You don't need "thought experiments" on such simple, black and white issues.
Do you need a thought experiment because you don't want to accept that 1+1=2?
The fact is, Objectivist theory of government is that of rights protecting government and because immigration doesn't violate any rights, it should be perfect legal.
The term "illegal immigrant" is nonsense.
It's that easy.
You're just evading this and are pretending you're engaging in "thought experiments".

A crafted ad hominem if I ever saw one. You don't "got me" at all. Your "other words" interpretation is false.

Do you know what a thought experiment is? For purposes of this discussion, it’s a method by which you set up a hypothetical situation with hypothetical people to see what would occur under certain hypothetical scenarios. In this instance, if a terrorist (or a group of terrorists) wished to enter the U.S. to kill or harm innocent civilians, what would be the outcome if your “open borders” policy were in place? They would be allowed to enter the country and carry out their destructive agenda. No government would leave its country open to such an outcome unless its leaders were suicidal.

How did you determine that his a terrorist?
Now on top of rejecting rights and a proper theory of government, you're also rejecting presumption of innocence.

I suppose, then, that a terrorist does not require permission to cross the border (or even enter a government military installation) because such actions do not “involve my private property”. As I said earlier, a terrorist does not acquire a “right” to immigrate simply because he is supposedly not “initiating force” at the moment he crosses the border. And even a citizen does not have a “right” to enter a military base without permission. If you disagree, please explain why.

That's not a counter to my argument because we're back to the fact that immigration doesn't involve your private property and doesn't require permission, just like you getting to work doesn't require permission from anyone.
As other posters arguing here, you don't have a correct understanding of the concept of "rights" and don't have a proper Objectivist theory of government.
You're ignoring it, even though I've explained it a few times now and are insisting on making nonsensical points, not based on rights or proper role of government.

What does that even mean?

So in other words, you're rejecting the correct concept of "rights", the correct Objectivist theory of government and just want immigration to be regulated because feelings.
Gotcha.

ICE Arrests 6.5K Convicted Murderer, Sex Offender Illegal Aliens This Year

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/20...

And as I countered to your argument, of course people can access each other's property without "breaking and entering." They do it every day, with the property owner's permission, to engage in trade and other voluntary and mutually beneficial activities. I asked a straightforward and direct question, and so far your answer has been to compare my views with the views of others you (and I) disagree with, and to claim I’m drawing inappropriate analogies when I’m not drawing any analogies at all. Any reasonable theory of government will draw a distinction between the government’s obligations to its citizens and its obligations to individuals outside its jurisdiction. Even setting aside the property issue that you have not addressed, a government’s obligations to its citizens and legal residents includes protection from harm and potential harm originating outside the country’s borders. At a minimum , this includes screening potential immigrants for disease, criminal history and views on violence against the government or its citizens. A terrorist does not acquire a “right” to immigrate simply because he is supposedly not “initiating force” at the moment he crosses the border. And as I pointed out earlier, even a citizen does not have a “right” to enter a military base without permission. If you disagree, please explain why. People can legitimately disagree on the criteria and methods that a government employs in crafting and enforcing its immigration laws. But a blanket policy of “open borders” is not compatible with either a rational theory of government or a rational theory of individual rights.

Thank you...I sure would like to know who is down voting our posts...Pete's included...disagreement or a point of contention is not a reason to down vote anyone.

Illegal immigration...Not knocking on our door.
Common courtesy, common sense, the right, honorable thing to do...regardless of the law or how it is interpreted.

Somebody down voted your post. I bumped it back up.

Your condescending huff response is asinine at best. I will decide what to spend my time on, not you. I wasn't about to spend a lot of time exploring all the topics that resulted from the search I did make hoping to get the right one when you could have simply supplied the link without the snark. When requested, the onus is on you to supply the basis of your argument, not on others to go look for it.

In any case, a Gulcher named Lucky in this thread supplied the link before you even woke up and gave a decent response. I read the blog and agree with Lucky's assessment. Binswanger pulls his spin definition of sovereignty out of his butt and then attempts, poorly IMHO, to spoon feed it to the reader. Early on he admits that sovereign nations get to make their own laws and then wants to ignore the fact that immigration law is part of that legal system. He wants the reader to believe that the sovereign nation is initiating force against illegal immigrants when it is the illegal who is initiating the force.

His analogy with the Canadian tank force made me smile. I agree with stopping them, but I presume, according to Binswanger, a single Canadian citizen in his private tank should be able to roll across the border unquestioned. Multiply that by a million.

And as I countered above to this terrible point, such an argument would mean you can't leave your house without "breaking and entering".
You're coming at this from the same point of view as politically illiterate conservatives, who have no theory of government and so have to try and determine policy through random means. In the case of immigration they arrive at their position by incorrectly deriving government policy from analogy to private citizens and their property. This is a false analogy as you have to have a theory of government to even have a theory of property rights and it doesn't work in reverse.
Objectivists on the other hand, DO have a theory of government and it is a rights protecting government.
That means only rights violations can be illegal and the act of immigration, crossing a border, is not a rights violation, so should be perfectly legal.
It's really easy.

Answered above. The land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on its citizens’ behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no right to occupy or use it without permission. If you don’t consider trespassing to be an initiation of force, please explain why.

"You still haven’t answered my question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?""
One doesn't gain a right like that.
What does that have to do with immigration?

As has repeatedly been explained, immigration is not comparable to someone "sneaking into our home".
These are the politically illiterate arguments of conservatives.

You still haven’t answered my question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?" The fact that the property is not private is irrelevant. As I explained above, the land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on their behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no moral claim to its use and disposal.

Even as a U.S. citizen, I don’t have the right to, for example, set foot on a U.S. military base without permission, even though I would not be “initiating force” by doing so.

Regarding Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, of course it’s debatable. I presented my views on her statement above, and you’re free to discuss them or not as you wish.

Green-eyed lady, lovely lady
Strolling slowly towards the sun
Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
Soothing every raging wave that comes

Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
Setting suns and lonely lovers free

Green-eyed lady, wind-swept lady
Rules the night, the waves, the sand
Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
Child of nature, friend of man

Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
Setting suns and lonely lovers free

https://youtu.be/i_i7PKdQJU4
1971 as a 14 yr old my buddy and I hung out with this band for a week at the Minnesota state fair.
We knew this one by heart.

True Dat brother.

We don't care What you call it, What we compare it too...We don't like people sneaking into our home, (and Yes, the land mass we call America, is our home).
Call it fraud, Call it braking and entering, Call it trespassing...donesn't matter, we want it stopped!
Knock upon our door, ASK to come in and we will decide if your worthy enough to come in.

Ayn Rand lied on her application and then stayed after her Visa expired. She was absolutely what would qualify as an "illegal immigrant" until she got married.

But what you've missed, as have many posters here sadly, is that there is no such thing as entering a country "illegally". Only rights violations can be illegal and crossing a border is not a rights violation.

https://www.hbletter.com/blog/
You didn't search very hard did you?

"How about answering the question I actually asked, instead of comparing it to an unrelated question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?""
Because that doesn't have anything to do with immigration which is not anyone accessing anyone's private property.

As to Ayn Rand, it's not really debatable. I gave you one example, you can find more.

You just don't want to hear the answer and don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals like "individual rights".