The Case Against Open Immigration (Resources For The Great Debate)

Neil Parille's picture
Submitted by Neil Parille on Sun, 2016-12-11 15:06

Open immigration (OI) is the position supported by most ARI-associated Objectivists such as Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, Craig Biddle** and Onkar Ghate.***

According to OI anyone should be able to move from country A to country B (and reside there) so long as he: (1) does not have a criminal record; (2) doesn't have an infectious disease; and (3) isn't a suspected terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

OI Objectivists will often say that this is a different issue from citizenship (and voting).

A few problems:

1. With respect to voting, in the USA we have birth right citizenship (if you are born here you are a citizen). The children of immigrants will automatically get citizenship and the right to vote. So to the extent that OI Objectivists acknowledge the possibility of immigrants voting leftist (which they occasionally do) the problem is only deferred for a generation. Hispanic citizens for example vote 2 to 1 Democratic.

2. Almost everything government does can be reversed. However, the demographic and cultural changes from OI cannot be reversed.

3. OI is in fact more of a political system (like Democracy or Communism) and not just an immigration policy. With OI, a country will get the political system imposed by the immigrants and their descendants. Now an OI advocate might say "well at least you will have open immigration," but there is no guarantee that the immigrants will vote to retain OI. When Israel becomes Islamic as a result of OI (which it certainly will) it is very likely that the new Islamic government will end OI.

4. Getting back to voting, even if a country doesn't have birth right citizenship, sooner or later the immigrants and their children and their children's children will get the right to vote. You can't disenfranchise a group of people permanently. There is no way to stop Muslims from voting when they become the majority in Europe. Just look at the case of Rhodesia and South Africa. (My point here is not to defend these countries but just illustrate a general example.)

An Argument For OI Debunked:

One argument is that OI isn't a problem in a free society because, in a free society, there is freedom of association. Hence you don't have to associate with an immigrant (or immigrant group) if you don't want to. However, we don't have a free society. All sorts of laws compel you to associate with people (in particular housing and employment). So in a sense mass immigration is forced association. In any event we are light years from repealing such laws. And if you can't convince native born that you should have the right to not bake a cake for a wedding what chance is there of convincing tens of millions of third worlders who come from countries with no history of respecting property rights?

* Harry Binswanger takes a more extreme position. There should be no screening and no border checkpoint. Travel and residency in the US should be no different than moving from Connecticut to New York.
** Not clear if Biddle is still persona non grata in the ARI world.
*** Leonard Peikoff's position isn't entirely clear.

Gated Communities

edpowell's picture

There is this incredibly high tech tool called "the Phone Book", in which you can look up the address and phone number of anyone in the country. Who'd have thunk of such an amazing resource? There are a number of digitized phone books around, I use

Yaron Brook Talking Point - It's The Intellectuals

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron likes to say that it's not the immigrants who are responsible for the welfare state, multiculturalism, etc. but rather the intellectuals.

There is some truth to this. On the other hand:

1. Brook believes that the idea that third world immigrants can't assimilate is "deterministic." Don't immigrants have free will?

2. Intellectuals may set the course culturally long term, but this could be a very long term.

3. Large number of immigrants will inevitably slow down positive cultural change. For example, European hate speech laws were passed when Europe was considerably less Muslim than it is now. But what if there were a change in attitudes among intellectuals toward these laws? Certainly they aren't going to get any support from most Muslim voters.

The Debate Is On!

Neil Parille's picture

Thanks to the Contributors

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Seems like many good resources on this discussion thread. Too many for me to read and listen to, in fact. Sad

Objectivist Essays In Favor of Open Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Craig Biddle


Ari Armstrong


Note: Ari Armstrong calls for open immigration of Muslims!


Harry Binswanger

Money Quote: "Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party--because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream. It takes independence and courage to leave the familiar hearth and home and venture to a new land. Republicans, not the 'You didn't build that' Democrats, have at least some appreciation for the American can-do spirit and the self-made man."

Note: Zero evidence presented of any third world immigrant group that is inclined to vote for a more free market oriented party.

Ed Powell's New Essay On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture


Neil Parille's picture

OI Objectivists claim that, to the extent newer groups of immigrants aren't assimilating, it has nothing to do with their culture. Rather it is because of other factors such as multiculturalism and the welfare state.

A few comments:

1. There is some truth to this, but we now have several generation of Hispanics and, in Europe, three generations of Muslims. We have enough evidence to make a reasonable conclusion as to whether, in the absence of the welfare state, etc., these groups would have assimilated better. The evidence isn't very good for the assmillationists. Hispanic crime rate is very high as well as high rates of illegitimacy and welfare dependency. Many of the Jihadis are third generation. Muslims in France are at least 50% of the prison population. In Germany at least 50% of the prison population is foreign born. (This refutes the claim by Brook that immigrant crime is the result of the government doing nothing. Sure the government could do more, but it's not as if immigrants aren't being punished.)

2. OI Objectivists will often claim that in the early 1900's people said that Italian, Jews, Slavs, etc. couldn't integrate and they were wrong. Hence it's wrong to say that Somalis, Syrians and Africans can't assimilate. But observe that these former groups were European.

3. There are groups that have not assimilated. Take many Native American is the US or the Roma (gypsies) in Europe. The Roma have been around for 1000 years and most have converted to Christianity.

4. The internet and mass communication make assimilation harder. A Muslim can stay connected to radical preachers in dozens of countries.

