I wouldn't call it theft of land, as a land owner has a duty to stop trespassers (such is after all how private property is held), though that is made very difficult when some try to do it. So one might consider it theft by an illegitimate government.
A border may be commons one nation or the other, such that lays on either side of it, and to the inclusion of those who are citizens of such sides. Whether it is commons to the citizenries of the other side of the border, depends on if it is wished to extend that positive right to such or not, is suppose to be determined by the citizens who's commons it is. Certainly an invading army (either under flag or covert) intent on destruction, theft or death, most would agree should be protected against, well, except some libertarians it seems. Such distinction of ownership and right of use is what all borders are, whether they be private, as on you own property, or commons. It is one of the more simple fictions of law that reflects pre law / state, that some seem loath to acknowledge. I suspect mainly because they have a very lot invested in the position otherwise, then to admit it is perfectly libertarian and purely a property rights argument, whether we wish to involve government in the equation or not. I do however agree with the opposing side on some issues, that being that no entity should have the right to own as much as they can legally say they own (especially when that was made possible by fraud or force), though I am in most aspects an absolute property rights advocate with regard to property that is within a persons means of protecting or use. I'm not even against letting as many people cross the border, as long as they pony up a silver dollar to cross orderly, or 2 for trespassing on the commons (that is over the border). But I'm willing to allow the vote to determine policy, as long as it doesn't make us all prisoners by locking us in or violating our rights to privacy. As we are heading that way is the only real reason I propose what I do about the issue, but the open border advocates would rather have nothing, then something that would actually solve our other problems of a fictional monetary system too, while being perfectly private, enforced by the people, would create jobs, and satisfies the compliant that people coming over the border haven't paid their fair share to come here. The open borders people would rather be intent on on shouting dogma, and having no solution, then promoting a solution that would work. Goat Boyd Smith wrote: > > So then not allowing restrictions on access across a border is the same as > theft of land? A border is then a common except where it is a private > property border and then it is up to the property owner? But then what > responsibility would they have for those they allowed the unrestricted access > to? >