 I mean, I'll start with the fact that I approach the issue of immigration as I would approach any political issue. I would ask the question of what is the impact on individual rights? Does government have a role to play? Should government be involved in any way? And of course, to ask whether government, coercion, force, a gun should be involved is to ask the question of, is the government's involvement essential for the protection of individual rights? Is it necessary to protect individual rights, rights somehow being violated by this phenomenon? So obviously, if you take a case like FOD, yeah, rights are being violated and the government should have a policy against FOD and should do the necessary things without violating anybody's rights to protect us against FOD. Should the government protect us against terrorism? Absolutely. Terrorism is a clear violation of the individual rights. It's a use of violence against American citizens and their job of the American government, therefore, is to have a strategy to protect us without violating our rights to protect us against terrorism. So then the question has to be, well, does immigration, does immigration involve a violation of rights? And you know, I don't see how it does. I just don't see how it does. The fact that I want to employ a bunch of Mexicans to work in my factory and I take a pickup truck down to Mexico, load them all up and bring them into the country, into the U.S., that very fact in and of itself does not violate anybody's rights. So the government has no business in preventing me from doing that. Now, we'll see. I do think the government has a role here. It's a minor role. It's a role of screening and we'll get to that in a minute, but if I want to invite my cousin to come and visit me and stay in my house, the government has no business in that decision. What, where's the violation of rights? And you know, unless there's some reason to assume my cousin is a threat, you know, where's the violation of rights? If somebody walks across the Mexican border on vacation, hiking because he wants to find a job in the United States, whose rights is he violating? Now, if he's trespassing on private land, then a right is being violated and it's the job the police to arrest him and to prosecute him. And of course, it's private land and the landowner themselves can protect that land. Landowner themselves can build a wall around that land to prevent trespassers coming across the border onto their land. But as long as there's no trespassing, as long as this visitor has gained the permission of the private landowners, why is the state involved? What role does the state have? Again, the state is there. The only job of the state, in my view, is the protection of individual rights. No violation of rights as it could. So there is no issue that is raised by immigration that requires state involvement except one and I will get to that in a minute. That requires state involvement. So the state has no role in immigration. What differences does it make? So people say wages will be lower. Even if that were true, you have no right to a wage, you have no right to a job. Somebody comes in and competes with you away for a job. So what? There is no economic argument against immigration because immigrants don't violate the rights of Americans when they immigrate. So again, where's the rights violation? Where does one need a government? Now it is true that a government, part of the government's responsibility is to protect the border. Borders mean something. A border is, it defines the scope of the rule of law over what area, over what particular geographic area the rule of law of this particular country applies. It defines the scope of the government's responsibility. The government is responsible for protecting the individual rights of everybody within that border and nobody outside that border. It defines the role of the government in terms of preserving its territory from physical foreign threats like invasion, like terrorism, particularly if the terrorism is being imported, the terrorism is coming from overseas not homegrown. So yeah, governments have a role in securing that border and making sure that other countries are not invading, that terrorist groups are not plotting to cross the border and come in and commit terrorist attacks, that foreign governments are not accumulating, are not amassing troops on the border with an intention to invade and in areas of the world where there is conflict, where there is armed conflict, the border becomes incredibly important and the host country places troops on the border to protect it and monitors the border and has massive surveillance of that border because there is a real threat, a physical threat, a threat that the government's job is to protect from the threat of invasion or threat of terrorism. Think, I don't know, today Ukraine, the Ukrainians are very much watching what the Russians are doing, what the Russians are doing across the border. They've got tanks on the border, they've got troops on the border, probably not enough, probably not enough to stop the Russians but they are carefully monitoring that border because Russia could invade any day and if you were Lithuania or Latvia or Estonia you probably have a lot of surveillance going on across your border with Russia and you probably have a lot of troops stationed along that border to protect you just in case Russia invades, not that they can do much given how small those countries are relative to Russia and of course Israel has very secure borders because it is constantly at a threat, it has been invaded by, it has been threatened and invaded, it is by other countries in four different wars, one of those wars was a preemptive war because there was massive amounts of troops amassing on its border and tomorrow the Syrians could decide, hey what the hell, why just fight among ourselves, let's unite and go after the Israelis and start amassing troops on that border, maybe the Russians would help them, who knows? Israel has a constant existential threat of invasions, say it has robust military presence, surveillance, intelligence, fences, monitoring systems that observe movement because there is a real threat of invasion and of course in modern times with modern warfare the greatest threat for Israel, the greatest threat for many countries is the entrance of terrorists and but the difference is that most countries, that threat is very minor but in Israel the threat is dramatic, it's dramatic and many occasions terrorists have just walked across the border when the border was not fully protected, shot up a town, shot up a highway, they've come by boat, you know, I remember as a kid they'd come by boat, kidnap buses, kill