Good post, Scott!

When you say..."That said, alot of my clients are recent immigrants, and the vast majority of them are hard working people. But they still are not culturally American, and they never will be unless we require them to be. Why did the Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Polish, English, become American? Because we enforced policies which required learning English, we taught good government and civics in school, so our future citizens would understand the importance of the Constitution..."

This is what I was meaning when I said "it all comes out in the wash"...(although I disagree anyone should be 'required' to be American or anything else, because I always disagree with any compulsion)...but yes, point taken.

I still take an optimistic view of the future...that, generally speaking, New Zealand or America or wherever will not implode with immigration, but that immigrants will end up as useful chaps within their new Country.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.

While on the J.D. Hayworth show, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said that the men involved were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations.

The Monday morning incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.

Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.

http://kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695&article=3875223

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Case and Claim Report and CD

Illegal immigration is bankrupting Hospitals because policy is to turn no one away. Illegals are coming here for the sole purpose of seeing our doctors for free, then turn around and go right back to Mexico. Or,

Illegal immigrants come to California, and, because of statism and liberal policies, free education to every child is provided. Free meals are provided, welfare benefits are provided, all manner of benefits are conferred on the illegal immigrants who do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Illegal immigrants account for alot of crime--violent crime, as well as a plague of drunk driving, especially in the American southwest. Criminals are often never caught, because, unlike citizens and LEGAL immigrants, there is no way to track them, no way to find them. We do not even deport multiple convicted illegals and many police are prohibited from even inquiring as to the accused's status.

I have had clients injured by illegal Latino drivers. The drivers flee the jurisdiction and instead of coming here as Juan Carlos, they return in a year as Juan Pedro and nothing can be done. I have a client who was SHOT IN THE BACK as he played pool at a local tavern. The drunk asshole got drunk, got into a fight, went to his car, got a gun, and emptied the gun into the side of the tavern, through a window, killing and crippling people at random . He was a well-known gang member from Mexico City, which is where he fled.

These people come from cultures which revere strength and guile, not fairness and justice. Gangs are an epidemic in Mexico and Latin America, as are drug cartels. All of their authority figures are irredeemably corrupt, so they have no respect for rules, laws, or authority, except to the extent that it might bite them in the ass. We do not have a RACIAL OR ETHNIC problem. The soil they were born on or the color os their skin is not an issue at all. I wish I had a darker skin tone for aesthetic reasons. It is a CULTURAL problem, and our American culture has been weakened by our education system and by being populated by people who hate America and see Cuba as a role model for the future of AAmerica--poverty and dictatorship.

I am not going to list the hundreds of web sites documenting the above. It is an easy Google search. MichaelSavage.com often summarizes news stories about the above, from other sources, with links. Mine are conclusions, yours sound like repeated dogma.

That said, alot of my clients are recent immigrants, and the vast majority of them are hard working people. But they still are not culturally American, and they never will be unless we require them to be. Why did the Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Polish, English, become American? Because we enforced policies which required learning English, we taught good government and civics in school, so our future citizens would understand the importance of the Constitution. Stuff that is not being taught now. Kids are now taught more about America's mistakes than its greatness and the reasons for that. And its a shame, because as Napoleon the pig (Animal Farm, Orwell) would say, he who controls the youth, controls the future. Ideologically, most kids are primed for a Socialist dictatorship. And with the influx of people who also believe that, but just want a good job, it is not hard to figure out where this is headed.

The numbers alone are a problem--any culture can handle only so many immigrants without being replaced. Some estimates put the number of illegal Latino immigrants at 30 million now, rather than the estimated 20 million of a year or two ago. Ellis Island in New York only EVER, in the entire time it was the gateway for new immigrants, processed 12 million. Yet we have 30 million illegal immigrants here, more coming every day, and demonstrated problems as a result.

Now, I agree, some of this problem is internal ideological and policy problems in this country. But how can you say that this illegal immigration is an unmitigated positive?

Thanks to this immigration, in your 2 generations, my beloved lady could be dead, and a jackbooted Socialist dictatorship with a ruined economy could stand in her stead, in part thanks to unregulated, open door immigration.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Case and Claim Report and CD

Scott, can you point out the 'evidence' of which you speak? ..can you point out which country has been left worse off by immigration? ...can you point out how, say, 1 million people moving to a country and requiring goods and services to consume (and the resulting economic activity) leaves a country worse off?

I am inclined to think it is not I who is engaging in 'unsupported supposition'

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"There has been enormous population movements all over the World in recent years, it is nothing to be afraid of and always of great benefit to the Country when new people arrive."

Unsupported supposition and ignores evidence on this very thread to the contrary.

Many immigrants I have met are very nice people.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Case and Claim Report and CD

I take a "it all comes out in the wash" attitude to immigration.

I believe a country should allow all manner of chaps to enter and make the best of it; and most economic migrants tend to be hungry for success; and these new chums do tend to add a bit of colour.

There has been enormous population movements all over the World in recent years, it is nothing to be afraid of and always of great benefit to the Country when new people arrive.

I always find it amusing America has no plans to build a fence along the border with Canada and the people least likely to support a 'Canadian Fence' are usually the chaps who are always most likely to claim they have no problem with hispanics...(so long as [we] lock them out, of course)

But, yes, my original point stands that after a generation or two it all comes out in the wash.

Elitism, forever!

"Did I say I support "no government screening"?"

