Home Owners Associations do a good job though. When you buy into the area (or become a citizen), you agree to the rules and remedies. I dont think speech is a basis for expulsion, but treason that is very specifically denoted could be a reason for revoking citizenship and voting privileges

Not even the betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts, gets you thrown out these days.

Remember a club can easily tell a member who does not follow every rule or says some wrong club ideas to get lost. The citizens of the USA can not boot citizens out for speech against the USA or for any other infraction of the rules except for treason.

The reason for bringing up a fence around my property is that it is my decision about who to allow to come on the property- if its indeed private property.

If a mob of people want to come on my property, they need to get my approval BEFORE they are allowed in ( the way we protect ourselves from thieves and murderers).

If there is a group of people who get together and agree to put a wall around their respective houses, I propose that to enter the group compound, you need to get the approval of the inhabitants who put the wall up and own the properties.

If people use violence to just enter my property, I can tell you what will happen to them, and they most likely will never do that again.

I said nothing about freedom of speech, so I dont know why you are bringing that issue up. I am talking about physically occupying my property.

Yes. (Though I don't know anything about "Big Bang Theory". Is it a TV show?) Of course, we could not control what the immigrant people taught their children at home; but maybe we could teach the people who would come about Objectivism, and also some values that were in our free-enterprise past (Horation Alger books, etc.) This would be of course in competition with other organizations; maybe we'd have to to things such as offer services at lower rates or even free (for the sake of our cause, it should be worth it); but we could succeed. (At least, with some).

"Rough translation: You want Trump to act in an unconstitutional manner to expose the fact that Congress is shirking its Constitutional duty."

In my opinion, it is the only recourse available. I didn't say I liked it, but I don't see any way to confront a broken system except by forcing the problem out into the open. I do favor restricting each branch of government to its specific role, but there are so many things broken with our current implementation that I could go on with an extensive list. Nothing is going to get fixed unless we're willing to confront and admit there is a problem in the first place, however.

"Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not."

That all depends on the Court (and the original lawsuit). With a majority of Constitutional jurists now, they may address the larger point about the Constitutionality of such EO's in the first place. That would be my hope.

Not close, e.g., no freedom of speech in your little safe space, where you would dictate what is said, though freedom of speech against the government of the USA could be exempted by you on your property. That last is the right of any property owner who does not desire to limit constitutional rights on his property but perhaps, it is possible to not recognize The Bill of Rights while confined to the your own property.

Rough translation: You want Trump to act in an unconstitutional manner to expose the fact that Congress is shirking its Constitutional duty. This makes no sense. If you favor restricting each branch to its Constitutional role, then Trump should not attempt to make any policy on this issue regardless of what Congress does or doesn’t do. If in this instance you want Trump to do something that you consider unconstitutional (for whatever reason), that considerably weakens your argument that each branch of government should behave in accordance with its Constitutional limits.

Furthermore, this controversy will do nothing to “expose the practice of EO's as unconstitutional.” Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not. The constitutional status of bureaucracies, and of executive orders in general, will not even rise to the level of a blip on the general public’s radar.

You mistake my advocacy. I don't want Trump to set a rule for the purpose of setting policy. I want Trump to set a rule to expose the entire situation for what it is: dereliction of duty on the part of the Legislative Branch.

You seem to want Trump to act because Congress hasn't, ignoring the fact that in order for Trump to act, he must violate the Constitutional separation of powers. I want to expose the practice of EO's as unConstitutional - because I believe they are. I want to expose the majority of the bureaucracies as unConstitutional, because they are.

The Constitution was set up with a clear delineation in which branch of government had the responsibility to act in certain areas, and we've become desensitized to recognizing these lines and being open and vocal when they are crossed. We've had 100 years or more of Presidents legislating in seemingly small and simple things which overstepped their bounds. And so now that there are major policy decisions coming from the President's desk, no one bats an eye. DACA was clearly unConstitutional and President Obama admitted as much when he drafted it. I want President Trump to reverse DACA and then challenge the Legislature and Courts to defy him, because the only way to return to a Constitutional government is for the Judicial Branch to admit that it overstepped its bounds 30 years earlier in its rulings and demand that the Legislature properly do its job.

