Yaron Brook on Immigration Policy 2 - Ayn Rand Institute

Posted by Eudaimonia 5 years, 2 months ago to Politics
42 comments | Share | Flag

Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute on Immigration Policy

Some relevant excerpts to our discussion here in the Gulch:

"Three Classes of people, I think, should be excluded [from open immigration], in the name of protecting the rights of Americans:
terrorists, or any kind of threat to national security - people who have that kind of background - spies...,
criminals - people who are going to threaten the lives or property of American citizens - that's part of the government's role, and
people who are carrying infectious diseases that, again, are inflicting harm on American."

"If somebody wants to come to America to work, they just walk across, they prove that they are not a criminal, a terrorist, or carrying an infectious disease, and they can come into the country."

"So who's going to sneak into the country [after a ration immigration policy is in place]? Who's going to try to sneak in? Oh, only one class of people. Those who want to inflict harm on Americans. Shoot them at the border if that's what's necessary. Because as soon as they are trying to sneak in, it means that they're criminal or they're terrorists."

This talk was given in mid 2008, which is relevant because it was before the current operatives of the Communist Party USA working through the political front group known as the Democrat party seized the Federal Executive Branch through fraud of complete misrepresentation and began aggressively implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy to collapse the system.

Look at Dr. Brook's arguments. His concept of Open Immigration still calls for an orderly vetting of all who would like to come to the United States, and once that orderly vetting is in place, let all who would like to come, come.
He bases his arguments in the right of the American people to not have force visited upon them, a right protected by their government (see Ayn Rand on "Self-Defence", "Self-Determination of Nations", and "National Rights").

Dr. Brook even goes so far as to suggest arming guards at the border to shoot those who violate the policy.

With the exception of my taking the Cloward-Piven strategy implementation into account and Dr. Brook's suggestion of shooting violators at the border, I have called for no different: replace the broken system with a rational, orderly vetting.

Your comments are welcome.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF92vXogERE


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
    Sorry, Yaron, I won't be investing in your Gulch.
    Being oblivious of reality is a guarantee of failure.
    Edit:
    Guess I should offer some partial explanation for my comment.
    Open immigration policy does not prevent a determined, powerful nation from funding an invasion of Atlantis by immigrant Manchurian Candidates.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
      FFA, respectfully, if you and Dr. Brook have a disagreement, why is your initial position that Dr. Brook is "oblivious of reality"?

      You both have your own perceptions of The Truth. I am fairly certain that Dr. Brook is not an agent provocateur and is arguing with integrity. Would it not benefit you both to consider the other's arguments and then check your own premises?

      I'm sure Dr. Brook has had much more to say on this subject than the most readily available five minute youtube clips - more in which he further elaborates his position.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
        I hope my edit of the original comment addresses your concern, E.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
          Agreed.

          Dr. Brook only speaks of people coming here to work, not coming here to live, although he does mention spies - which would cover your concerns.

          But even in his specific coverage of the topic, he does call for the same position which I have also called for and for the same reasons, which I understand now that you see.

          I would very much be interested in knowing if and how his position has changed in relation to the Cloward-Piven strategy which has been implemented over the past six years.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
            My comment above was limited in scope to application in Atlantis. I do not agree that an open border immigration policy would be beneficial to my self interest in America. If I want to live in a foreign culture, e.g., latin or middle eastern, I can travel and live in such a culture. I have spent many months in Latin culture and I do not want to live in one. I do want to live in a culture like America prior to the past 30 years of invasion from the south. I completely disagree with any immigration policy that destroys that culture and replaces it with a Latin culture that has no appreciation or understanding of individual liberty, private property, and limited non-corrupt government that is the servant of the people. I recognize that there are benefits to having immigrants from other cultures assimilated into the American culture, but that comes from assimilation into the American culture, including learning to speak English fluently. It does not come from millions of foreigners invading an area, having anchor babies to loot from productive people and then voting for measures that change the culture from English to Latin. After the Viet Nam war lots of Vietnamese came to America and they brought benefits and assimilated as other Asians had before them. Some Latins have also done so in the past and the American culture has broadened and become more as a result. That is not the case in the current invasion, and an open immigration policy would continue to erode and destroy the culture that I care about.
            I also recognize that the "whole" problem is not open immigration. However, promoting an open immigration policy without eliminating the mommy state attractions is being oblivious of reality.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
              Your concerns are why I also qualified that immigration must be done in phases to allow people who move here to assimilate to a culture (presumably still present here) of respect for private property.

