[...]we had trouble with massive spamy links on our website. now we use stop spam plugin. once again our website is clean[...]……

I appreciate that Mr. Reed thinks that Professor Simon’s is the definitive work on immigration but cherry picking a single author and declaring the opposition’s stance a demolished fallacy using an all inclusive “Appeal to Authority” fallacy only reinforces the sense of deception. At some point it would be nice to read a pro-illegal-alien manifesto that didn’t default to these kinds of tactics.

Offering that any immigration is good immigration is as absurd as offering that any house guest is a good house guest. Mr. Reed laments that the “government” could have declined Constantine’s appeal to become a citizen but seems to forget that in a Democratic Republic that “We the People” are the government. I find it every bit as offensive that he thinks people should be able to enter this country uninvited as he does that someone he invites might be asked to leave. What if Constantine had been Jeffrey Dahmer revisited rather than the well adjusted citizen he turned out to be?

I would point out that Mr. Reed was able to spend time with Constantine before he invited him into his home rather than allowing Constantine to stay after he walked in uninvited. I am curious how long Mr. Reed would have allowed his well valued friend to stay if his first contact with Constantine was coming home to find him standing in his living room rather than spending time with him and being given the chance to evaluate his guest prior to giving him access to his property and family? If Mr. Reed expects the right to determine who enters his home why should he expect anything less when it comes to our right to determine who enters the country? It seems like the height of arrogance to suggest his rights trump everyone else’s. Of course the purpose of law is to determine where his rights end and mine begin, but he doesn’t like those partiulcar laws ergo his indignation at the potential that his friend might not have been granted citizenship.

We are mutual owners of a shared property called “The United States of America.” Just as in any shared property I have as much right to determine who occupies the land as he does. If we shared a home and he tried to rent a bedroom to some guy I found unsavory I have the legal authority as co-owner to veto the rental.

In the case of his anecdote about Constantine, I might initially agree to have him as a house guest but reserve the right to evict him any time I saw fit as is my right as co-owner. I am under no obligation whatsoever to allow him to stay just because I initially agreed to a temporary occupancy.

The failure of Randian/Objectivist thinking is that it deifies personal property while dismissing national property when the two concepts are inseparable. The original acquisition of land in 49 of the 50 states was made by the government in the form of money and/or blood (the exception being Hawaii which was annexed by request). The land was divided into parcels that were purchased and developed over time. Any deed is valid based on the authority of the USA. An usurping government is under no objective obligation to recognize these claim. In other words your rights are only as strong as the government that protects them.

As proof I would point out that Mexico seized hundred of homes in Baja and other areas after they passed an ex post facto law that retroactively made it illegal for non-citizens to own property within 20 miles of the coast. Hundreds of US citizens found themselves sans property with the stroke of a pen.

It would be refreshing if, at some point, one of these authors could address the topic objectively. This constant appeal to emotion is exhausting.

Best regards
Iva Bothova