This is a case where the only way to get back to the rule of law is to break the law and expose the contradictions which have become part of the system. It is not that those actions wouldn't be well-intentioned, but intention is not what defines legality.

Bingo!

If we have a border it’s like a fence around your house and should be treated the same way

I propose that citizenship is like joining a club of people who agree on certain acceptable interpersonal relationships. Non members wanting to join the club would have to be accepted by the existing members before joining. I think people could also be provisionally accepted for a time

The most important thing is to instill a rational self in anyone with the capacity to have one, though that would require very great changes in parenting and schooling and even getting away from such things as Sunday School, Boy Scouts, and any other altruistic education during the formative years. From that comes rights, conscience, etc. I consider Sheldon on "Big Bang Theory" to be a model of a selfless human though, most of those here would say that he is being very selfish. He does not seem to have a rational self. Everything needs to be provide by others for him, his self esteem, his environment, etc.

There is a geographic border whenever the interior of that border has a government of laws different from the surrounding border areas. Without governments the borders would be arbitrary and freely crossable but perhaps gang protected as in some cities where a gang carves out territory within the city.
The laws of the government controlled areas must be obeyed within the area after crossing the border. Immigration laws applicable to those who cross the border may or may not be applied. Laws of citizenship and permission to vote can be made to control those who cross without permission and want to stay. There is a large range, from death to welcoming anyone, in border laws. Those of the USA are fairly lax, with birthright citizenship and very inclusive to citizenship of children born out of the country to citizens of the USA.
Do birthright children, say from Mexico, have dual citizenship with Mexico or do children of USA citizens have dual citizenship with the country in which they are born? I would like it to be that citizenship depends upon the country in which one lives though law would visa or passport would be needed to return to one's other country. That implies that one is not free to travel without government permission. Within a country various subsets of laws are usually relax enough for travel without specific permission from the laws, though the laws of the country must give permission or not legislate in any way about travel freedom.
I would say that anyone living under the laws of a country is a citizen of that country. Whether one will be permitted to vote will depend upon certain conditions of the life of the citizen, such as, ability to provide for oneself or be provided for by private charity, not being a criminal or violating non criminal law, etc., depending upon the laws. Whether the laws are rational or not is another matter. I would say that it is not too strict to require that a visa be required and then working to be a voting citizen. That may even leave out the majority of citizens. Citizenship does not necessarily imply permission to vote for representatives for the constitutional republic, the
USA.

I had the idea of voluntary associations; nobody would have to go to them; but we could offer English lessons, and could also teach American history to immigrants, and hope to persuade them to believe in individual rights, freedom of conscience (i.e., separation of church and state,etc.) I believe this used to be done a lot before in past times.

All that is fine as far as it goes. But the Supreme Court will never rule on a hypothetical case. The Supreme Court will rule only on a real case. Absolutely nothing reaches the Supreme Court without a lawsuit or a prosecution. Typically someone "takes one for the team," by doing something in violation of the law, in the hope that the case will reach the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the Judicial Circuit having jurisdiction) and he'll get a ruling that the law he "violated" was contrary to the Constitution, hence invalid.

And in this case we have neither statute nor prior case, and (contrary to the belief of, I would estimate, half the commenters here) no explicit provision in the Constitution that says, or implies, that the government must recognize "all persons born," regardless of circumstances, as citizens.

Actually no, an OE is a way to refine aspects of policy not shaping the Constitution. This is not a case where no law exists. The fact is it was written poorly and then interpreted in foreseeable way by its author, who opposed the final wording because it allowed vague interpretation. This why the mechanic, Congress, need go back in and ensure the wording so no interpretation is necessary. They need to change the amendment to the Constitution, a President doesnt have the authority to do this.

