You seem to randomly be saying words. There's nothing "uncivil" in my post anymore than there was a "no true scotsman" argument.

You asked and I explained.
Because you don't like the explanation and have no counter argument, doesn't mean you can accuse me of logical fallacies or being uncivil.

Ignored and referred to Forum Admin. If you can't be civil, go elsewhere.

That's not a "not true scotsman" argument. You don't seem to know what that is either.
The fact you don't even remotely seem to be understanding my posts demonstrates you don't understand anything about objectivism.
There's not much more I can say because "rights" and "rights protecting government" are the most basic Objectivist political concepts.

You haven't explained anything. All you've done is assert the "no true Scotsman" fallacy over and over again.

"It's very sad how many supposed Objectivists don't get this."

What is sad is that you have no argument worthy of an Objectivist to offer in support of your own viewpoint. If you can't offer anything better than a logical fallacy, calling yourself an Objectivist is a farce and an affront to everyone on this forum. Either present a better argument - in detail - or I'm going to relegate you to the [Ignore] bin as not worth my time.

No, because only rights violations should be illegal and immigration is not a rights violation.
Terms like "illegal immigration" are politically illiterate.
Border protection can involve things like invasion, but can't involve things like immigration, which is basically people going about their lives without violating any rights.

No, that's a question you should be asking the advocates of the wall that are posting here.

The Galtch is private property and is not analogous to a government and its territory.
To Objectivists only rights violations, force or fraud, should be illegal.
Immigration is neither of those things and so should not be illegal.
It's a non-issue.

There's not much more to explain, because it really is that simple.
It's very sad how many supposed Objectivists don't get this.

Very well stated, blarman!

Aren't you conflating lawful immigration with illegal immigration? Illegal immigration has everything to do with border protection. I've said nothing about foreign policy, so I don't know from where you got that.

One more question: In your view, was Rand a libertarian?

The First Amendment to the Constitution outlines a fundamental series of Rights, among which is the Right to Association. That is the Right to choose to engage with any other human being in a common cause - be it a financial transaction or an ideological pursuit. Part of one's association with one's nation involves a voluntary association with the terms and rules of participation in that nation agreeable to existing members. Just to reiterate, but there are three incontrovertible conditions inherent in Association: 1) that it is "of one's own free will" (now where do you think I got that one), 2) that there are rules for which the violation may be dis association and 3) that any application for association is dependent on existing members' approval. Failure to meet ANY of those three qualifications delegitimizes any claim to valid association.

Immigration is an application for association. It is that simple. If the applicant does not apply of their own free will, fails to live by the terms/rules/conditions/laws of the association, or fails to gain the approval of existing association members, their applications may be rejected and membership denied. Existing members who break the terms may be excommunicated/disfellowshipped/disbarred from that association.

To a pointed example:

When Dagny broke through the barrier into the Gulch, was she an illegal immigrant? Yes, and Galt told her so. Her method of entry into the Gulch was not through the approved channels or methods. (She had been invited and rejected the invitation.) And while she was accorded status as a guest during her stay, she was reminded that she had broken the rules and could not stay without agreeing to the rules writ large upon the power plant Galt built there.

Every nation in the world has similar rules which apply to their citizens: rules that trade promises of protection of various degrees in exchange for certain duties such as paying taxes and obeying the laws. Guests are those who are not citizens but who nevertheless apply for a lesser status of protection in exchange for a lesser status of duty (such as paying taxes, etc.), but guests are not (with ambassadorial exception) typically granted immunity from the host country's laws and rules. (Ambassadors and consul staff must register with the host nation for recognition of such status - an association contract in and of itself.)

Illegal immigrants attempt to avoid every part of the duty yet seek to avail themselves of every part of the benefit of the association. They are looters in every respect. To attempt to legitimize any such is in direct contradiction of Objectivist principles.

"That doesn't convey anything about your understand of Objectivism."

Then you misunderstand how this forum operates. This forum is based on productivity, but one can not vote one's self a Producer point - one has to find value in what others say. So those point totals are objective measures of Productivity as evaluated by other Forum participants. You will also find that people are rarely downvoted simply for disagreeing. I downvote for unsubstantiated arguments, inflammatory statements, and ad hominem arguments - such as the ones you are making here.

I would also point out that egregious behavior is and has been pointed out and censured by the forum owner/moderator. I have seen this happen to others as well as myself. In a very few circumstances there have even been members evicted from the forum for repeatedly and persistently abrogating its terms of use.

Now, if you want to argue that you have different notions about what constitutes value to you, my answer is: GREAT! We encourage people to have their own opinions and to speak them articulately. But be prepared to back up anything you say, because you will get challenged.

"The fact that I'm getting negative downvotes for pointing out the nonsense of the term "illegal immigration" and having to explain what a "rights protecting government is" tells me just how little you guys understand."

Then please share with us your viewpoint in detail. But before you do, you might want to use the "search" function and take a look at some of the debates we have already had about these subjects. I'm more than happy to rehash them with you; if you think you're bringing up novel arguments, you overrate yourself.

But just so you don't think I'm completely ignoring you, I'll lay out exactly why the term illegal immigration is completely appropriate.

To fight the welfare state you need to support individual rights and those who support individual rights, oppose things like the border wall.

Immigration has nothing to do with border protection.
Conflating foreign policy with immigration is just confusion.
I've explained the Objectivist position on immigration very clearly, in a single sentence, in my original post here.

You have it backwards. Those that want to regulate immigration would have a better time at the NYT.
Regulating immigration comes from the union movement and democrat voters after all.

That doesn't convey anything about your understand of Objectivism. The fact that I'm getting negative downvotes for pointing out the nonsense of the term "illegal immigration" and having to explain what a "rights protecting government is" tells me just how little you guys understand.

The Dems would be onboard in a second, if Obama were asking. It is all about Trump hatred. I have to wonder if getting all these illegals is not about getting illegal votes for Dems, and maybe a new pool of minors to use for the DC Congressional pedophile ring. Never let a crisi go to waste, if it brings one a way to victimize more children.

Trouble is, most "experts" cited by the media are defined by their "education," er..uh, indoctrination credentials.
Who's the expert in logical, rational common sense?

Rand promoted rational self-interest. Acknowledging our present (not rational) welfare-state condition, what about open borders is rational or in Americans' self-interest?

So you're saying having and protecting her border is contrary to America's rational self-interest?

Trump has to stand firm on the wall issue, not only for safety reasons - ours - but to show that a president CAN and should fulfill his promises!
What a concept!

America's fortress, the Constitution, was breached with the authorization of national welfare, among other things. There is no more Nightswatch, only cries in the wilderness.

They are invaders. Try to force your way into Australia or Canada and see what happens to you. They have more consistent laws and enforcement than we do.

If you have a single DUI here in the USA , you cant even VISIT Canada on a vacation for at least 5 years.

Exactly. I think if the leftists want asylum seekers to just come here willy nilly, they should take at least several of them into THEIR houses, feed them, care for them, and not saddle the rest of us with those costs.

If he can declare a national emergency, DO IT. If he cant, then leave the 25% of the government shut down. We dont need such a big government anyway. Trim the payroll down to where we have no deficit spending.

Fire all your weapons that you have right at the left. I dont want illegal immigration period.