5. The newer groups seem motivated by a resentment that didn't exist before. The Berlin attacker who drove a truck into a Christmas market benefited enormously by living in Europe, for all of its faults. That he didn't perceive that Europe gave him many more opportunties than Tunisia is more of a reflection on his culture than ours.

6. A final word should be said about Binswanger's argument that "immigrants are self selected for their virtue" and "refresh" the countries into which they immigrate. This is, as usual with Binswanger, pure rationalism. If I were he, looking at what's going on in Europe with all these "self selected" immigrants, I'd try to scrub that statement from the internet.

Argument For Open Immigration - Walls Don't Work

Neil Parille's picture

OI advocates such as Brook say that walls (or other methods used in an attempt to keep immigrants out) don't work, so we might as well have OI.

A few comments:

1. If walls don't work, why do Brook and Binswanger lived in walled communities?

2. In 1950, France was <1% Islamic. Now it is 10%. Has France's ability to control its borders decreased in 70 years?

3. Israel's wall (which is mostly designed to prevent African immigrants) appears to be working well. Since Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries, the fact that it is still majority Jewish shows that walls and other methods of immigration enforcement do work.

4. A wall on the Southern Border would be combined with other types of immigration enforcement, such as strong penalties for employers who hire illegals.

More on gated communities

Neil Parille's picture

Re Binswanger, here’s the website of Banyan Woods

Re Brook, here’s the website of Coto de Caza

Gated Communities

Neil Parille's picture

Yes, they both do. Brook said recently that people accuse him of being out of touch because he lives in a gated community.

This is what Mark Hunter said on his site about Binswanger:

Now lives in Naples, Florida. The city is 94.1% white. His house cost $840,000 (February 29, 2014) so his neighborhood is probably 100% white. Neighborhood doesn’t quite describe it, it’s a “premier gated residential community” known as Banyan Woods. Another quote from its website (accessed March 2015):


"... fenced on all sides, Banyan Woods offers a gated entry with guardhouse, harkening back to the safe havens we all knew in childhood.”


Comment: There is nothing, I suppose, inconsistent about supporting open immigration and living in a gated community.  However, it shows that Brook and Binswanger are hypocritical because they don't want to live in a community that resembles what the country would be turned into with open immigration.  They accuse those of us who oppose open immigration of being racists yet they live in white communities, not those that have been culturally enriched by third world immigrants who are "self selected for their virtues." (Binswanger)


Can someone clarify

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There've been several references all over SOLO to Binswanger and Brook living in gated communities. Are these references rhetorical or do these open immigrationists actually live in gated communities?

Bernstein on The Little Street

Jmaurone's picture

A quote from that ARI watch article makes it sound like Bernstein has taken a page from Rand's notorious "The Little Street" phase. (To paraphrase TROPIC THUNDER, Even Rand didn't go full "Little Street"....An Objectivist NEVER goes full "Little Street"...)


As the group swept across the countryside it grew by accretion, butchering whites and collecting slaves. Mr. Bernstein continues:

“... it was the hideous institution of slavery that established a context in which such horrific acts were conceived and perpetrated.”

He said the magic word ! The murder and mayhem was all the Virginians’ fault. White #1 owns black #1. In that context it’s OK for black #2 to kill any white he can find, children and babies included. Mr. Bernstein then claims this follows from Ayn Rand’s metaphor (in Galt’s speech) “morality ends where a gun begins” and that regarding Vesey and Turner,

“their actions in pursuit of freedom cannot objectively be condemned.”

According to this “Objectivist” the horrific acts were praiseworthy. Like other Cultural Leftists Mr. Bernstein sees Turner not as a villain but as a hero.

end quote

"Not a villian, but as a hero." Easy for Bernstein to do, since he regards the Nate Turner massacres with the qualifier "if they happened." Similarly, getting back to the news..."Police Commander Kevin Duffin said that officers were investigating whether hate crime charges were appropriate due to the race of the victim and the alleged perpetrators." Still, the police supt. in the case, Eddie Johnson, can't say that, case can't say that it was "policially motivated":

"Johnson said authorities currently don't believe the crime was politically motivated, despite the disparaging remarks about Trump.

"'I think some of it is just stupidity, people just ranting about something that they think might make a headline," Johnson said. "I don't think that at this point we have anything concrete to really point us in that direction, but we'll keep investigating and we'll let the facts guide us on how this concludes.'"

This guy, and Bernstein, wouldn't accept "anything concrete" even if an anvil were dropped on their heads...

"White Snuff films"

Jmaurone's picture

Neil wrote: "Andrew Bernstein defends slave insurrectionists who kill innocent people."

The ARI watch article mentions that "In the last few years a new movie genre has appeared, the anti-white snuff film."

Now, life imitates art?

"A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding a young white man hostage. The victim is repeatedly kicked and hit, his scalp is cut, all while he is tied up with his mouth taped shut. The suspects on the video can be heard yelling, "F*** Donald Trump! F*** white people!"

"4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live"

"Chicago Police Investigate Live-Streamed Torture"


"Drexel U Prof Who Called For ‘White Genocide’ to Keep His Job"

Already, it's being rationalized by the Leftists spin as just "kids doing stupid things".
But, uh, you know, as Bernstein says..."context"...

Yep - they're all buggering

Andrew Atkin's picture

Yep - they're all buggering off to Houston...