              And, yes the welfare state must be dealt with before any immigration policy would be truly effective or moral, and that is another huge can of worms whose solution borders on utopian.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by strugatsky 5 years, 2 months ago
                Prior to 1913, there were no government handouts, aka social policies. People from all over the world came here to better themselves materially and to enjoy freedom. The fact that they had to assimilate and work for all that they were to receive was in fact a filter that kept the mooching rabble away. Get rid of the food on the floor and you'll get rid of the cockroaches.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 2 months ago
        I think a threat that Dr. Brook does not consider is one such as the Free State Project, where libertarians hope to have enough libertarians move to New Hampshire to control or strongly influence the government. If they hadn't picked New Hampshire, I might be tempted -- I hate the cold.

        But what libertarians (and Objectivists) can do to have a "state of their own" looters can do to have access to the wealth of the state. And, since I assume that free people allowed to produce unfettered by a collectivist government will be highly productive, there will be plenty of wealth.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
    Old Dino got things to go do, like taking a toothache to the dentist, but I'm thinking that an incoming terrorist will prove he or she is not one (such as a mole) and is actually more than willing to work hard to get ahead in life.
    Years later, after lots and lots of such people, who we welcomed in with open arms, will rise up as a powerful populace and tell the rest of us to either convert to a certain religion or forfeit our heads.
    I just can't get around that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
    That's exactly the libertarian immigration policy. And it has an advantage you didn't mention -- the border patrol, who now have the impossible job of stopping millions, would be tasked with stopping a lot fewer people. So they should be able to do it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 2 months ago
    Including the coward piven thing which is provable and shooting intruders, (keeping a look out for women and children...wouldn't shoot them) isn't this what we have been discussing in regards to the rights of 'Freedom loving' nations? I think the consensus is that Rand was spot on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 5 years, 2 months ago
    The US is based on the idea of individual responsibility for ones actions and beliefs. That means to be here one must accept the principles of freedom and law that make it possible to be individually sovereign. Each immigrant should be asked as they come through the fence if they take the oath to support the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Laws of the Constitution plus swear that they will ask and expect no one to support them nor will they expect or be asked to support anyone else. They agree to trade values freely with the other citizens. Let these in and let the Christian socialists out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
    I will be in Munich on Thursday. I will interviewing immigrants from Syria for Savvy Street. Isreal is a unique case. It is surrounded by the worst despot nations of our lifetime. I call that a state of war. War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Firearms, War on PC-none of these are WARS. K taking her ball and not playing
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by not-you 5 years, 2 months ago
      khalling, What I hear you saying is that there are extenuating circumstances in which the stated Objectivist principle of a right to 'travel freely' may be suspended. I also hear you saying that only certain people should be recognized as the arbiter of just which extenuating circumstances meet Objectivist criteria or not--at least on this forum. I wonder how your sentiments about Israel's 'unique' circumstances would have appealed to the thousands of Japanese-American citizens who were detained in camps by the Federal government during WWII? After all, some could mount a vigorous argument that since the United States was, "at war" with Japan a case for existential threat could be made. I don't agree with that argument, but my issue here is consistency of application of principles when situations get sticky. Those border ranchers referred to in my other post could well make a case that the illegals and drug runners trespassing on their private property constitute an 'existential' threat--as these property owners have no prior knowledge as to which of these, 'travelers' may or may not be armed and violent, and indeed have faced the reality of some 'travelers' murdering their neighbors.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
        Noticing the word travelers remember that the right to travel is not mentioned in the Constitution. For non citizens or citizens. Under powers not granted I would think the federal government has a bit of a problem. However they have historical precedent. Incarceration of citizens in WWII came about with martial law being applied to the West Coast States. Travel was extensively controlled during that period for all citizens. There wasn't much in the way of rights that weren't trampled on for the needs of the moment. Another example of citizens giving up their rights or...having them taken without recourse? The government can hardly use the excuse of terrorism anymore. Obeyme declared it was over and won. They also said we have negative numbers on border crossings as the illegals are heading south to find tacos and jobs. Come to think of it Executive Orders aren't in the Constitution either. Don't you wish we had it back?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 5 years, 2 months ago
          On what does a traveler step? On someone's property. Be it a city or federal lands or my land they must accept the laws of that land before they can claim any right to be there. Trespass is the term for immigrants who do not have the welcome of the land owner who would not give free passage to anyone denying the laws of property.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
            Trouble is I can't think of any private property in the whole USA. I see a lot of people paying for the right to pay rent to the government but the notion and to pay for any liability or their fair share of near by or abutting improvements of private proiperty but the mere fact you are paying the government is to put it mildly paying for the right to rent. A rental is not a ownership. There are a number of circumstances when some can gain free passage.including cutting fences and locks on gates. Doesn't have to be goverenment but they are the worst. Doesn't sound free to me. The answer was sell when prices were high, take the money and run. Now my property tax conisists of a two year license for $105 and liability insurance at $170 per year.

