When my grandparents got to Ellis Island in 1905, no one was there to give them food stamps, or free medical care, or subsidized housing. They had to work their buns off to survive and they did. The only thing they got in America was a chance to succeed or fail based on their own efforts.

Would the illegal immigrants be here today if there were no freebies?

separate out ideal (way the world should be) and the practical.
Under ideal, if you own yourself, basis of natural rights which is the basis of this country's formation, then clearly you have a right to move about anywhere in the world, unless there is a reasonable suspicion you are guilty of infringing someone else's natural rights. Innocent until proven guilty.
Practically: Milton Friedman put it best I think: You cannot have both a welfare state and open immigration. great you tube with Friedman speaking on this subject, Rozar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
DK is absolutely right that the regressives/socialists want as many illegals to become legal so they have a larger voting base, by promising goodies, and one of those goodies is you're a citizen.

I'm a late poster with a short attention span so I don't know if this was stated. The legal immigrants that came and now come to this country have to have a skill and a job waiting for them. Back in the early 1900's; it's just fill the needful work force. Now under the libs, they're just pawns and for their vote [PERIOD].

From Rand "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

So if we have unrestricted immigration what mechanisms do we have to ensure that those that wind up in government don't swing to the socialist, communist, or fascist side of the equation or begin to pander to folks with those ideals? Can we assume that folks would come here pro-individualists, laissez-faire capitalists? Heck we struggle with our own countrymen in this regard.

So while I understand your stance of "where ever I may roam", so long as there is a government with the ability and province to use force, and yes there should be a government for the reasons Rand advocated, there needs to be immigration controls.

Lots of other good points here to by the way, but imho, the one that stands out is the use of force, and the need to ensure that rational men, who respect individual rights are its caretakers.

Due to our immigration policies ... or, lack thereof ... we're seeing new diseases and a reoccurrence of diseases that were previously eradicated in this country.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2...

It seems to me, that limiting and/or screening the people who enter this country is prudent, wise, and moral.

analog is good.
Remember those boots. They're not made for the pool...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=end......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PinBVYKQG...

No. I don’t agree with you. Look at the EU. Many people in England would love to get out of the union.Open borders have crushed them. Open borders is a Soros-sponsored folly that will lead to more centralized power and maybe even a global government-ruling body. I personally don’t want to live in Maryland and have some one in Columbia dictate to me what I can and can not do in my own backyard. THAT goes against nature. Sovereignty is just a civilized word to define humanity’s need to mark territory.

I'll take a stab at this. First, what is an immigrant. If it is one who moves from one area to another then everyone in the Americas is an immigrant, some across a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and others by ships across the Atlantic much later.

Now, is ownership of an area defined as being the first there or being the one who can control that area? While common courtesy would dictate first there owns it, history says it is whoever can control it and there is no such thing as common courtesy. When you own something, you get to make the rules provided you can enforce the rules you make. If you can't enforce your rules, then someone else is making the rules and they must own it.

You mention how a moral government can deny you the ability to act in your own interests. But what is morality? Morality is determined by consensus of a group. I'm sure the Nazis believed they were moral while most of the rest of the world did not. And how was the issue settled? The physically stronger triumphed.

So there can be no moral government. There are governments you agree with and ones you do not. Why can a government deny you the ability to act? Because it is stronger and can force you. Think of it this way, what is the difference in a rebellion and a revolution? Is one moral and the other not? No, you simply win a revolution and lose a rebellion and morality plays no part whether you win or lose.

Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

The problem is not immigration; it's welfare. We are entitled to it, along with city streets and all the rest.

I was shocked to read this from khalling; "Our policies on affirmative action make it advantageous for immigrants to get high paying government jobs, scholarships to schools, hiring, etc. all of this at the cost of white Americans. When they cross the border they are eligible within 90 days for govt assistance. no wonder people are xenophobic.
Now whites are emigrating to economically freer countries for opportunities and lower costs of living."