Great article by Victor Hanson. He says it so well! So easy, so cheap, to be so sanctimonious when you personally don't have to taste the fallout of your junk-thinking idealistic bullshit. I know the kind of elite he's talking about and they make me sick. It's all vanity - not caring.

For interest, these are two articles of mine which show how technology can save the "humble poor" from the depressing half of their social zones. Maybe I should work for Trump? My brother reckons he would like me. lol.


Isn't Immigration Great - Victor Hanson

Neil Parille's picture

One reason for the emergence of outsider Donald Trump is the old outrage that elites seldom experience the consequences of their own ideologically driven agendas.

Hypocrisy, when coupled with sanctimoniousness, grates people like few other human transgressions: Barack Obama opposing charter schools for the inner city as he puts his own children in Washington’s toniest prep schools, or Bay Area greens suing to stop contracted irrigation water from Sierra reservoirs, even as they count on the Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy project to deliver crystal-clear mountain water to their San Francisco taps.

The American progressive elite relies on its influence, education, money, and cultural privilege to exempt itself from the bad schools, unassimilated immigrant communities, dangerous neighborhoods, crime waves, and general impoverishment that are so often the logical consequences of its own policies — consequences for others, that is. Abstract idealism on behalf of the distant is a powerful psychological narcotic that allows caring progressives to dull the guilt they feel about their own privilege and riches.

Nowhere is this paradox truer than in California, a dysfunctional natural paradise in which a group of coastal and governing magnificoes virtue-signal from the world’s most exclusive and beautiful enclaves. The state is currently experiencing another perfect storm of increased crime, decreased incarceration, still ongoing illegal immigration, and record poverty. All that is energized by a strapped middle class that is still fleeing the overregulated and overtaxed state, while the arriving poor take their places in hopes of generous entitlements, jobs servicing the elite, and government employment.

Pebble Beach or La Jolla is as far from Madera or Mendota as Mars is from Earth. The elite coastal strip appreciates California’s bifurcated two-class reality, at least in the way that the lords of the Middle Ages treasured their era’s fossilized divisions. Manoralism ensured that peasants remained obedient, dependent, and useful serfs; meanwhile, the masters praised their supposedly enlightened feudal system even as they sought exemptions for their sins from the medieval Church. And without a middle class, the masters had no fear that uncouth others would want their own scaled-down versions of castles and moats.

Go to a U-Haul trailer franchise in the state. The rental-trailer-return rates of going into California are a fraction of those going out. Surely never in civilization’s history have so many been so willing to leave a natural paradise.

Yet collate that fact with the skyrocketing cost of high-demand housing along a 400-mile coastal corridor. The apparent paradox is no paradox: Frustrated Californians of the interior of the state without money and who cannot afford to move to the coastal communities of Santa Monica or Santa Barbara (the entire middle class of the non-coast) are leaving for low-tax refuges out of state — in “if I cannot afford the coast, then on to Idaho” fashion. The state’s economy and housing are moribund in places like Stockton and Tulare, the stagnation being the logical result of the policies of the governing class that would never live there. Meanwhile, the coastal creed is that Facebook, Apple, Hollywood, and Stanford will virtually feed us, 3-D print our gas, or discover apps to provide wood and stone for our homes.

Crime rates are going up again in California, sometimes dramatically so. In Los Angeles, various sorts of robberies, assaults, and homicide rose between 5 and 10 percent over 2015; since 2014, violent crime has skyrocketed by 38 percent. This May, California’s association of police chiefs complained that since the passage of Proposition 47 — which reclassified supposedly “nonserious” crimes as misdemeanors and kept hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals out of jail — crime rates in population centers of more than 100,000 have increased more than 15 percent. California governor Jerry Brown has let out more parolees — including over 2,000 serving life sentences — than any recent governor.

How does that translate to the streets far distant from Brentwood or Atherton?

Let me narrate a recent two-week period in navigating the outlands of Fresno County. A few days ago my neighbor down the road asked whether I had put any outgoing mail in our town’s drive-by blue federal mailbox, adjacent to the downtown Post Office. I had. And he had, too —to have it delivered a few hours later to his home in scraps, with the checks missing, by a good Samaritan. She had collected the torn envelopes with his return address scattered along the street. I’m still waiting to see whether my own bills got collected before the thieves struck the box.

Most of us in rural California go into town to mail our letters, because our rural boxes have been vandalized by gangs so frequently that it is suicidal to mail anything from home. (Many of us now have armored, bullet-proof locked boxes for incoming mail).

On the same day last week, when I was driving outside our farm, I saw a commercial van stopped on the side of the road on the family property, with the logo of a furniture- and carpet-cleaner company emblazoned on the side. The driver was methodically pumping out the day’s effluvia into the orchard. When I approached him, he assured me in broken English that there was “no problem — all organic.” When I insisted he stop the pumping, given that the waste water smelled of solvents, he politely replied, “Okay, already, I’m almost done.” When it looked as if things might further deteriorate, the nice-enough polluter agreed to stop.

In the interior of green California, it is considered rude or worse to ask otherwise pleasant people not to pump out their solvent water on the side of the road. Down the road, I saw the morning’s new trash littered on the roadway — open bags of diapers and junk mail. Apparently California’s new postmodern law barring incorrect plastic grocery bags (and indeed barring free paper grocery bags) has not yet cleaned up our premodern roadsides. Remember: California knows it dare not enforce laws against trash-throwing in rural California; that’s too politically incorrect and would be impossible to enforce anyway. Instead, it charges shoppers for their bags. In California, the neglect of the felony requires the rigid prosecution of the misdemeanor.

