Yes, I find it more than interesting, I'd go for absolutely amazing.
Yet most of those individuals adamantly argue for a return to the original intent of the Constitution, and the express adherence to the principles of the Declaration. Then they ask, "How did our country get into such a mess?"
I think that question's been answered, at least to my satisfaction.

Why stop at smokin 'em out?

https://youtu.be/9Z0q2p8tVpM

[Yes, I do have a warped sense of humor which I doubt I'll lose after 67 years.]

Yes, amazing isn't it. And so many of those advocating for the government to initiate force against immigrants still claim to believe in the Declaration and the Constitution. The they ask, 'How did this country get into such a mess?'

Absolutely amazing!

By implication, I am a statist. Such an assertion is far from the truth, and anyone who reads what I have written knows this.

On the point of immigration, what I and others are saying is as follows. The premise that the rights of an immigrant to travel supercedes any rights that a nation has to exist or establish territorial sovereignty is flawed. If that means that I reject Objectivism, then I reject it. "Open borders" in a free nation is a foolish idea.

I am going to disagree with the Ayn Rand Lexicon in my next statement. The AR Lexicon quotes Galt's speech as follows:
"It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence." The error in this statement is that this statement also applies to nations. An open borders policy without any screening of applicants is a self-destructive process to the country. America has committed enough self-destructive actions its life has gone out of existence. All we see now are its remaining chemical elements.

Under the national rights entry of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, "It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice". The following statement is mine. Neither is it a free nation's duty to liberate other individuals at the price of self-sacrifice.

An immigrant will inevitably attempt to immigrate to a country of plenty. This is simple envy, and unlike what Christians might say, as long as this envy does not result in theft or property destruction of the person or nation being envied, this envy is actually the immigrant acting in his/her self-interest and therefore moral according to Objectivism.

The problem is that the open borders nation, if it lets in anyone regardless of motive, will attract a sufficient number of moochers that it will ultimately be destroyed, even if no welfare system is in place.

If an individual's application of the right to travel results in the destruction of the nation to which that immigrant travels, then to where will an Objectivist immigrant go? For years now, the one common lament amongst Gulchers is that there is nowhere for us to go to live Objectivist lives. Why do you think that is? If you think that America was once exceptional and worthy of being immigrated to, but no longer is, ask yourself why, and then re-read Francisco's money speech. The reasons why America was exceptional are explained there. The reason why America is no longer exceptional is because it has "50 parasites instead of one" (This is an out-of-context quote from Francisco's money speech.). By no means am I saying that any particular individual, race, ethnicity, etc. is responsible for mooching. What I am saying is that, once the concentration of moochers reaches a critical level, the society is no longer exceptional and is doomed.

I am going to pick the immigration of Chinese as an example. Those Chinese people whom I have met have been honorable and worthy of eventual US citizenship. However, if America suddenly had a flood of one billion Chinese immigrants, everyone would correctly call this an invasion. Would you expect America to be the same after that? Of course, it would not. However, according to the Objectivism that several Gulchers have discussed in the Gulch (but not what is written in The Virtue of Selfishness or in the Ayn Rand Lexicon), America would have no right to defend itself in this sort of situation. Can anyone call this reasonable?

William Thomas made an excellent point to my thread a few days ago when he pointed out that an Objectivist presidential candidate would have to prove that he/she is not a "nut job". The reason non-Objectivists do not take Objectivists seriously is the lack of reason in open borders immigration policy. I exaggerated the number of immigrants to make a point, but the philosophical principles in this situation must stay consistent regardless of the number of immigrants.

And you start by linking to the post that demonstrates Godwin's law? It does not facilitate rational discussion to vilify the people with whom you disagree.

Ayn Rand was vehemently not an anarchist. She believed that there was a role for government in protecting individual rights. She did not believe that individuals, each seeking what was best for themselves would not have their rights come into conflict and require adjudication.