No, but you did indicate that you'd support legitimizing the 20 million unscreened illegals already here on a fast track, which I presumed meant  letting it go. Maybe where we disagree here is that I think illegals already here should be identified, screened, and be put out if that is what is required, not just identified and registered.  I think there is good argument for identifying them all and putting them all out, and making them come back under a new, more rational system.  We could tax those who stay with the costs of administering it and getting rid of the people who do not meet the criteria.  It would be cumbersome and expensive, but likely no more so than what legal immigrants have had to put up with up til now.

"The only collective discrimination that would be justified is in emergency situations like war. I also don't believe in expending resources to contain every possible threat. There is a trade off that needs to be made between effectiveness and over the top, iron clad security. Yes, there will end up being criminals among these 20,000,000 people who wouldn't get screened out and I can live with it."

This is where it gets prickly between us, but no sense in beating a dead horse. 

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

...is that I am not a bigot or xenophobe at all.  It is simply not politically correct to point out distinctions between immigrants and ~illegal~ immigrants; not poltically correct to note that we are talking about 20 million illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin, not just a few (Ellis Island processed around 12 million, total, ever); not politically correct to note studies or anecdotal evidence which shows many of these folks are indeed felons, ill, or otherwise unsavory immigrant candidates; or that people who have been indoctrinated into Islam or some flavor of Socialism are not DeSalvo-Dream date immigration candidates; or that many of them come from populations which are open and honest about their utter contempt and hatred of America, Americans, etc., and that while such cultural beliefs may or may not be held by a particular illegal immigrant, the fact that they sneak into the US and forge false identities in mass numbers (using false SS#'s and dates of birth to ensure that they receive welfare benefits) I believe is some indicator of the respect the immigrant has for the US, and when coupled with the anti-Americanism of, say, the Democratic party, does not bode well for us becoming one big, happy family.

All of this takes some thought, and by golly, everyone is so afraid of being called a bigot or racist in America, you can usually shut someone up by accusing them of  racism. 

On my father's side, I am 2nd generation American. 

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"Let me ask you: if it is moral to ignore flawed laws, why do you pay taxes? And what happens to the social contract if we all decide which laws are flawed, and just break whatever laws we find to be flawed? You might be an anarchist, which would explain why you evidently might be supporting no government screening of immigrants."

Did I say I support "no government screening"? I want a quick orderly process that allows people to sign up and register their identities so that they can move toward a process which would give them permanent residency if this is what they want. What I have been arguing against is a government controlled immigration system based upon quotas or collective discrimination. The only collective discrimination that would be justified is in emergency situations like war. I also don't believe in expending resources to contain every possible threat. There is a trade off that needs to be made between effectiveness and over the top, iron clad security. Yes, there will end up being criminals among these 20,000,000 people who wouldn't get screened out and I can live with it.

I am certainly not an anarchist. I just don't recognize the moral importance of laws as such based upon any pre-decided social contract. I decide what is right and wrong based upon principles and upon my own thinking. I pay taxes and follow other silly laws not because of any respect for the law or because I believe in the right of the majority of people to tell me what to do but instead because it is in my interest to do so. There is no better place for me to go, and I am pretty happy here in the mean time. If I can break an immoral law and get away with it (hiring 'illegals' to mow my lawns or paint my house) I'll happily do it.

- Jason

(I do apologize about the multiculturalism comment. I thought that I saw it in one of the posts in this thread yesterday relating to the "other side of the argument". I just read through the thread and could not find it.)

Jason said: "Your main hang up of course is a Xenophobia"

In other words, the threat Scott sees doesn't exist, and worse, it's just a fabrication in order to rationalise his bigotry. I just don't understand why the "xenophobe" and "bigot" charge, keeps popping up all the time. How can Scott be a xenophobe if he is happy for foreigners of all sizes, shapes and colours, to emmigrate to his country? Jason, in the face of that, does "xenophobe" honestly ring true to you? I'm sick of seeing this obvious mischaracterisation popping up all the time. It has nothing to with debate, and more to do with belittling and shutting down debate. It is a club against honest argument as opposed to argument.

I think it is exactly what I have said it is--concern that even fellows like you seem to concede that a controlled border is necessary to sceen out the 'bad guys'--but you have no problem with the 20 million illegals in this country who (1) are here illegally, even though you want to give them a pass (most do not); and (2) have been demonstrated to include actual terrrorists (note: see, not Hispanic), actual felons, actual drug runners, and those who continue more serious crimes once in the US illegally. 

Yet oddly, you want these unscreened and proven-to-contain-undesirables group tog et the fast track to permanent residence?  And you do not see a problem or contradiction?

Let me ask you:  if it is moral to ignore flawed laws, why do you pay taxes?  And what happens to the social contract if we all decide which laws are flawed, and just break whatever laws we find to be flawed?  You might be an anarchist, which would explain why you evidently might be supporting no government screening of immigrants.

And to be clear, I called you a multiculturalist in a particular context, and at the time, it was fitting.  Now, you're being illogical and contradictory, but not necessarily a multiculturalist.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"So, what do we do with the completely unscreened, 20 million people in this country now? And why on earth would we reward them with an easy path to citizenship?"

No, they should be given an easy path to permanent residency, not citizenship. You have this hang up about the fact that what they have done by entering the country is "illegal", and thus proves that they are dishonest outlaws. That opinion has been dealt with elsewhere on this thread. There is nothing unethical about breaking a flawed law. Your main hang up of course is a Xenophobia about the "threat" of Spanish speaking populations and some kind of cultural dilution that theoretically would take place as a result.