I was in my truck — and suddenly I felt blessed that I was lucky enough to have it. Last summer it was stolen from a restaurant parking lot in Fresno when my son borrowed it to go to dinner. The truck was found four days later, still operable but with the ignition console torn apart and the interior ruined, amid the stench of trash, marijuana butts, beer bottles, waste, and paper plates still full of stale rice.

During this same recent 14-day period, my wife stopped at her office condo in Fresno to print out a document. She left the garage door open to the driveway for ten minutes. Ten minutes is a lifetime in the calculus of California thievery. Her relatively new hybrid bicycle was immediately stolen by a fleet-footed thief. I noted to her that recent parolees often walk around the streets until they can afford to buy or manage to steal a car — and therefore for a time like bikes like hers. That same week, her bank notified her that her credit card was canceled — after numerous charges at fast-food franchises showed up in Texas. Cardinal rule in California: Be careful in paying for anything with a credit card, because the number is often stolen and sold off.

I thought things had been getting better until these awful two weeks. One-third of a mile down my rural street, in the last 24 months, at least the swat team crashed a drug/prostitution/fencing operation hidden in a persimmon orchard. The house across the street from that operation was later surrounded by law enforcement to root out gang members. Forest fires started by undocumented-alien pot growers were down in the nearby Sierra. I hadn’t lost copper wire from a pump in two years.

I once also thought the proof of American civilization was predicated on three assumptions: One could confidently mail a letter in a federal postal box on the street; one in extremis could find safe, excellent care in an emergency room; and one could visit a local DMV office to easily clear up a state error.

None are any longer true. I’ll never put another letter in a U.S. postal box, unless I’m in places like Carmel or Atherton that are in the Other California.

Two years ago, I was delivered by ambulance to a local emergency room after a severe bike accident; on fully waking up, I saw a uniformed police officer standing next to my bed to protect fellow ER patients from the patient in the next cubicle — a felon who had punched his fist through a car window in a failed burglary attempt and who was now being visited by his gang-member relatives.

Not long ago, the DMV did not send me the necessary license sticker. Online reservations were booked up. So I made the mistake of visiting the local regional office without an appointment, where I first got my license 47 years ago — the office then was a model of efficiency and professionalism. A half-century later, a line hundreds of feet long snaked out the door. The office is designated as a DMV center for licensing illegal aliens. The entire office, in the linguistic and operational sense, is recalibrated to assist those who are here illegally and to make it difficult if not impossible for citizens to use it as we did in the past. After 20 minutes, when the line had hardly moved, I left.

What makes the law-abiding leave California is not just the sanctimoniousness, the high taxes, or the criminality. It is always the insult added to injury. We suffer not only from the highest basket of income, sales, and gas taxes in the nation, but also from nearly the worst schools and infrastructure. We have the costliest entitlements and the most entitled. We have the largest number of billionaires and the largest number of impoverished, both in real numbers and as a percentage of the state population.

California crime likewise reflects the California paradox of two states: a coastal elite and everyone else. California is the most contentious, overregulated, and postmodern state in the Union, and also the most feral and 19th-century.

On my rural street are two residences not far apart. In one, shacks dot the lot. There are dozens of port-a-potties, wrecked cars, and unlicensed and unvaccinated dogs — all untouched by the huge tentacles of the state’s regulatory octopus.

Nearby, another owner is being regulated to death, as he tries to rebuild a small burned house: His well, after 30 years, is suddenly discovered by the state to be in violation, under a new regulation governing the allowed distance between his well and his leach line; so he drills another costly well. Then his neighbor’s agricultural well is suddenly discovered by the state regulators to be too close as well, so he breaks up sections of his expensive new leach line. After a new septic system was built by a licensed contractor and a new well was drilled by a licensed well-driller, he has after a year — $40,000 poorer — still not been permitted to even start to rebuild his 900-square-foot house.

In the former case, the owner of port-a-potties and shacks clearly cannot pay and belongs to an exempt class of the Other. The latter owner is a rare law-abiding Californian, and so he has a regulatory target on his back — because he is someone of the vanishing middle class who can and will do and pay as ordered. He is an endangered species whose revenue-raising torment is necessary to exempt others from the same ordeal.

In feral California, we suffer not just from too many and too few applications of the law, but from the unequal enforcement of it. When the state has one-fourth of its population born in another country, dozens of sanctuary cities exempt from federal law, and millions residing here illegally, it makes politicized cost-benefit choices.

Feral California out here is a live-and-let-live place, a libertarian’s dream (or nightmare). The staggering costs for its illegality are made up by the shrinking few who nod as they always have and follow the law in all its now-scary manifestations.

The rich on the coast tune out. From her nest in Rancho Mirage, a desert oasis created by costly water transfers, outgoing senator Barbara Boxer rails about water transfers. When Jerry Brown leaves his governorship, he will not live in Bakersfield but probably in hip Grass Valley. High crime, the flight of small businesses, and water shortages cannot bound the fences of Nancy Pelosi’s Palladian villa or the security barriers and walls of Mark Zuckerberg and other Silicon Valley billionaires — who press for more regulation, and for more compassion for the oppressed, but always from a distance and always from the medieval assumption that their money and privilege exempt them from the consequences of their idealism. There is no such thing as an open border for a neighbor of Mr. Zuckerberg or of Ms. Pelosi.