everybody on the bus, blow up stuff, so Israel has an incredible secure navy now and they monitor every movement on the sea so you can't boat in, they have monitors on the borders, they have some areas with fences, they have troops, they have tanks, I was in a tank on a border because we were convinced that there was a real legitimate imminent threat of invasion and terrorist organizations can become militarized, ISIS was a good example, they became militarized and they had forces that swept through territory, the same thing is true of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the same tourist Hamas in the Gaza Strip, these are militaries, they're beyond just terrorist groups and one has to pretend, one has to pretend, one has to protect oneself against such invasions and incursions, that is the role of government, government has to do that, then the United States, the United States is in a unique and very in many ways lucky position in the world, in that it faces no such threats, neither from its southern border nor the northern border, do their countries in those places pose a military threat to the United States, that is a fact, now that fact could change and if if Canada suddenly deployed a significant army and was hostile to the United States, yeah, you would have to protect the northern border, you could have the troops there, maybe fencing, all kinds of intelligence monitoring to protect themselves, that would be part of the responsibility of the US government, the same with Mexico, now it is true that there is the potential for terrorists to come in from either one of those borders, Canadian and Mexican, actually there's more evidence that more terrorists have come in through Canada than come in through Mexico and my assumption is that the United States intelligence agencies and Border Patrol place a huge emphasis on trying to identify when terrorists are coming to try to track them and stop them, certainly they have stopped a number of attempts through Canada, I remember one where the guy was driving a truck full of explosives, I think targeted at Los Angeles airport and he was just driving it across the Canadian border and he was stopped and arrested and so on, that's the job of government and if that risk becomes elevated, I expect the government to respond, that is if it turns out that hundreds, thousands of terrorists are amassing along the Mexican border or planning to sneak in through the Mexican border, a threat that could one day become real given the pathetic nature of the way in which the United States deals with Islamic terrorism and the fact that they are Islamic bases in Latin America, Islamic terrorist bases in Latin America, then I expect the U.S. government to do something about that, to protect us, to figure out what the right way, I think the right way probably would be to go into the demand that the Mexican government wipe out the terrorists who are there, if that doesn't happen for the U.S. to actually go in and do the job themselves, just as Israel has done in Lebanon and just as Israel used to do in Jordan and other places, they went in and cleaned, cleaned house when they needed to. So, there is a legitimate role of border security, of border defense, of even of placing the military at the border when there are legitimate threats, but none of that is immigration. Immigration is not an invasion. Immigration is not terrorism. Again, when it is, deal with it. Now, I've noted this in the past, if immigration becomes mass migration, where millions and millions of people are trying to cross your border, then yeah, by necessity going to be violations of property rights because they're going to, they're going to step on people's property. And I'm talking here about the capitalist, you know, the ideal government, the ideal society. They're going to trespass on people's property. There's no way to control such masses. They're going to have a huge impact on property rights and other things. And yes, the government would then have to stop it in some senses. The Muslim migration, mass migration into Europe in 2015, 16 was such a mass migration and governments had a responsibility to stop it in at least control and get control over it and figure out what was going on, particularly given that it was a Muslim migration and it was likely to involve some terrorist elements. Although we haven't really seen the mass exponential increase in terrorist activity as a result of that migration that so many people warned us of. It turns out, you know, almost all those people, a vast majority of them were not entering Europe for terrorist activities. You know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe, maybe the future will prove me wrong. But the point is, government did have a role to step in there. You can just have a million people walking in. Now, I do think because of the government's responsibility for the rule of law over a particular geographic area, there's a legitimacy for the government to have knowledge of who is in that particular area, who is migrating in to that particular area, to have some sense of the number of people in order to allocate appropriate resources when such happens, such things happens. So I am all for having basic screening of immigrants at the border, again, in an ideal society. You screen, a lot of countries do this. You screen for diseases. You can do this fairly simply. A lot of countries, for example, have when you go to Asia, often you walk through the airport and they have these monitors that are checking to see if you have a fever. They can check from afar whether you have a fever or not. And they will stop you if you have a fever coming in to Asia. You know, potentially a more thorough examinations like they did in Ellis Island. Some basic background check, FBI type check, to make sure you're not a wanted criminal in some other country. You could have rules about what would happen to certain criminals. Let's say who have already served their time or ex-cons, what kind of crimes. You would not care from what countries under what circumstances. Some countries might be very lenient on murderers. Europe is unbelievably lenient on murderers. You wouldn't want murderers coming in. So they would have a record. You would not allow murderers coming in from Europe. There might be other categories like that. And of course, you would do some kind of security check to make sure that they weren't the terrorists. And you would run everything, every name through an FBI database. And other than that, I see no reason to limit the ability of somebody to enter the country. Again, government only has a job, only has a role when rights are violated. And no right is violated when somebody enters the country.