I should also deal with your absurd charges of "multiculturalism". If you actually knew what that term really means you would realize that the argument I make could never have been made by a multiculturalist.

From the multiculturalist perspective, each culture's immigration policy would be considered equally valid and ethical from that culture's point of view. Any objective argument relating to "proper immigration policy" would be the result of "ethnocentrism" according to a multiculturalist. I am making the exact opposite argument in favor of general principles relating to immigration regardless of country or culture.

- Jason

Just a secure border and enforcement of rational laws.   Right now, we have neither.

There are those who see nothing wrong with providing a direct path to citizenship to those who are in the US illegally, which is a huge problem.  There are those who see any government intervention in the immigration process as a violation of their rights.  I'm not going to name names. 

If one concedes that it is essential to keep out the bad guys, that presumes a secure border, and rejecting those undesirables.  So, what do we do with the completely unscreened, 20 million people in this country now?  And why on earth would we reward them with an easy path to citizenship?  Doesn't this, in fact, punish people like Kenny who is educated and otherwise desirable to be here to earn a living or do whatever?

It is a policy which promotes and rewards law breaking, and legitimizes conduct which does in fact endanger citizens--by exposing them to disease, violent criminals, and some terrorists. 

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Well on ~almost~ everything.

"President Bush, to his credit has a decent stand on immigration in relation to the rest of the conservatives."

Like amnesty for those 'bag guys' who have already sneaked into the country, the group from which terrorists, drunk drivers and murderers have come from, the likely 'bad guys'?

I suspect that if you comare the crime rate of illegal immgirants with those who have gone through legal channels, as tortured as they are, you'd see a huge disparity.

I am at the front of the line to criticize the current system of immigration and its non-enforcement, which are distinct but related problems.  Both need a fix.

Students are hassled, but a bunch of Saudis with fake paperwork stay years past their official welcome (and we get 9/11).  Big problems.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I wasn't referring to the folks on this site, but to the Tancredos in Congress, etc.

There should be no numeric limits to immigration. This is precisely the issue being evaded by the anti-immigration crowd.

I don't see any anti-immigration crowd here. It would be more correct to say anti-carte blanche crowd. However, having read the thread, I see little point of difference between both sides. Everyone seems to agree with this (?):

I think "open" in the sense of excluding only the diseased, the crims, the terrorists and the intending bludgers is profoundly moral.

So the question becomes, who fits those categories, and why? That seems to be where opinions diverge and tempers can fray. Then again, perhaps some here favour a carte blanche approach?

Scott: I don't have anything to add at this time. Lindsay has clarified what open immigration means - that is definitely what I had in mind. James Valliant in this article has more arguments and says better, what I was trying to get at when I said there are already laws to deal with terrorists. I am not being defeatist. It is the job of the government to track/capture/stop terrorists/criminals both at the border and inside - and in both cases the government has to commit the resources to do the needed detective/intelligence work, etc. to get them (no one is going to admit to being a criminal at the port of entry); adding more laws that make the definition of criminal/terrorist more fuzzy will not help.


Suma

"Do what thy manhood bids thee do, from none but self expect applause..." Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

I had forgotten about this Binswanger article but it is really the classic on this subject. I also remember a good SOLO article from James V. making the point (which he makes again above) that if there is an orderly process for bringing new immigrants in, those who try to sneak in will be the obvious bad guys, because the average new immigrant has nothing to hide would would gladly go through the (hopefully simple) process so the "illegal immigrant" under these circumstances is also the likely terrorist, criminal, etc. I'll try to find it and link it here.

One of the things that irritates me in the university environment is witnessing the restrictions that the large numbers of kids on student (F1) visas go through. It is amazing how hard the U.S. government makes it for talented engineering and computer science types from places like Korea or India to stay here during school(because they can't work outside of a college campus) and then to stay in the country following graduation because of idiotic quotas on the number of work visas. All of these people should be on the fast track to permanent residency once they receive an American college degree at a bare minimum. This current system is absurd.

President Bush, to his credit has a decent stand on immigration in relation to the rest of the conservatives.

- Jason

EDIT: The James V. article is linked on the Peter Cresswell post on the same subject.

This is a good discussion. I agree with Lindsay's summary although I am leaning towards severe restriction of Muslims for the near future and this only because I know the West will not do militarily what it needs to; ie obliterate hostile Islamic countries. I don't want to see America suffer through what Europe is suffering through with its muslim population or what Australia is suffering through with its muslim (mainly Lebonese) population.

But I see the Conservative obsession with immigration as a very bad thing for the following reasons:

* There are strong anti-capitalist tones to the conservative approach to the subject; "stealing our jobs", "punish companies that hire illegals", "Bush and American is caving in to the pro-immigration corporate media", etc etc. The animous is being directed at capitalism as evidenced by the constant use of the term "corporate".

* Typical of conservatives, none of them are attacking the root of the problem which is the welfare state or more broadly: socialism. If conservatives spent as much time attacking socialism as they do Mexican immigrants, we would be living in Atlantis.

* There is a racist element to this as well. I do get a sense that some conservatives (not all by any stretch) are opposed to the influx of non-whites into the country. This leads to my next point which I see as a real danger...

* The anti-immigration stance of the Right seems to be a sign of a rising nationalistic collectivism. Add to that Christianity and you have a rising nationalistic-Christian influenced collectivism on the Right which is just as dangerous as the multiculturist-socialist collectivism of the Left. Between both of them, I don't see how the US can not end up in fascism.