A final window into the California pathology: Most of the most strident Californians who decry Trump’s various proposed walls insist on them for their own residences.

Charles Murray on Group Differences

Neil Parille's picture

Starting at 1 hour and 45 seconds.

The ARI Goes Full Leftist (New From ARIWatch.Com)

Neil Parille's picture

Andrew Bernstein defends slave insurrectionists who kill innocent people.

I think as CEO but he will

Neil Parille's picture

I think as CEO but he will have a different position.

Did I hear right?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Yaron is stepping down?

Well Triassic, the best you

Andrew Atkin's picture

Well Triassic, the best you can do is find the best soundbites and start from there.

For interest, this was my own simple statement from an old post:

"3. Keeping New Zealand a safe haven from the global terrorist threat:

About 300 million people, world over, believe in honor killings and sharia law, etc. Does it really make sense to invite those people to come and live in New Zealand?

It is our country. We are allowed to be choosy.

There are plenty of needy refugees out there that we can help out, and who won't cause us any serious grief. Maybe we should just stick with those people?

We don't need to make life difficult for ourselves. With just a little common sense, we can be sure that New Zealand does not ever turn into another France.

Excellent video link: "

....any more complex than that, and you've lost 97% of the public Smiling

Analogies to help the "against open immigration" cause

Triassic's picture

I'll use several analogies here - gorse, rabbits and possums. They *all* "immigrated" (were brought in) here and all of them - given the chance - will completely outbreed and replace the local animals and plant life. Muslims have OPENLY STATED that this is EXACTLY what they intend to do in Europe (and no doubt elsewhere as well).

In passing, I will mention the "elephant in the room" that is always overlooked by pro-open-immigration people - the fact that most Islamic countries are taking ZERO "refugees" from the flood entering Europe. Why? Because they are Muslim invaders - not refugees - and so they perfectly serve the evil goals of Islam.

Open immigration is *utter insanity* (as Europe, the US and UK are finding out). It leads to the eventual death of the local culture. I want no part of such a scheme of "cultural suicide" and will do all I can to resist it.

Yaron Brook - Don't Be Afraid of Islamic Crime

Neil Parille's picture

At 1:24

And people who are upset about Islamic immigration and immigrant crime are making things up:

At 1:29

And at the end Yaron the leftist supports "gay marriage," transgenderism and the Olympics (which he is too stupidly left to realize is a leftist, multicultural spectacle).

Immigration and Crime

Neil Parille's picture

Lots can be said about this, but I'll point out a few obvious problems with the claim that immigration doesn't increase the crime rate:

1. In Europe no one would deny that immigration is increasing crime (note, not just terrorism). Coulter's book is very good on this. 50% of France's inmates are Muslims. 50% of Germany's prisoners are foreign born. It would odd if the same isn't happening in the USA.

2. There are studies that show that x percent of the population are immigrants and x percent of the prison population are immigrants. Hence, immigration doesn't increase crime. However, consider this: Joe is 30 years old and lived in the US all his life. He's committed 1 crime. Jose comes to the US at age 25 and by the time he's 30 commits one crime in the US. His crime rate is much higher.

3. Much of our immigration is from Central America. Mexico has a murder rate four times that of the US. It is reported that Guatemala and Honduras have murder rates eight to ten times that of the US. How in the world could immigrants from these countries and not increase crime rates.


Neil Parille's picture

I listened to the show recently all the way through. Brook seems impressed with some of Trump's cabinet choices.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I listened to more than you did of Yaron's latest show, but not all of it—his presentation is lamentable, and I could only take so much (I guess I have to take as much as I can endure because of our upcoming encounter). But what was remarkable was his back-pedaling from the Trump Derangement Syndrome of his previous show. Did you notice that? Also, when it came to offering advice to Trump on what he, Trump, should do once inaugurated, Brook suggested things that are already Trump's policies, and didn't seem to be aware of that fact. Is there a Not Paying Attention Syndrome at ARI as well as TDS?

Off Topic: Jesus's Date Of Birth / Winter Solstice

Neil Parille's picture

Yaron Brook repeated the claim on his recent show (which he did last year, apparently getting it from Peikoff) that the early Christians celebrate Jesus's birth on December 25 because of its supposed connections to Roman pagan celebrations concernng the sun, days getting longer, etc. Apparently another urban legend that Objectivists like to throw around.


Neil Parille's picture

As usual, Journo is taking a valid Objectivist concept and wrenching out of its context.

Somalia is a backwards, 99.9% Muslim country. No one is saying that you can't get a Hirsi out of that culture, but the chances are much greater that you will get a Abdul Razak Ali Artan (the Columbus, Ohio Jihadi). Is this controversial? What's next, it's deterministic to think the pope will likely be Catholic tomorrow, the mailman will deliver my mail tomorrow, etc.?

Journo considers himself among the most rational human beings, but he is so enthralled by the idea of open immigration that he can't think straight.

This, by the way, is the Henneppin (Minneapolis County) most wanted list:

Looks like 2 of 7 are Somali.

unhinged individualism

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Present-elect Trump has floated another kind of deterministic account.

Objectivists don't think. They look through a preset number of filters they have and deduce everything from that. So because the OI crowd doesn't want to kick Hirsi out or prevent her from coming in in the first place, we are to be subjected to a never ending stream of Muslim atrocities. And all those white women will continue to get raped. All because we can't exclude the group because that would be "collectivism" or "determinism". With Muslims come violence. Japan only let in 27 refugees. They got TWO rapists.