It was not just her racist claims, but the fact that no one called her on them. What would Ayn Rand say?

The complaints that "they" do not know "our" cultural traditions or political heritage was leveled against the -Irish- by Americans who were English. Progressives of the late 19th century were aghast that Italians were flooding in. No one here seems to mind now. (Or maybe you do.)

When my grandparents came here... is a good opening line. I do point out though that very few people actually showed up with NO resources. Most people moved into ethnic communities from which they were assimilated in the next generation. Sixty years later, we still read a local Hungarian language newspaper. But, also, one time, my uncle came over to watch football and Grandma asked us in Hungarian if we wanted something to eat and my uncle said, "Jesus Christ, Mom! You've been in America 50 years. Speak English." So, I get the complaints about immigrants being slow to assimilate, but that is part of the process. We all spoke English, but our parents spoke something else. I learned to call my friend John on the phone and speak enough Ukrainian to his mother to get through. It's a process.

it is easy to cite vague claims from conservative think tanks. How many of you actually work with illegals? I do. I have been a security guard since 2002. I have never seen an Anglo come to clean the washrooms. Most of them have two such jobs because none is an eight-hour gig. They clean a motel in the days and an office at night. They bust their humps. That's what I see first hand.

I also saw three generations of Indian women in Target the other day. Grandma and Mom were all sindoored up and in saris. The teenager would be indistinguishable from her classmates in school. It is a process.

The xenophobes here are just freaked out over the latest wave of new people.

One time in German class we read this story set in some mythical ancient time and place and this honest hardworking city guy was crying because the town had been invaded by barbarians and the emperor did nothing. Actually, they were just subjects from the frontier...

I now live in Texas. When I lived in New Mexico, I learned to think of this as the Spanish Borderlands Frontier: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/spanish-...

To: larryklutz55

I couldn't agree more! I singled out immigrants in response to the original post "A moral argument for freedom of immigration" The twin killers of America are Altruism and Collectivism. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Food Stamps have made takers of the majority of us and we are witnessing the end of Individual Rights here and around the Earth.

And this is indeed the Objectivist position. In the free, unregulated society the only function of government would be protection of the individual rights. So criminals, and all those who openly advocate the use of force against others should be prevented to immigrate. The task of Objectivist government would be to identify these people during the immigration process which by no means should be automatic. So completely free immigration, that is- an uncontrolled movement of the people from one country to another would be unobtainable even in the free society. Imagine what would happen if 60 million Muslims will immigrate to Galt's gulch-like country, Even in Galt's gulch were certain condition of admission. Dagny Taggart for example wasn't qualified and had been escorted out blindfolded. Moreover, the free society is a precondition even for this relatively free immigration policy. In the present semi-free welfare state free immigration means an influx of herds of parasites, looking for the free government hands outs and additional burden on producers. Illegal immigrants are the people who knowingly and deliberately infringed the laws of the host country. They have no respect for society in which they want to integrate. Therefore to grant them an amnesty and citizenship would be a contradiction in terms.

There can be no such thing as a moral government. Government equals force. Your question is idealistic, sort of "in a perfect world",how would this work? Immigration policy exists but it is not being administered adequately. Without addressing what exists and possible remediations, it seems pointless to explore immigration philosophically.

Good info...another 'thank you'.

Have you two actually published a novel? If so, I would like to read it....

Americans are concerned about illegal immigrants on social assistance. This is the biggest attack today's conservatives make on free immigration. However, if we are truly worried about social benefit spending, then we should be fighting the welfare state, not an individual's right to live where he wishes. Closed immigration also demands that employers give up their rights to employ whom they wish to employ.

deflationary depression: if there were no legal tender laws, there could not be deflationary depression, ever. many things can and have acted as money thru-out history and at the same time. the question should be: why do we have to have legal tender laws? It is no more correct for govts to demand gold as money than paper

Non criminals are welcome, but please become Americans and do not try and turn this country into the one you left.