I have no solutions to even offer for what the immigration policies of a mixed-economy welfare-state in a time of war should be. But I too wish it were easier for people like Kenny to become Americans (even if he does have stong libertarian tendencies).

Proud Member Of The "Bomb-Them-Into-Oblivion" School Of Foreign Policy

There should be no numeric limits to immigration.

This is precisely the issue being evaded by the anti-immigration crowd. The only kinds of limits that any government should ever be able to place on immigration are those adumbrated by Linz. Everyone EXCEPT criminals, terrorists, and those with infectious diseases should be allowed into the U.S. as a matter of right. This means that the VAST majority of those who want in -- right now -- should be let in -- right now. If it weren't for federal welfare benefits, there would be no need even to "phase" this in, but even as it stands, immigrants do not qualify for such benefits until a period of years has elapsed (depending on the benefit). Extend this period if you like -- but LET THEM IN! Immigrants themselves should, of course, be required to pay the government's cost of adminstering the borders -- not the taxpayer. This should not be a FINE or more than the actual costs.

We would be FAR more effective at preventing the entry of terrorists if we concentrated our efforts on these terrorists -- and if we let everyone seeking work in the U.S. to come on in!

Immigration has helped make the U.S. what is today.

Let's not stop this wonderful process.

...discussion on an issue clarifies matters.

By open, I meant the idea that an individual's rights qua man meant he should have unbridled, free access without government intervention, screening or right of refusal, as is advocated by some, and the idea that presence entitles an immigrant to citizenship, as evidently advocated by the Amnesty supporters in Washington.

I don't bear Kenny any long-term ill-will.  He called me a racist with no basis, and I essentially told him I'd like to punch him in the nose.  Now he wants to fight on pay per view or something.  I like to wake people up when they say something they clearly never would face to face.  His posting of Biswanger sort of made up for it, though, because it is an interesting article.  Don't know if Mr. Biswanger would appreciate it's reposting here in toto.

From what I understand, there are yearly per country limits on immigration to the US, which do not seem particularly rational to me.  On the other hand, if you are serious about implementing a system, there has to be a cap, logistically speaking, and it costs me money for each immigrant who wants in, so I can't think of a better reason for limiting it (it costs my tax dollars).

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I think "open" in the sense of excluding only the diseased, the crims, the terrorists and the intending bludgers is profoundly moral. I can't think of anyone who by "open" means carte blanche for absolutely anyone at all, though I suppose there might be anarcho types who say that. Note too that Binswanger talks of "phasing in" open immigration, not an overnight transition.

Linz

No need for the aggro between you and Kenny (yes, he started it). You're both good guys. And this is a good debate topic.

I think that some of his premises and conclusions are incorrect.  But if you look closely at what Biswanger writes, we actually agree on some of this.

First, Biswanger notes that criminals, the diseased, and terrorists are not welcome.  This pre-supposes securing the borders and processing resident aliens.  Identifying them, examining them, quarantining the sick, and refusing some.  Even this would be orders of magnitude better than what we have now, where more than 20 million illegal immigrants, with no scrrening and whose identities are unknown and in most cases fabricated with fake Social Securtiy numbers, names and dates of birth.  Many are determined to be carrying tuberculoisis and other first-world-eliminated diseases, and many others are found to have extensive criminal records after committing a drunk driving killing, a rape or murder here.  Please also note that Mr. Biswanger specifically excludes automatic citizenship for these folks, and so would presumably be against the current bullshit Amnesty legislation being proposed (which 3/4 of Americans oppose).

Note that this screening alone would mean that de facto quotas would be in palce--only so much paperwork and inspections and investiagations can be done in any given period of time by a fixed number of staff.

I have already said that human rights are HUMAN rights.  Ensuring their enforcement is another matter.  I am not in favor of infringing or denying anyone's human rights.

Screened legal residents, or other legal immigrants are not the issue at all. 

"Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work"

I think Mr. Biswanger is naive in his assessment of the types of people who have already broken American laws by coming here illegally and forged fradullent identities.

"Immigrants recognize the value of freedom--that's why they seek to come here."

Not always true, especially not with, for example, the Fort Dix illegals, and many, many Hispanic illegals who have and profess no love for the US.  It is a romantic, but inaccurate, characterization.

"They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to "protect" themselves from the peaceful competition of others."

This is an unsupported conclusion, but the Founding Fathers did intend for us to secure our borders and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of libberty for ourselves and our posterity.  And anyway, it would appear that Mr. Biswanger and I agree that a system which is enforced is infinitely preferably to the travesty we have now.

I have no objection to the idea that immigrants often do work cheaper and better than Americans, who have become accustomed to a higher standard of living.  That's been the case since forever.

Biswanger writes: "A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden."

And here we agree.  But Biswanger's qualifier about illegals who are unemployed not being eligible for welfare is misguided for two immediately apparrent reasons.  First, illegals forging false identities with falsified names and Socails Security numbers is epidemic.  So the legislation is feckless with regard to the legions of individuals who are working under a false identity.  Further, as an example, it is well-documented that County hospitals in the American Southwest are going broke--because no one at an Emergency Room or free clinic is turned away. 

I do not know of anyone who claims that America is overcrowded.

"Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children...The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues"

Legal immigrants CAN be all of those laudable things.  Illegal immigrants are also law breakers, carriers of disease, multiple felons, identity-falsifiers, murderers, rapists, drug-runners and terrorists.  We can cut down on these things with logical policies which attract the best and brightest, and that includes Kenny, even though he insulted me without just cause. 

But having half-assed policies, laws which we purposely do not enforce, have the retarded effect of keeping out good, productive people, and de facto allowing in people who do not mind breaking the law of their new country,  which surely must be some indicator of their respect for the law in general.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

but not with trolls like Kenny, who hit a button with me by calling me racist.

I jaywalk on occasion, so I understand that no one obeys every law completely.  I think we place different emphasis on the importance on sensical immigrations laws, and their enforcement.  There is an argument to be made that you or your employees are much safer ignoring our completely-unenforced immigration laws than I am in flouting a jaywalking ordinance--after all, I am much more likely to be given a ticket sanction, because an occasional cop will enforce a jaywalking law.

You have every right to your opinion and you conduct yourself like a gentleman for the most part.  I lose my temper much more easily.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Since 1994, Harry Binswanger has been Professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute. This excellent article is from Capitalism Magazine dated April 2 2006. It demonstrates that true Objectivists support open immigration.

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration

by Harry Binswanger (April 2, 2006)

This is a defense of phasing-in open immigration into the United States. Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).

An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.

One doesn't have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted "to secure these rights"--to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.

A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery.

Seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act. It coerces no one and violates no one's rights (there is no "right" to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market).

It is not a criminal act to buy or rent a home here in which to reside. Paying for housing is not a coercive act--whether the buyer is an American or a foreigner. No one's rights are violated when a Mexican, or Canadian, or Senegalese rents an apartment from an American owner and moves into the housing he is paying for. And what about the rights of those American citizens who want to sell or rent their property to the highest bidders? Or the American businesses that want to hire the lowest cost workers? It is morally indefensible for our government to violate their right to do so, just because the person is a foreigner.

Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work, raising our standard of living. To forcibly exclude those who seek peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties to such a trade: the rights of the American seller or employer and the rights of the foreign buyer or employee.

Thus, immigration quotas treat both Americans and foreigners as if they were criminals, as if the peaceful exchange of values to mutual benefit were an act of destruction.

To take an actual example, if I want to invite my Norwegian friend Klaus to live in my home, either as a guest or as a paying tenant, what right does our government have to stop Klaus and me? To be a Norwegian is not to be a criminal. And if some American business wants to hire Klaus, what right does our government have to interfere?

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

Our constitutional republic respects minority rights. 60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%. Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property. Nor can a majority dictate on whom private employers spend their money. Not morally, not in a free society. In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.

The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.

Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.

But what about the millions of Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Canadians, etc. seeking entry who are not criminal and not bearing infectious diseases? By what moral principle can they be excluded? Not on the grounds of majority vote, not on the grounds of protecting any American's rights, not on the grounds of any legitimate authority of the state.

THE MORAL AND THE PRACTICAL

That's the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: "Is it practical? Wouldn't unlimited immigration--even if phased in over a decade--be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?"

This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival. Questions of what is practical, what is to one's self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one's interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one's nature as a human being.

Yet that is the meaning of the moral-practical dichotomy. When one claims, "It is immoral but practical," one is maintaining, "It cripples my nature as a human being, but it is beneficial to me"--which is a contradiction.

Rights, in particular, are not something pulled from the sky or decreed by societal whim. Rights are moral principles, established by reference to the needs inherent in man's nature qua man. "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." (Ayn Rand)

Every organism has a basic means of survival; for man, that means is: reason. Man is the rational animal, homo sapiens. Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish. Since the reasoning mind cannot function under physical coercion, the basic social requirement of man's survival is: freedom. Rights prescribe freedom by proscribing coercion.

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work." (Ayn Rand)

Rights reflect the fundamental alternative of voluntary consent or brute force. The reign of force is in no one's interest; the system of voluntary cooperation by mutual consent is the precondition of anyone achieving his actual interests.

To ignore the principle of rights means jettisoning the principled, moral resolution of conflicts, and substituting mere numbers (majority vote). That is not to anyone's interest. Tyranny is not to anyone's self-interest.

Rights establish the necessary framework within which one defines his legitimate self-interest. One cannot hold that one's self-interest requires that he be "free" to deprive others of their freedom, treating their interests as morally irrelevant. One cannot hold that recognizing the rights of others is moral but "impractical."

Since rights are based on the requirements of man's life as a rational being, there can be no conflict between the moral and the practical here: if respecting individual rights requires it, your interest requires it.

Freedom or force, reason or compulsion--that is the basic social alternative. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom--that's why they seek to come here.

The American Founders defined and implemented a system of rights because they recognized that man, as a rational being, must be free to act on his own judgment and to keep the products of his own effort. They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to "protect" themselves from the peaceful competition of others.

ECONOMICS

One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one's job to immigrants. It is asked: "Won't the immigrants take our jobs?" The answer is: "Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs."

The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: "If Americans don't get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do."

But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services--the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content--all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.

From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we'll have two hundred years from now--just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.

Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there's no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a more valuable job.

What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don't consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).

And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.

The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy.

WELFARE

A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.

Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending legislation aimed at employers of immigrants?

OVERCROWDING

America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France's.

Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population--from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. That would make America almost as "densely" populated as today's England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.

Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a "doll hospital"--a store specializing in the repair of children's dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a "Secret Shopper" (two jobs actually listed on Craig's List). Not in Paducah.