To Yaron Brook, how would you feel if your daughter was the next one raped by Muslim savages? Would you still righteously defend open immigration? I bet you would. Selfish? Hardly.

This is a vicious type of altruism, masked by the ridiculous argument that massive bombing campaigns like in Japan and Germany during WW2 will change Muslim culture, and also refusing to recognize that the Japanese have an IQ of 105, the Germans 100. Muslims have an average of between 82 and 87. Good luck teaching those people in aggregate "secular values and freedom".

Also, what a stupid thing to say "secular values and freedom." Secularists today are on the side of the Left. Where are all these secularists who value "freedom"? The Left is pushing state atheism as the official religion. You try to spread that to the Muslim world and of course they would never accept it. Hell, I'm partially sympathetic with the Muslim world in a way. They are being forced to accept Leftist degeneracy in place of their traditionalist values. When I was in Libya in 2004 I saw Muslim women who looked so pretty in their traditional garb. They were also very feminine. Forcing "Generation Airhead" slut culture which I know all too well on them would be vicious. This is why you get ISIS style retaliation.

Replacing religion with "D2 nihilism" is bound to result in "M2 theocracy". Especially when your average IQ is 85 (or less). But all this is beyond the Objectivist movement. Precious dears can't be bothered with biological or cultural realities. Too "deterministic".

May Galt have mercy on their souls. (But he really shouldn't.)

Open Immigration Makes You Stupid

Neil Parille's picture

The latest from Elan Journo, the ARI's leading foreign policy expert:

Present-elect Trump has floated another kind of deterministic account. In certain moods, he talks as if someone's innate cultural background or race makes them a holy warrior (see, for example, how he hammered on the fact that the Orlando shooter's parents were Afghans, and his calls for an immigration ban on Muslims). That's false, too. It's about choosing, and acting on, a set of ideas. Think of John Walker Lindh, who turned away from his Marin County, California, upbringing and joined the ranks of the Taliban. Or, on the flip side, consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who grew up in a culture saturated with Islamist ideas, but has become a valiant champion of secular values and freedom.

This is moronic. Just because the next Noble Prize winner in physics might come from Podunk Valley Community College and not Caltech means that it's deterministic to believe that Caltech will produce better physicists than Podunk Valley?

Brooks Latest On Islamic Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

First 22 minutes.

If anyone can figure out his views on immigration he is smarter (or maybe have more patience) than me. I guess if we declared war on SA and Iran and ended the threat of Jihad (which he has said will take 3 weeks at most) we could end Islamic immigration. Then it's open immigration. So 3 weeks without open immigration, or something like that.

Brook said if there were a civil war in Mexico we could prevent millions of Mexicans from coming across the border. But what about peace time? We'd then have to have 40 million Mexicans in (the number who say they would come)?

Previous Debates On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Ed Powell debated Stuart Hayashi on Amy Peikoff's show:

Yaron Brook debated Leonard Peikoff:

The Freedom of Contract Argument

Neil Parille's picture

One thing Perigo has to be prepared for is Brook's "property right" / "freedom of contract" argument. "If I take my truck and go to Mexico and hire 10 Mexicans, whose rights am I violating."

I'd argue that immigration law is an "organic law" that defines what freedom of contract is in this context. It's similar to freedom of contract in general. I can't sell weapons to Boko Harum even if I have good reason to believe that they will not be used against Americans. I can enter into a one-sided prenuptial agreement with my wife, but it can't permit me to divorce her by sending a text message (as you can do in Saudi Arabia) or leave my children to the Saudi Royal Family.

To make freedom of contract primary is a mistake.  Freedom of contract is deritvative and rests on the general laws of the country.  To take freedom of contract as a primary is similar to what anarcho-capitalists do.  They take a valid principle (the non-initiation of force) and wrest it from its proper context (a judicial system that can objectively and definitely settle disputes among parties). 

In the video I posted, Libertarian Realist asks what if the residents of Galt's Galch, realizing there was no hope for the US, buy up adjacent property and Galt's Gulch declares iteself an independent country. Assume it also places restrictions on immigration in its Constitution to prevent the people who have turned the USA into a living hell.  One day “No one is allowed in except by permission”, the next day, “I guess we have to have open borders.”

Brook says he doesn't like the gated community analogy but in many ways I think it is a good one. The by-laws are the constitution. Brook and Binswanger can't have non-residents as permanent guests for example. And gated communities have a system of laws ultimately enforced by the state.  A gated communities subsequent heirs and purchasers are bound by the by-laws whether they signed them or not.


Neil Parille's picture

Demographics, demographics, demographics. This one subject must be discussed. It is just a matter of time before both Florida and Texas go blue because of hispanic immigration. When that happens, America is doomed. If Brook can't acknowledge that then IMO he is an enemy of liberty.

Brook acknwoledges this perhaps, but he blames it on the Republicans for being "vicious, vicious" against immigrants which is forcing them (and their children) to become Democrats.  He believes the claims of Hispanics having broken families, being welfare dependant, comitting crime at high rates, etc. are all lies.  According to Brook, Republicans are "xenophobic" (in other words, racist).



Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Demographics, demographics, demographics. This one subject must be discussed. It is just a matter of time before both Florida and Texas go blue because of hispanic immigration. When that happens, America is doomed. If Brook can't acknowledge that then IMO he is an enemy of liberty.

