Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, calls for an open immigration policy, saying that the government’s only function should be to protect individual rights.
CAPITALISM REVIEW
SHOW PROFILE
We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.
We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.
With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!
Related Articles
“America is, and always will be, a shining City on a Hill.” – Ronald Reagan
Take the ‘Racist Xenophobe’ Quiz!
If quotas on immigration are an essential tool for protecting us Americans from being terrorized on our own soil, why do we still have no quotas on foreigners who come to America as visitors? Must someone be a resident of the U.S. in order to unleash terror in America?
Herein we watch Official Objectivism morph into libertarianism. I hope Israel never adopts this suicidal policy, the fruits of which we can witness in Europe. Not that real world events and evidence matters to dogmatists.
Yaron has an obligation to state that Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir as well as most Objectivists disagree with it, so this is his opinion and not the “Objectivist” position.
If “open” immigration is going to be the legacy of the ARI, it should be defunded. Frankly, this looks like self-dealing.
I’d like to ask the open borders advocates if this policy also applies to Israel.
Granted, Israel is at war with its immediate neighbors, but it’s not at war with Islam itself and as the open immigration advocates themselves tell us, you shouldn’t judge someone on their ideology and it should be no bar to immigration.
So as long as a Muslim isn’t a self-professed terrorist or supports terrorism, every single Muslim in the world, from places that aren’t in an actual physical war Israel (Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt etc.), is free and welcome to immigrate to Israel?
Have I got this right?
They like talking about this issue because it’s one of the few things which, prima facia, distinguishes Objectivism from conservatism. It’s purely for polemical purposes. A means of appealing to as broad an audience as possible. It’s the same reason why people like Diana Hsieh are so obsessed with abortion.
This is a typical open immigration presentation. Not a single consideration of what the negative effects of immigration might be.
I have heard that Brook exempts Israel from open immigration on the grounds it is at war with their neighbors. However, as noted below their plenty of Islamic nations with which Israel has no problem.
Has Mr. Brook read a UK paper. Has he heard about the Rotheham incident. Has he heard about the beheadings, the rapes of white women, the female genital mutilation, the riots that Muslims have caused?
Can you imagine what will happen in Europe when the majority of policemen, judges and prosecutors are Muslims?
From what I understand, Israelis must be protected from any Muslims in all instances, even the “moderate” ones from countries they aren’t at war with Israel, even if this contradicts their own argument, because open borders for Israel would ensure that Israel becomes Muslim and Israelis will be slaughtered.
Europe, however, must have open borders and welcome in the very same Muslims even when doing so ensures Europe becomes Muslim and Europeans will be slaughtered.
This, apparently, is in no way irrational, hypocritical, racist or an example of Jewish tribalism.
Again, if any open borders advocate would like to put my straight as to why this isn’t the case, I’m all ears.
A premise of open immigration Objectivists such as Brook is that a country does not have a right to restrict immigration to protect its ethnic or religious majority.
What if Israel were at peace with her neighbors and there was no such thing as Jihadist Islam. Assume that there were just millions of Muslims who wanted to move to Israel because of its propserity and, when they become a majority, impose a Sharia state. I don’t see any ground that Brook would have to oppose open immigration for Israel.
Does Brook advocate Israel repealing the Law of Return? Is he upset
about the fence it has built (largely to keep out Africans)?
I voted up your post but the number went down wtf going on?
It’s even worse. Israel wasn’t just trying to keep out Muslims, but Communists and African Christians.
Israel is the one and only country that can restrict immigration to maintain its religious and ethnic makeup.
If Craig Biddle were consistent, he should equate Israel with Nazi Germany:
_____________________
If by “We have a right to our culture” opponents of immigration are
speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then
what they seek is not to protect American culture but to “achieve”
something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about
that.
_____________________
Exactly. According to the open borders philosophy, you cannot bar Arabs, or Pakistanis, or Nigerians from Israel on ethnic grounds, as that’s racism. You cannot bar non-terrorist or non-terrorist supporting Muslims from Israel simply because they’re Muslims because you would be judging someone by their ideology, which should not be a bar to entry.
So by their own standards, there is not one single reason why the open borders policy should not also be extended to Israel. But apparently there is, because it’s official open borders policy that Israel is exempt from Islamic immigration.
So can someone please explain to this rather confused British Objectivist why this is the case and why I have to sit back and accept the Islamification of my country in the name of open borders whilst Israeli, and only Israel, gets protected from Islam?
Does anyone have Brook’s or Bernstein’s email? I think everyone would be interested in their responses to the issues raised here.
This just in:
“Agent Logan’s search did not meet the required limitation. He surveyed the entire state of Washington for computers [of potential illegal immigrants]….
“The record here demonstrates that Agent Logan and other NCIS agents routinely carry out broad surveillance activities that violate the restrictions on military enforcement of civilian law. …”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/12/child-pornography-conviction-overturned-because-the-government-violated-the-posse-comitatus-act/
Oh, wait, it was for collectors of child pornography. A very hot button issue, which provocative nature surely justifies such survellience. Right? Not at all as provocative as severely restricting immigration.
And, no, the answer is not Obama & the Dem’s wholesale amnesty but in-country screenings for disease & criminal acts or membership in a criminal org.
Indiscriminate surveillance to catch child porn collectors today; the same to enforce strict immigration laws tomorrow.
Despotism comes in many guises; but always leads to the same result.