Of course, not every foreigner has a right to enter the country. We shouldn't admit jihadists, criminals or people with serious infectious diseases. In other words, we shouldn't admit those who pose a physical threat to Americans. But there's no reason why anyone else shouldn't be allowed to come here, work and live as a resident before applying for citizenship.
If a foriegner (who isn't a criminal, jihadist or infected with a serious disease) has a RIGHT to enter the country, then the government has no right to exercise ANY border control without probable cause of having a rights-violator in their sights. That is - in practical terms - open borders.
Here is another way to see that this is so: If a person is a convicted felon, but served his time, then why can't he come in? And in the absence of a judicial ruling, how does border control declare a person a jihadist? If he has a right to enter, then denying that right can only be done if his right was forfeit by an act that violated someones elses rights and we need that to come from a ruling from the judicial branch following an indictment from the executive branch that meets probable cause and proper rules of evidence. Doesn't work does it? Do we give up probable cause, checks and balances, habeus corpus, and many other foundational parts of objective law? Or am I right in asserting that there is a property right that exists that grants goverment proper authority to limit access?
Only if the government is managing property can they limit access. And our form of government says it should be in accordance with objective law that doesn't violate the constitution. And we Objectivists know that it must be in accord with the protection of individual rights - and only that. If government has no authority to manage that border the way they manage access to a federal court building, or to an Army base, then we have no borders because we have no border control.
I don't think you can say that the citizens as a group own the country. That doesn't fit my understanding of property rights. Property rights are individual rights, not collective rights. True, right now, the streets are not privately owned; they're owned and maintained by city governments. But a city has no right to prevent people from using them in the way they were intended. Innocent people from other countries have a right to come here and live. They have a right to travel on city streets and to seek employment and housing from willing providers.
The citizens don't own the whole country, they only own what is common property (e.g., like a federal court house, like the legal structure). This ownership is the heart of my argument.
Property rights are the right to actions that can be taken by an individual without permission and to which other men cannot morally interfer. I can buy into a partnership and acquire a theoretical percentage of the assets (real assets, inventory, property rights, good will, etc.) I own things in common with the other partners.
A more abstract level is the ownership I have in any corporation by virtue of the stock I purchase. I am in a collective ownership despite the fact that my property rights are rights to take a set of specific actions, as an individual (voting the shares, selling the shares, collecting dividends, etc.) But corporations can 'own' shares in other corporations. They may be listed as "owner of record" but the actual owner (morally speaking) are the stockholders of that first corporation. And that second corporation might only own intellectual property rights. Property rights can be very complex.
This can also be a complex issue because of how easy it is to conflate moral rights with legal rights and legal rights can be civil or contractual.
A city doesn't "own" (in a moral sense) the streets in that city. Because government doesn't have any moral rights - only individuals do. Those streets are clearly of value. There are clearly legal rights regarding the use of the streets. The city can designate who can drive on them and set conditions like speed limits. How can they do this if they have no moral right to 'own' those streets? Easy. They don't own them. They manage them. They manage them on behalf of the owners. The owners are the residents, or tax payers, or registered voters (take your pick... different arguments support different ideas as to owners). The alternative is either to give up the idea of moral ownership by believing government has moral rights, or to believe that there are things of considerable value but exist and are used and controlled but they have no owners. How can you have ownerless property - that would be an example of the stolen concept fallacy?
If my argument for seeing certain very valuable forms of property as belonging to the citizens isn't adopted, then government has no right to stop innocent people (people who have NOT been convicted) at the border. This is just as no police officer can stop innocent people inside the country and question them in the absence of probable cause. If I am right and there exists common property, the property rights confer the right to limit access.
I own my house and I can stop anyone from coming into my house - even if they are innocent, disease free, etc. My property, my right.
I can delegate that right to a manager (as landlords do with rental property). For example: A rentor of apartment wants to hire someone to prepare taxes as a business and do so from that apartment. The person who wants the job has a right to accept, but can't work in the apartment if the owner of the property denys access. The person living in the apartment can hire them, but they still won't be able work in the apartment if the owner of the property doesn't grant access. Same thing with the manager of the property. There is a moral right to accept an offer of work, but not to trespass as a part of carrying out the work.
We have obviously recognized this in some fashion where we say that access to a federal building can be limited.
The rights confered upon accepted visitors to the country are civil rights (not moral rights). If they get citizenship papers, one of the civil rights is to vote. We have delegated to the government the power to limit access to our commonly held property.
Of course, freedom is freedom from the initiation of force, but freedom from the initiation of force IS freedom of action -- it IS freedom of movement -- provided that such action or movement does not involve physical threats or a physical danger to others.
I believe that I am in complete agreement with Rand's understanding of freedom. Where you quoted Rand, the statement is, "...freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." You weren't paying enough attention to "interference" - this would be the area where someone enters your house without your permission - this would be the area where many property rights live. Rights are about what you do not need permission to do. I can enter my house and need no permission. Others need my permission. If they enter without permission, they are interferring with my property rights. If I have rented a car for week in exchange for a certain amount of money, that is a contract where each side must honor the rights confered by the other. They must provide the car and I must pay the money.
Such a right [freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men] pertains to all (innocent) human beings; it's not just an American right; it is a human right, an individual right. So it pertains to anyone regardless of where he or she happens to reside.
That is true. But there is no right to violate a right. If someone holds certain property rights, others do not have such a thing as the right to violate a right. Let us say that hundreds of thousands of people own shares in a real estate company that specialized in managing rental properties. The shareholders, as a group, vote to elect the top management. The top management makes policy for the landlords. The landlords limit access to the properties according to the policy set. No one, no matter how innocent, has a right to violate valid property rights. If they do it is "interference" by other men.