That's how it is with communal property. You do not have to protect and maintain it, alone, but you also don't get to direct its usage, alone. 

 Whose exactly? A country is just a name for a place on a map with lines squiggled around it. No property rights are broken crossing them. A country isn't the same as private property. People have a god given right to travel the realm freely. 

 It belongs to the one willing to defend it, like all property. That is usually whoever is already in possession of it.

Property rights trump freedom of movement. 

 Funny how many animal species understand & yet so many humans seem not to... 🤣 

 And the animals seem not to need .gov... 

 The government is there to enforce the "free movement over other people's property without getting shot, speared, or mauled" right. 

 That's the theory... 

 One they've been failing at recently. 🤣 

 Also in the absence of government owned “public” property there would be places that would have no “public” property and right to travel might be restricted just to people from the area by the ownership instead of open to all. I guess that’s the real question. Is any government ownership of property legitimate given there funding mechanisms or is it all ill gotten gains from criminal activity. Speaking of taxes. While education is one of the biggest line items at the state and local levels it’s not immediately clear to me why people should have the right to move into an area en masse and necessitate all sorts of previously unneeded infrastructure. Including maintenance and staffing of the infrastructure. Especially if they immediately get the vote and can start voting to raise the taxes of people whose families have been paying in to build and then maintain what was previously enough infrastructure for the population. 

 Paying in for generations I mean. I went to elementary school in the same building my grandparents did. Now there’s a dozen new schools in the county and property taxes are higher than ever. That’s all from legal immigrants. I wonder how many new teachers that is. Yeah people moving here en masse is great. 

 All tax is theft so there's that  

 Now you are talking, freedom of movement and government theft and social welfare are separate things. Hence why we need plan B. 

 Why should someone be denied crossing a border because someone doesn't like them? Isn't that bigoted?  Passports haven't even been around for a 100 years, there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant. That statist communist speak. 

 Are we talking setting up shop in an existing community or starting a new community in the boonies? Its unrealistic to expect people to not react in certain ways to their community being changed without their input. And it will change. If for no other reason that more people means more problems simply in terms of needed infrastructure and the fact that a certain number of people just aren’t going to get on board with societal norms for whatever reason. 

 I'm talking if someone packs up, moves to your town, rents a house, looks for work etc.. why is it a problem? Regardless where they are from?   

 Again, you are assuming anyone needs to answer to you. They don't need a "good" reason to protect their own land. 

 It's just a discussion, no one says you need a good reason to protect your land. But that's not what you are doing. You are saying people shouldn't be allowed to cross borders and move freely if they like, only you can. 

 Only the people who own the land have the right to cross the land. Everyone else has to ask for permission and their request may be rejected for any reason.

This does not change, merely because the people who own the land are a group. 

 Using the same logic, I can choose not to recognise your ownership of the land. 

 Yes, so come and take it.

Property rights don't need to be recognised to exist. That is why they are natural rights. 

 Damn  

 So is freedom of movement. 

 Natural rights have natural consequences. Move across my land without permission and see what happens.  

 I'm just a traveling Bard, I can sing a song .

 https://image.nostr.build/10c6f81881214063a1e506bbf5edcb3fbf5fb86e400b26da4706bd8e0a22ac74.jpg 

 And this is usually why some form of government, preferably very limited in scope is required.

Every one has a right to move freely. 

Every also has a right to property.

The US has often ignored the right to movement. Property owners can prohibit others from their property entirely. And driving is treated a "privilege" that can be revoked. 

Other nations try to strike a balance. Where one can traverse a property but not damage it or cause a permanent change.

Rights WILL conflict with another. Some rights take priority over other rights. Some rights only exist as a consequence of other rights (for example, life is the ultimate right. Without it no other right can exist).

The proper role of government is to protect one's rights. Part of this is solving the conflicts that occur when rights conflict with one another. 

 Individually? It’s not. When you’re talking about doubling, or more, the population over the course of 20 years it becomes a problem. That person should also accept that they aren’t a part of the community in the way that someone from there is and they need to accept being treated differently by people until they assimilate which might take a few years, a few decades or a few generations. 

I’m not even saying they need to be forced out. Just don’t expect people to like their community changing or be nice and accepting of the people doing the changing. I would be down with anyone trying to force that acceptance being forced out. 

 Especially if you move to small town/rural area and not a city that already had 100,000 people in it. 

 There are usually natural limits such as housing and number of jobs.  

 They can just terrify the locals and take their houses, when they move away. That's the usual path. 

 Tell that to the people who are coming in and putting in 1000s of houses every year. In the county I live in I mean. Hell the mayor in one of the small towns near me is *bragging* about getting ready to double the population in a 5 year period. 

Why shouldn’t the locals feel a certain way about that? The ones that aren’t getting kick backs from land developers I mean. 

 I think those limits don’t apply in a system where the banks just throw loans at people because they can just create the money that they loan out. 

 Isn't that an issue with the mayor then? 

 People have the right to be bigoted. I'm not the thought police. 

Their property, their business. Their home, their castle. 

 The Open Borders movement is a branch off of the Communist International and a step toward One World Government.

Don't need borders, if the UN and the WEF rule everyone, everywhere. 

 Every country is already under control of the communist cabal and people were free to travel in the past, whats changed? 

 Transportion became much cheaper and more efficient, through things like automobiles, large steel ships, and air flight, so people started arriving in larger numbers from further away.

Yes, and the first thing they did was give us the EU and dissolve the internal borders. That's how they roll.
Ethnic property rights are a brake on international communism. And always have been. 

 They didn't desolve the borders and they are still manned within the EU. 

 You said themselves that they are now merely lines on a map. 

 They are arbitrary lines on a map that change many times in history. Some people take meaning from them, others see them for what they are, just lines.