People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England's population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?

THE VALUE OF IMMIGRANTS

Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people America needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America."

Does does the mere fact that the immigration of illegal immigrants is "illegal" make them real criminals in your mind?

I don't hold that to be the case. I don't see any ethical reason why a person should respect unjust laws. I have knowingly hired illegal immigrants and will continue to do so for various odd jobs. I don't think this constitutes any kind of crime or immorality. I am merely breaking a flawed, unimportant law.

I won't deal with the rest of your arguments because I know our discussion will just move toward the tone that you an Kenny ended up taking and there is no need for that. I will just say that they are riddled with cherry picking and exaggeration.

- Jason

And I will beat the hell out of you. You are a brainless coward, true lowlife. I will not waste my time with you on this site. Get lost.

Rand opposed immigration controls.

All immigration controls? So she was in favour of open slather? If so I'd suggest she was naive.

If I could, I would consider emigrating to the United States. I am financially secure and would not be dependent on welfare but US immigration laws prevent me from doing so. Scott supports those laws and

How can you say that Scott supports those laws when you'd be one of the enterprising people he'd be happy to see in his country? Obviously Scott doesn't support those laws. He wants laws that target those who mean the nation harm.

believes that politicians and bureaucrats should be able to control where I live. That is statism.

How does wanting to defend his nation from those who mean it harm, amount to statism? I think that some people see "nation" as little more than a geographical space, and a space that they automatically have a right to - which is hardly a sign of someone who seeks the earned.

Here's the definition of bigot, since you seem confused (from Webster's dictionary):

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

But these folks have learned to riot and demonstrate in the finest democratic tradition when they are not given jobs or benefits to their liking.

Is starting a scheme to pay families to leave the country and go back to where they came from. I wonder if it will become a case of "here we go round the merry go round".

"What exactly is this theft you are referring to, and what is "our resources"?"

Re-read my posts.  I shouldn't ghave to repeat myself, and the answer to this question is obvious.

"And why are you concerned that Hispanic Americans group together? All first generation immigrants are like this, and they always have been like this."

I'm not worried about Hispanic Americans at all.  They are among the most loyal and hardworking, patriotic Americans there are.  Many are serving in our military as I type this.

I'm referring to the illegal immigrants, some of whom are Hispanic.  This is an important distinction that needs to be kept in mind.  I know you multiculturalists hate to make distinctions between honest Hispanic Americans, and lawbreaking outlaws, but there is a difference.

So here's a couple of questions for you.  If you answer them correctly, you'll be able to answer your own questions.

    Question 1:  When is the last time millions and million of illegal immigrants who share a         non-Enlgish language and some cultural similarites with one another but not with Americans, were allowed into the United States?

    Answer: Never.

    Question 2:  When is the last time millions and millions of immigrants, legal or not, were allowed into the United States, and multiculturalists such as your self encouraged them NOT to assimilate, encouraged them to hold onto allegience to their homeland, and provided them free benefits, including teaching them and their children in their native tongue, not English?

    Answer: Never.

    There are more illegal immigrants in this country from Mexico and Latin America right now than ever passed through Ellis Island, in the entire history of our country.  It is a mistake to compare this mass influx of uneducated America-haters with controlled legal immigants of yesteryear.  It is a mistake to believe that immigrants who are taught to value their old nation over this one will assimilate in their first generation, or ever.  That's why, as part of immigration reform, we have to control how many immigrants come in per year, make sure they are required to learn English, make them take an oath of loyalty, and take other measure to require them to assimilate.

    As bad as this situation is with Hispanics (notwithstanding the open political efforts of organizations like La Raza, which advocates taking back the American Southwest), it is sheer insanity with Muslims, whose religion dictates Muslim theocracy.  Europe is feeling the sting of open immigration of these insular peoples, who nevertheless demand a free hand in punishing 'their people' and estiablishing 'their schools.'  But these folks have learned to riot and demonstrate in the finest democratic tradition when they are not given jobs or benefits to their liking.

    This great nations is great because the immigrants coming here used to be excited to become Americans, so there were cultural forces to ensure they melted into the melting pot.  Now, multiculturalists such as yourself see moral equivalence between other nations and the USA, and you see it a grave injustice to force anyone to learn English, swear an oath of loyalty, to do anything else to prove they really want to be  a part of this country.  I'm sorry, but "I like your money and free education and health care" is not a good enough reason for me.

    The USA charted the type of Constitution we have.  Though battered, it is American tradition, history, and values, which has preserved it.  Witness the savagery all over the world--even in other countries who have tried to adopt American-esque Constitutions.  This here lady is worthy of protecting.

    I'll answer your side question:  I am a fan of legal immigration, yes.  And America is not repopulating itself, so we need to import bodies to keep our population levels steady or increasing.  Why can't we let in the best and brightest (and incidentally, theose bright enough to actually support a Constitutional Republic over some collectivst hell), instead of allowing in felons, disease carriers, and statists to sneak in while we turn a blind eye?

    Now you answer mine.  It isn't central to the conversation, but it is in line with your multiculturalist views:  What are you going to do when the unstemmed flood of "New Americans" elect a Hugo Chavez type into the White House, or vote to repeal the Constitution?  How will you feel about someone else's individual freedom at your expense then?

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Rand opposed immigration controls.