"Historically, executive orders related to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules and overseeing the administration of public lands. More recently, presidents have used executive orders to carry out legislative policies and programs. As a result, the executive order has become a critical tool in presidential policy making. For example, President john f. kennedy used an executive order to eliminate racial discrimination in federally funded housing (Exec. Order No. 11,063, 3 C.F.R. 652 [1959–1963], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1982 app. at 6-8 [1982]); President lyndon b. johnson acted through an executive order to prohibit discrimination in government contractors' hiring practices (Exec. Order No. 11,246, 3C.F.R. 339 [1964–1965], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 28-31 [1982], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,375, 3 C.F.R. 684 [1966–1970], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,478, 3 C.F.R. 803 [1966–1970], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 31-33 [1982]); and President richard m. nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment (Exec. Order No. 11,615, 3C.F.R. 602 [1971–1975], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,617, 3 C.F.R. 609 [1971–1975], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,627, 3 C.F.R. 621 [1971–1975])."

Added: I shared this link below, its pretty useful
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

An EO is not the proper solution for changing a law, but in this particular case no law exists, and Trump is faced with the necessity of setting policy in a legal vacuum. Congress can remedy this situation whenever it likes, but until that happens it is not tyrannical of Trump to create and enforce policies to deal with this issue.

CBJ...DT tells the Republicans who are the majority that he wants this revisited and discussed to make the change. His popularity and their numbers should be sufficient to bring it to the house floor for discussion and, if there is too much contention, validate the time of SCOTUS to examine that matter and get a ruling. With the invasion drawing nearer can you think of a better catalyst for this discussion?

The process is deliberately slow to prevent any one branch from becoming tyrannical. An EO is not the proper solution for changing the law.

You can’t have it both ways. You say you want Trump to “set a rule”, but “the change needs to be performed through the proper channels - not simply by executive fiat.” How can Trump set a rule other than by executive fiat? And if the “proper channels” decline to act, what is Trump supposed to do in the meantime? You can’t accuse Trump of being “wrong” if no “right” choice is possible.

It’s essentially an agreement that all members treat each other with respect in accordance with our nature as human beings. Without delving into heavy duty philosophy, objectivism really contains all the principles that allow for people to interact peacefully and productively

Good ideas. As a prelude to citizenship

Your contention is that it remains within the prerogative of the Executive to take liberties with various legal questions and apply their own logic to them. Those policies and decisions then become law. This is Chevron Deference, but it is not Constitutional. Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have all pointed out that this violates the Constitution by making unelected Executive Branch bureaucrats de facto lawmakers. I agree with this interpretation.

The policy of granting birthright citizenship was actually the result of an erroneous Supreme Court decision which flies in the face of the 14th Amendment AND violates the separation of powers just like your proposed remedy except that it was the Supreme Court creating immigration law rather than the Executive Branch.

"In this case, Trump must either adopt a government policy of not recognizing "birthright" citizenship, or continue the policies of previous administrations and recognize "birthright" citizenship. There is no third alternative, it's either/or."

And actually in both cases it is wrong, because NEITHER are law as passed Constitutionally by the Legislative Branch of government - the ONLY branch of government with the authority to set immigration law/policy/rules. Previous Presidents who allowed birthright citizenship allowed the Supreme Court to dictate policy contrary to the Constitution - and did nothing about it.

I actually WANT Trump to set a rule and force a Constitutional crisis to resolve the issue. Congress has sat on their hands on this issue for 40 years and done nothing. That needs to change, but the change needs to be performed through the proper channels - not simply by executive fiat. Anytime one starts arguing to go down that road they are following Woodrow Wilson in agitating for an imperial Presidency. That is the road to tyranny.

I was explaining that I gain by hiring so called illegals- given that they are NOT cheaper because of minimum wage, but they DO work harder than lazy and entitled americans. We, as a country, encourage illegal immigration by offering the american minimum wage and the welfare goodies available- then we complain people from other coutries come in one way or another.

Trumps tariffs are a way to artificially increase the value of the chinese yuan, with the excess funds just going into the rabbit hole of the USA treasure

You're referring to the rewards to the illegals. I'm referring to the rewards to the US businesses that hire them instead of Americans. (I am not recommending that the government institute penalties on businesses as a solution, although that would be in some ways similar to Trump's higher tariff policies with government taking a cut from businesses that use foreign labor.)