OK, the (Internal to This Blog) Market Seems to Demand an Immigration Discussion

So here it is. Rather than doing a roundup from the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of blog posts, social media comments, op-eds, etc. I've done on the topic, I'll just lay out my own position in brief.

• The freedom to travel on unowned property, and to bring that property into ownership, and to travel or stay on owned property with the permission of the owners (no other permission required) is an inherent human right.
• My definition of valid property ownership is that asserted by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, appended below.
• States, being nothing more than jumped-up street gangs / protection racketeers, do not and cannot own property. Their turf claims and other such demands create no property rights
•  With particular respect to the United States, Locke's proviso -- "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others" -- remains applicable, as the population density within the US government's criminal turf claims (including both its "borders" and its fraudulent claim that it and its subsidiaries "own" near 40% of the land within those borders) is incredibly low and the technology for making that land useful is well-advanced (it is now possible to live a technologically advanced lifestyle in, and plausibly travel to and from, a remote cabin in the mountains of Alaska or an adobe geodesic dome in the Mojave Desert).
• The very rules that the US government claims to go by, as codified in the US Constitution, forbid it to regulate immigration. While I do not subscribe to constitutionalism, those who claim to subscribe to it should operate within its strictures or change those strictures, rather than just ignoring any strictures they find inconvenient.
• Therefore, restrictions on travel and immigration by the United States are not only evil, immoral, and illegal, but fuck-silly.

The Lockean assertion as mentioned above:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

OK, have at.