The short answer is “no, not exactly the same, yet the comparison is helpful” but hopefully, the more detailed response below will be useful in avoiding misunderstanding.

Ownership vs. Rights
Note that I view property rights as a divisible bundle, such that you and I could contract together for me to have the right to exclude oxen (to take a non-controversial example) from your land, while you would maintain ownership (as that term is used in common parlance) of the land.

State’s Rights in Land not Actually Result of Contract
Now, despite what Locke may think, the State’s rights with respect to our land is not the result of us contracting away those rights to the State (in a “social contract”), even if that is a useful model.

States are Commonly Said to Own the Land
Nevertheless, with that clarification, getting back to your question, there are certainly senses in which the state is said to “own” land. Thus, for example, the United States obtained ownership of much of the West by purchase from France and by conquest from Mexico. Likewise, ownership of Alaska was obtained by purchase from Russia. And we could go on and on.

The Examples above Included at least Some Privately Owned Land
As I recall, while most of the affected land was largely uninhabited, or inhabited by what were considered savages, at least in the Louisiana Purchase, some populated cities were included within the purchase.

So, perhaps the right to exclude aliens is derivable from property right principles.

Return to your Question
Nevertheless, you asked the more narrow question, whether “that right derives from ownership of property” by which you mean: “whether the act of forbidding entry to an alien is exactly the same as (a) asserting ownership of all the property and (b) forbidding a certain class of persons to enter that property (i.e. traspass).”

Response: No, not Exactly the Same
To that I would respond that although it is conventional to speak of the state owning all of the land (in contrast to other states owning the land), state “ownership” is not exactly the same as personal “ownership” in societies like America.

Yet the Comparison is Helpful
Nevertheless, despite the differences, I think trespass may be a useful analogy. In other words, while it may not be exactly the same, it is close enough to make the analogy useful and intuitive.

I hope that this response is helpful, even if not to persuade of you my position, to help identify where I am coming from.
-Turretinfan

At this point the discussion is not whether the magistrate can keep aliens out, but whether that right derives from ownership of property; whether the act of forbidding entry to an alien is exactly the same as (a) asserting ownership of all the property and (b) forbidding a certain class of persons to enter that property (i.e. traspass).

So, for example, your assertion that the right to keep people out has always been recognized, from ancient times, though debatable in its own right, is off target– the question is, was that right recognized as being equivalent to property right.

So, before restating the steps in the argument, I want to make sure we are on the same page as to what the thesis to be argued for and against actually is.

Thank you for the courtesy. I apologize for the indirectness of my responses. As you requested, here is a post on my blog that tries to summarize what I am attempting to convey.

Perhaps it will be useful to you in seeing where I am coming from.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/05/sovereignty-as-applied-to-land.html

I don’t think its going to answer your questions above regarding where this goes when one tries to “universalize” the issue, but perhaps it is because I’m not sure which direction you are seeking to universalize.

However, I may well be suffering from the affliction of not knowing where you are going with this discussion. I’m not even sure whether you trying define immigration laws more precisely, to strengthen them, or to oppose them.

Maybe you are simply trying to point out that a law must not only prohibit behavior, but also assign punishment.

Maybe you are simply trying to point out that an encampment of Mexicans with swim trunks on the far bank of the Rio Grande are not illegal aliens yet, because they haven’t violated the law yet.

But perhaps after a relaxing Memorial Day, you may have to clarify and (quite likely) disabuse me of my misunderstandings as to what you wrote and meant.

Until then, may God’s blessing rest on you, brother,

-Turretinfan

I’ll tell you what. Fully explain and defend your theory of “magistrate’s property rights” or whatever it is you are putting forth ON YOUR OWN BLOG, and then I will permit you to post a link to it here. Apart from that, you are banned from further posts on this thread. I don’t have two hours a day to spend playing a guessing game with you. And I don’t want to subject our readers to it either.

yes, Tim, I grant that today, the US govt’s definition of, and case against illegal immigrants is not that they have committed trespass against private property.

Nor do I think that such should be the case.

-Turretinfan

Your proper response, TF, is this: “yes, Tim, I grant that today, the US govt’s definition of, and case against illegal immigrants is not that they have committed trespass against private property. Now, I am ready to move into the theoretical discussion of what should be the case.”

If, however, you want more meat than that, perhaps you could explain your question, because its negative wording and complexity making it hard to affirm.

I’m not even sure we are on the same page.

I’m talking about us, as philosophers, modeling the legal system in order to understand it.

We could, alternatively, talk about how the legal system developed, and whether historically such a model was relied upon. We could also show the historical acceptance of exclusionary immigration laws. I suppose we could even ask what the founders took as a model when writing the laws of the United States (answer, they mostly looked to the English tradition).

But what you are asking is not something readily comprehensible, perhaps because of the wording.

Could you rephrase?

-Turretinfan

Do you agree then that as a matter of historical fact, the law against illegal immigration (whatever it is) is not modeled as the government trumping individual property rights and declaring all non-citizens on anyone’s property to be trespassing?

(I’ll get to the ideal case later.)

TF — as far as you know, is it illegal in all 50 states to invite an “illegal alien” over to your house for tea?

I suppose one could argue that it is somehow aiding and abetting (or soliciting) their continued violation of federal immigration law, and thus an accessory violation of that law.

Otherwise, no, I think it is just as legal as inviting a convicted felon who is presently serving a life sentence over to your house for tea.

It is a cruel joke, but it is not specifically prohibited.

-Turretinfan