Take it (immigration) to the people?

Andrew Atkin's picture

Can't remember if I've already commented on this?....but....

One idea I had was to have a kind of national jury service on immigration. Get the government to do a basic screening on applicants, and then make a quick 2-minute interview for each applicant. The public then watches the interviews online, then votes (rates them for desirability). So, the final interview is conducted by the public.

We now have the technology to consider this approach. Could be a great way to work around political ideologues who don't understand whose front door it is, that they're managing.

Altruist race to the bottom obleftivists

gregster's picture


gregster's picture

Hit me with it Parille. I must say I will be re–evaluating much of the old debates carried on here. Including my input. Leonard has been overtaken by the dark side. He is weakened. They have beaten all sense from ARI.


Neil Parille's picture

Not knowing how the former Mrs. Peikoff is going to steer the debate, it's important for Linz to be prepare on both. I'll have another dynamite post tonight on Brook's intrincisit approach verses full-context application.

Excellent Video On Objectivism And Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Ayn Rand On Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

OI Objectivists often argue that: (1) immigration is a right; and (2) open immigration was advocated by Rand and follows from her system. Mark Hunter from has some good points on this:

1. The collected essays of Ayn Rand fill nine volumes: For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Voice of Reason, and The Ayn Rand Column. In all this work here is what she wrote about immigration:

[This space intentionally left blank.]

There is nothing. Ayn Rand wrote literally nothing on the subject of immigration.

2. This brings us to that lonely discovery of ARI’s: Rand advocating mass Third World immigration – so they claim, while casting a discrete shadow over “mass Third World.” Though what she said is not as bad as that, it is awful. The place and time was the Ford Hall Forum, Boston 1973. [9] There is a gap in the published recording when the audience member asked his question. The moderator repeats the question in his own words: “What is your attitude towards open immigration and what is your attitude towards the effect it may have upon the standard of living in this country? And does not this require that the answer is that you are, uh, opposed to both—” At this point the original questioner interrupts to repeat the second part of his question: “Aren’t you asking a person to act against his own self-interest ... [inaudible].” The moderator repeats, not too coherently: “Aren’t you asking a person to act in connection with his own self-interest in connection with his decision as to what to advocate?” As with her hopeful destruction of the innocent in Russia, we provide a faithful transcript of Rand’s answer (as we have for the question) rather than rely on ARI’s paraphrase in Ayn Rand Answers. For clarity and ease of reference we divide it into three paragraphs. The emphasis is hers, the bracketed account of her tone of voice ours. “You don’t apparently know what my position on self interest is. “I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended. “But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.” About her last statement. Ayn Rand came to the U.S. legally in 1926, two years after passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 which restricted immigration even more severely than the Act of 1921 – and in those days immigration law was enforced. Her premise, that immigration was not restricted when she came here and later when she obtained citizenship, is simply not true.

3.  Including the work by the other authors she published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist.

This is part of a larger gap in Objectivist theory. Rand published hardly anything about practical politics – political science – as opposed to political philosophy. What is a nation? Who should be able to vote? What is the purpose of a country’s border? Concerning migrants: who, when, how many, how long, under what conditions, citizenship? She never addressed questions like these.

There is a hint about nationhood in her essay “Collectivized ‘Rights,’ ” (The Objectivist Newsletter 1963, reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness). She wrote (emphasis hers):


“A free nation – a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens – has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation ... has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).”


And that


"Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.”


It is reasonable to conclude that a free nation has the right to demand that its sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected by foreign individuals as well as foreign nations. Unfortunately she didn’t elaborate.


gregster's picture

It would depend on what one wants to defend. If you introduce a concrete, then you'd need to know which sources back your argument. Much of the disagreements come down to differences in applying principles. An ARI intrinsicist approach versus a full-context application.


Neil Parille's picture

If I were debating a NZ issue I would need a lot of help.


gregster's picture

Just that I'm sure Linz can manage himself. But don't get me wrong--it's a good idea to gather all the ammo in one place.


Neil Parille's picture

What's so funny ?


gregster's picture

Between Neil and myself we should give you enough resources to be well read on this. I like it when you're funny. I laughed, sincerely.

But back to business--hey this will be an important occasion. As it stands, one thing preventing Europe from Islamic obliteration is a chance it'll go broke beforehand, causing the invasion to slow. There is some good news, mainly in the form of anti-open immigration Netherlands PVV. I hope Geert Wilders wins there. He knows his shit. They know he knows, that's why they found him guilty. Then there's still the chance that Italy, France and Germany may pull the plug on the EU project and revert to more freedom-respecting sovereignties.

When Lindsay further exposes the self-contradictory positions that Brook holds this will be an important moment. The extent to which any nation holds rational principles is the extent of its success. And the opposite could be oblivion. I wonder what Bwook has said of Wilders?

Too many so-called Objectivists have been influenced by the inconsistencies out of ARI. When Trump won, the unfriendings from the faithful at the smallest of wind-ups were common. This debate will be a turning point to a better future by hopefully allowing the setting of a rational life-affirming direction.

A Good Start

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Very important links below. The devil is in the details and with immigration you had better know the details.