If I could, I would consider emigrating to the United States. I am financially secure and would not be dependent on welfare but US immigration laws prevent me from doing so. Scott supports those laws and believes that politicians and bureaucrats should be able to control where I live. That is statism.

Scott also believes that illegal immigrants, often seeking only a better life and opportunities are "people who sneak over the border, cheers every time an American dies, plots or sympathizes with plotters who seek to murder Americans". That is racism.

Scott is a bigot mascarading as a patriot. Truly disgusting and anti-Objectivist!

What exactly is this theft you are referring to, and what is "our resources"? And why are you concerned that Hispanic Americans group together? All first generation immigrants are like this, and they always have been like this.

Edit : A side question. (this point is less important, though more in line with your utilitarian/collectivist line of thinking) Are you suggesting that there are not massive economic benefits from a constant injection of new labor into an economy via immigration?

- Jason

"Open immigration like free trade is an aspect of laissez-faire capitalism."

Says who?  Why is it true?  Because this was something Ayn Rand said, and was taken out of the particular context?  Or because it appears in an economics textbook?  National defense is part of the moral duty of a nation, and we have enemies.

"it is about people being free to associate with who they choose."

No, its about theft of our resources, breaking our laws while we stand by and watch, and the creation of discrete ethnic niches which do not care to assimilate and bring their Islamic tradtions with them, with explicit plans of taking over when the population numbers favor them; and Latin subcultures being taught Spanish in America as a crutch for non-assimilation, so that they can also impose their socialist, tribalist, statist wills upon us when, again, the numbers favor them.  You don't have to guess at this--Muslims and Latinos speak openly and freely about this--their goal is to transform America into a copy of their homelands (which, ironically, they fled from).

"Are you for tariffs and subsidies too - sometimes?"

Odd question, but not, I'm not.  Are you?

" My understanding is that most immigration is driven by the demand for workers "

We share this understanding.  There are studies--Google it.  19% of federal inmates are not citizens.  92 to 97% of illegal immigrants succeeed in their first illegal attempt to make it into the US.  You can start here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/misc/index.cfm#research, but as I said, a Google search turns up alot of information.

"There are already many other laws in the books to curtail Abu Hamza and the likes. Stricter immigration laws will not likely stop them."

Sure, alot of immigration laws on the books which are not being enforced. How do YOU know stricter laws wont stop them, or make it more difficult to get in?  That's like saying you'll leave your doors open because a criminal will find a way to break in anyway.  It's defeatist, and like Jason, it is tantamount to saying that you accept the theft, so its okay.

"Data points: Regarding how immigrants are leading the country into a hand basket - Ayn Rand was an immigrant. Regarding citizens getting a free pass (and are automatically deserving of the fruits of the labor of other citizens and immigrants) - Hillary Clinton is a citizen."

You see no difference between someone like Ayn Rand--who was printed, tagged, and examined before being allowed in, and who LOVED this country, wanted to be come part of it, and people who sneak over the border, cheers every time an American dies, plots or sympathizes with plotters who seek to murder Americans?  Hey, the Founding Fathers were all immigrants, too, right?  But it is a critical blindness on your part if you equate them with who come beckoning at our door now--they are New Founding Fathers--and they seek the Founding of a new Socialist state, or a Muslim theocracy.

American is FULL of idiots like Clinton, who I am not even sure believes her bullshit rhetoric--she wants power.  That's why we have a COPnstitution, and why we have to protect it--so it can protect us.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

...notwithstanding that you don't get to decide who is or is not an Objectivists, and the fact that alot of people have alot of different ideas about what an Objectivist is (I agree with Linz's eloquent definition), to the extent that someone label me a non-Objectivist because I understand that we live in a world where only one nations most closely represents freedom and capitalism, and other nations and people which to see an end to that, I DO see a need to protect the nation that ensures my human rights as none of the other do.

Ayn Rand was not anti-nation.  In fact, she was pro-US, anti-Soviet, so by definition she supported the concept of nations as distinct entities standing for implemnetation of distinct ideas and values.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

There are already many other laws in the books to curtail Abu Hamza and the likes.

Because Abu Hamza types are proliferating with impunity in the UK. Tony Blair has even announced government funding for the furtherance of Islam. But also, according even to Lindsay, Abu Hamza has the right to preach his vile hatred and call to war, because he is just exercising his right to free speech. This, even though he hasn't contributed one iota to the government that acts to secure his right to free speech. There's something very wrong with that, and it is not "statist" to want that corrected.

Here's something to be aware of in upper state New York

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm

Open immigration like free trade is an aspect of laissez-faire capitalism. In free trade, foreigners produce the needed goods and services in their countries, with open immigration they come to your country and produce the needed goods and services. Either way, it is for the employer/producer/trader to decide what is good for their business. Immigration is not about people encroaching on private property, it is about people being free to associate with who they choose. Are you for tariffs and subsidies too - sometimes?


My understanding is that most immigration is driven by the demand for workers - whether they are illegal immigrants to clean the toilets or legal immigrants to work in various high tech industry - in the US economy. Is there any study you or anyone else can point me to, with real numbers, on how much immigrants contribute to and take from the welfare system? Thanks.


There are already many other laws in the books to curtail Abu Hamza and the likes. Stricter immigration laws will not likely stop them. They will however keep out a lot of law-abiding and hardworking people.


Data points: Regarding how immigrants are leading the country into a hand basket - Ayn Rand was an immigrant. Regarding citizens getting a free pass (and are automatically deserving of the fruits of the labor of other citizens and immigrants) - Hillary Clinton is a citizen.


