant's freedom to produce and to the citizenry's protection from looters and moochers. There is no easy answer to this question, but there are a lot of wrong answers.

I think one of the things that gets overlooked in this debate are the auspices of control and responsibility. Both are of necessity finite in scope. Borders are there to delineate where the control and responsibility of one party leave off and another begins. And one can have neither control nor responsibility without such delineation.

One of the prime factors in personal property rights is the recognition and delineation of control and responsibility: one can not maintain personal property rights without clearly marking the territory and boundaries of that control - and enforcing it. Is there a conflict with freedom and property rights? One first must define freedom, and that is the problem in this argument.

Freedom is nebulous until it is paired with its more proper context: freedom of action. Freedom of action stems from one's ability to delineate one's self, primarily, from the rest of reality. We first claim responsibility over ourselves and our physical bodies - an inherent limitation recognizable by its separation from its environment. And the body then limits the scope of our freedom to act. All action takes place within the confines of the body first. That the body may be manipulated by force of will to displace other objects in space is a basic given. Movement would not be possible without it. However, by that motion, we are declaring our intent by action to so displace other items in our environment to bend to our desires and wishes.

This is all fine and good - until we determine that we are not the only actionable being in reality. It is at this point that the ability to displace matter in our environment that then becomes the point of contention. What happens when two independent, actionable beings attempt to displace the same item in different ways? From such arises the contest of ownership. Ownership becomes the agreement between the two actionable beings that allows for the division of authority (i.e. control and responsibility) over a certain portion of the environment. The two outline the borders of the control of each first starting with their own bodies and then extending to certain delineated portions of the environment, perhaps beginning with clothing and extending to one's personal space, and extending outward from there as each party first identifies aspects of the environment which are separate from themselves and separate from other actionable beings and then becomes a matter of who is willing to claim the ability to manipulate that aspect to the exclusion of others barring consent.

Has there really been any lessening, however, in the freedom of either party to act? Not in the least. Both are still freely able to manipulate the environment. What we really have glossed over in the question is that of repercussion of action! In declaring exclusive ownership, what we have in fact done is declare that a trespass - or manipulation of environment under the declared control of another agent - is subject to punitive action in redress of the offense. If we have agreed to the concept of private property - or exclusive right to manipulate a delineated environment - we have agreed to the punishment for abrogation as well, because without punishment, there is no property at all! Thus we see that freedom is not the least bit restricted by property rights. We as agents who choose to advocate for property rights - beginning with the right to self-ownership - also choose to advocate for consequences for trespass. And these two concepts go hand in hand - they can not be separated on pain of contradiction of reality.

Where the freedom of the people is concerned it is wise to be suspicious and judicious where one wishes to enjoy those freedoms also. Regardless whether a country be free or not one must always assess the matters of immigration until the day comes that Everyone in the world has the manner to knock on your neighbors door and ask to come in, all ascending and ascribing to the same values, the same principals can we have open borders. A common language is part of this too.
We might never achieve this goal until those that divided us and confounded our language, our history, our education and health have vanquished their hold upon us since the fall of Babylon.
Mankind exhibited a penchant to cooperate with those outside the family unit, once acquainted had mutuality with one another until that fated day when the rulers of Babylon discovered these things about us, they feared that Nothing would be impossible unto us and they, the rulers, would become irrelevant and perish because they could not create value for themselves. This is the paradigm we have lived in since,
This is why our rulers or more precisely, those that rule our rulers feel the more the better; irrespective of how we communicate, how we get along and to what principles guide us.

Beautifully articulated.

Regarding Wm Shipley's statement...look at the arguments in LA about the "tiny houses". Would you like one of them in front of your home?

at some point the discussion of immigration will end without a logical conclusion because the people we the people have chosen to solve the problem will not, regardless of the input from people like us who are trying to offer some semblance of sense to the problem. Those who are employed by the government for short periods of time like the president or the congressmen will as they say in d.c. kick the can down the road for the next person or group to consider what could be an appropriate fix.

No matter where you go or what you talk about, once on the web, always on the web!!!

The author, Doug Reich, and I are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

Freedom is a moral principle that applies to all people. Crossing a border does not change this, if you are for freedom. I disagree with this article completely.