All four of the above videos are *data rich* and information packed. Jason Richwine is NOT a racist like some stupid Objectivists argue (especially that nitwit Stuart Hyashi). Richwine and Camarota actually work for think tanks that *specialize* in this subject. They are also free market inclined. They should not be dismissed because they are not "pure laissez faire". And they both provide data that shows that immigration in our context has NOT been good for America. Not even economically. That is important.

Linz, the above three videos are all data driven. Molyneux provides links to check his sources. He pays to go behind paywalls for some of this information. Objectivists just don't deal in this kind of empirical detail. Harry Binswanger for example has been posting for years that the data is "uncertain". No its not Harry. Brook will know nothing of this. He is an arch rationalist who thinks he's above empirical arguments. If he were to debate Molyneux, Moly would destroy him on the facts alone. Brook won't do this of course and even if he did he would run and hide behind Randian philosophy. Don't do that.

Prep for this. You're very articulate and obviously very smart. And now you're in a position to help (maybe) move Objectivists away from their terrible rationalism in general and horrendous stupidity on this subject in particular.

Note: You can listen to these x2 to get through them faster. Then you can go back at slower speeds for parts you want to digest. That's how I basically listen to everything. People talking at normal pace seem strange to me now lol.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Neil has put some good arguments here and we are going to post a list of resources for you so you have actual *empirical* data on the issue (Stefan Molyneux is great for this.) Brook will have no contextual data and he will have a *ton* of rationalism, which I will post on at some point.

The bottom line is that libertarianism (whatever variant, Rand's version included) advocates the free movement of goods and the free movement of labor. The arguments against the free movement of goods (ie Paul Craig Watson stuff) is not convincing and relies on crap economics. Its easily refuted. But goods don't go where they are not wanted, people do.

With the free movement of labor it needs to be realized that people are *not* just labor. They vote and they bring their culture with them. And 3rd worlders bring with them terrible culture. In the case of Islam, they bring with them the *worst* culture in the world. This is why immigration is so damn dangerous. Objectivists and most mainstream libertarians don't understand this. Brook sure as hell doesn't. This is what you will need to stress.

And of course, as I keep saying, Brook and OrgOism have a faulty view of rights. They believe that all humans have a natural right to cross borders. This translates into a natural right to enter America as if there is an open invitation to the world. To me this is incompatible with property rights. And there lies the problem with theory.

So your work is cut out for you. You need to figure out where O'ists go wrong with theory and you need to *really* understand the data on this. I am going to post some links and videos on each. Between Neil and myself we should give you enough resources to be well read on this.

Oh, and please read Ann Coulter's book "Adios America". That is a MUST. Peter Brimelow's book "Alien Nation" is also damn good.


Neil Parille's picture

If OI Objectivists were to take this seriosly, then we would have to restrict immigration from Europe, Australia and New Zealand since outside of these place there are not reliable background check (to the best of my knowledge - there might be some exceptions).

Say "Jose Suarez" goes to the US embassy in Mexico and produces a document showing he is "Jose Suarez" and has what purports to be a criminal background check saying he has no criminal convictions. Who in his right mind would trust it? Also, the age of consent in Mexico is 12 - that's Mexico, not Saudi Arabia. So he could be a child rapist and we'd never know. I have a friend who is a public defender and he says the claims by people such as Ann Coulter about statutory rape and domestic violence in Mexican-American families is 100 percent correct.

There are Middle East and North African countries that don't have laws against domestic abuse? Does Brook know that there are reliable polls that say 25% of men in these countries have committed sexual assault?

And assume that you could properly screen Muslims. Is Brook so naive about human nature that he thinks the worst aspects of Muslim culture would not reassert themselves? This has happened in Europe where the third generation of Muslims are producing lots of terrorists.

What Happens If We Have Open Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

OI Objecitivsts seldom discuss this.

There are polls that say 1/3 Mexicans would come to the USA if they could. (That's 40 million.) Mexico is wealthy by the world's standards but poor by the US standard, so that's probably a good proxy. With Brazil you'd have 60 million, 300 million Indians, 400 million Muslims, etc. Now they couldn't all move here at one time, but the USA as it now exists would come to an end. Why should anyone want this?

Europe and Israel would become Islamic. (There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If only 10% came to Europe that, with the numbers here and their higher birthrates) would be sufficient to turn Europe Islamic. And there are enough non-Muslims third worlders to make Europe an unpleasant place to live.

Of course the problem is made worse by Europe's welfare state and the UN and EU policy of resettling "migrants" but the result would be the same without this. It would just take longer.

And remember what an Islamic Europe and Israel would mean: their judges, prosecutors and police would be majority Muslim. So much for the police investigating harassment of Europeans and the mistreatment of girls and women. Europe's nukes would come under Islamic control.

Yaron Brook On Open Immigration

Neil Parille's picture

Mark from has some good posts:

Note that Brook's big talking point is that "immigration should be easy but citizenship (and voting hard)." This is a non-issue in the USA where we have birth right citizenship.

Brook has also said that if the USA were free and had "self esteem" that we could have 10 immigrants per native and within a generation or two they would be free market advocates. This is crazy. How many natives can speak Arabic or Hindi to "convert" the immigrants?

Brook complains that opponents of OI are xenophobic (in other words, racist). Note that Brook exempts Israel from OI so that Israel can remain an ethno-nationalist state. Why isn't this racist? Any way, how come Brook lives in a white gated community when, if he believes OI is great, should live in a barrio in Santa Ana (the largest Mexican-American city in the USA) which is closer to ARI HQ in Irvine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.