Suma

"Do what thy manhood bids thee do, from none but self expect applause..." Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton (Source: www.wikipedia.org)

Scott's posts demonstrates that he is not an Objectivist. His concepts of citizenship and nation are statist and contrary to Rand's writings on such subjects. Jason's critique was spot on. Scott should change his "handle" to reflect his right-wing conservative views.

and social programs only speaks to the issue of the degree of illegal consumption of public resources.  Even Ayn Rand conceded that there must be SOME government with SOME resources derived from the citizens or corporations of the nation, so to that extent, this is a quibble of scale, not fundamentals.  Lots of public property and socials programs=lots of theft of public resources; fewer social programs or public property=less theft.  But it's still theft.  Whether there are social programs like welfare or not, it is ill-advised to believe that theft ceases to be theft if less is being stolen.  This position also skirts the issues that go beyond mere illegal consumption of resources.

What you do not seem to be getting is that citizenship means something, and that the government has a function--first and foremost, to protect the Republic so that rights can be enforced.  While non-citizens are human beings, they aren't citizens and are not entitled to the benefits and protections citizens are.
 
It is heartening that you do not advocate willy-nilly, untracked immigration when you write that "It would be reasonable for the government to run background checks, or to bar people from countries the government is at war with" especailly since even this much is not being done now.  It seems you do favor SOME improved system of immigration superior to what is happening now. Currently, the borders are a seive, letting in the likes of the New Jersey terrorists who sought to attack Fort Dix.

You raise an interesting hypothetical--if the country somehow had a government with no resources, that would mean all property would be private.  But would that mean that the government would have no say in who these private property owners bring in, and under what circumstances?  Securing and defendaing a nation's borders is something Rand saw as an essential role of government, so, no, private individuals could not do these things.  Whether at war or not, the government's proper role includes dictating what is acceptable regarding the things you enumerate in your post.  You cannot rape people on you rprivate property, nor can you hold slaves, even if it is consensual (i.e., citizens of another country would prefer to be slaves on your property than to be shot for tribalist reasonas back 'home.') Nor can you build a private nuclear reactor, esstablish your own government, or a host of other things.

And I do not see what is so absurd about my statement that a guest who outstays his welcome may be invited to leave, whether in my living room or my nation.  You, Jason, may have 1st Amendment rights, but they are only protected by virtue of your citizenship.  Of course, illegals  have the right to say whatever they please, and think whatever they please, but their actions are at the sufferance of this great nation.  Too many Americans have forgotten that. No one stepped off a boat on Ellis Island and demanded better conditions or universal health care, or a free education for their children in their native language.  But that's what we have now.

It is generous of you to allow illegals to sleep in the public parks you currently enjoy.  But that's like saying that you don't mind if they take a book from your library without your permission because you weren't going to keep the book anyway.  It does not change the nature of what is occurring.

What you are seem to be saying, in essence, is that the theft doesn't bother you.  But that doesn't change its nature, either.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

You are correct to note that non citizens do not have a right to demand free use of "public property", but Objectivists who advocate an open immigration policy are only comfortable with a small amount of public property to be used by legitimate government functions. We would also say that tax paying citizens do not have the right to demand and enact laws providing them with medicare, unemployment or foodstamps. We do not support things like public health care service, public schools and public roads for citizens or non citizens. In an environment where these things don't exist, this issue of "illegal immigration" becomes unimportant.

Because of the existence of these unfortunate "public", collectively owned things a government run immigration system is necessary because it needs a way to charge for and support these (mostly immoral) services. Immigration should still be much more open then it is now, but because of the welfare state and the existence of vast, expensive public services the government needs to register and track people for tax collection purposes.

This is not a good way to do things, but it is how things have to be at this time for everything to run efficiently in our flawed semi collectivist government system. There are also security concerns during times of war which can legitimize a temporary government controlled immigration system. It would be reasonable for the government to run background checks, or to bar people from countries the government is at war with.

You are clearly wrong when you conflate your "nation" with your "home". The property I own is all I really deserve direct (or indirect) control over. You don't have the right to dictate :

1. To whom other people can have on their property.
2. Who other people can employ in their businesses.
3. To whom other people can sell their property to and --
4. Who (citizen or non citizen) is allowed to buy and use property.

You should only be able to call the government if while doing these things a person (citizen or non citizen) is either initiating force or you have evidence that they are likely to do so. A person's mere presence within the border of "your country" is not by itself an initiation of force. Nor do I really see an "illegal immigrant"'s access to open property (sidewalks, roads, parks etc) as an act of trespass.

Public property is a troublesome and flawed concept. Rand recognized for example the troubling fact that under her proposed government there would likely be freeloaders who don't pay taxes. The best solution to that problem is not government force initiations to keep people out, but minimal levels of government property and thus a minimal need for taxation in the first place.

"He does not have to expose himself or his family to ... annoying behavior that is at variance with the experience of life he wants for himself and his family."

And of course this statement is absurd.

- Jason

The would-be visitors have all the rights that anyone else has, but not the right to take the unearned.

And I think that would include rational government. Rational Government isn't a gift from heaven, it's a value to be fought for, and then defended. Security of rights is earned, but the open immigration libertarians act like its a right to be dished out to one and all, regardless of whether one has earned it or not, holds allegiance to it or not. The likes of Abu Hamza have no right to reside in the west while working towards the destruction of the west.