            What do you pay for the right to rent?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by philosophercat 5 years, 2 months ago
              Since we differ on property try having title to a property. All your payments are to organizations which recognize your title. Maybe you don't, but its the best we can do until principles are reaffirmed. I spent the Summer in legal proceedings concerning clearing of title and can assure you that title is still sacred. In NH property is a constitutional right. Use is diluted yes but title is still fundamental to the law. Too bad where you are.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
        do you have a Question you would like me to ask, if I get a chance? I do not speak German. hopeful that some people will speak english or spanish. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
          You can tell someone to "Überprüfen Sie Ihre Räumlichkeiten", but be careful when doing so. It tells the person to check his/her premises. ;)
          You will have no trouble finding people who speak in English. Germans' English is almost without accent.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
      Kh, you and DB have some fun in Munich too while you are there. Schnitzel and lager...yummy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
        bratwurst. what passes for sausage in Mexico-well, you don't want to know...:) [edit: both Dale and I grew up in germanic areas in the midwest. He in western Kansas (Hays) settled by Volgel Germans and me, near Amana in Iowa. so we miss the comfort food of our childhood occasionally.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 2 months ago
    I am also in close agreement with Dr. Brook. However I think the shooting business should be a little more circumspect. If during the vetting it is proven that the person is a terrorist or murderer, shooting them is OK. If, however, they espouse terrorism or murder but haven't actually done it, deport them to a Devil's Island type place which is self sufficient. If it fails to be self sufficient, too bad. If it succeeds, perhaps they will learn something.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by MarkHunter 5 years, 2 months ago
    A transcription of part 2 of Brook’s talk from 3:40 to 4:25
    ---------------------
    “I believe that people who are today struggling and fighting to come to the United States are acting heroically. My standard for heroism is a person trying to make the best life that they can make for themselves. A pregnant woman in Mexico who wants a better life for her child, and is therefore willing to struggle through what it takes today to cross over the border illegally into the United States is heroically trying to make her life, and her child’s life, better by coming to America. I don’t think that should be condemned, I think indeed that should be praised. She’s a hero [sic] for trying to make her life a better life by coming here ...”
    ---------------------

    A better life and more likely than not, two more welfare cases in one go.

    Would that these heroines and their absent husbands worked to make their own country a better place instead of coming here changing ours for the worse.

    Brook’s talk is analyzed in the article
    “Open Borders and Individual Rights”
    ARIwatch.com/OpenBordersAndIndividual...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by MarkHunter 5 years, 2 months ago
      @khalling – There is a veritable industry devoted to bringing in pregnant women from Asia, Mexico and Central America just so they can give birth in the U.S. I think this lowers our quality of life. For just one aspect of it look at the voting records for the last two presidential elections. Third World immigration over previous years helped make Obama president, twice. Look at the demographic breakdown of the elections, available on Wikipedia.

      The anchor baby problem can be corrected by the President or Congress without a constitutional amendment. The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. (Ann Coulter, the columnist and author of Adios, America, has written about this, as have many others. Google anchor baby syndrome.)

      @MichaelAarethun – Today the U.S. has a net inflow, not outflow, of Third World migrants.

      @jbrenner – Yes, it was my first post. Thanks for the welcome.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      These days they are going in the other direction. No jobs and the cost of living is unaffordable in Gringolandia. It's negative numbers. Mr. and Mrs America are going to have to learn to weed and harvest their own lettuce. Or come up with a machine to do it. they are going to have to learn to forget paying below standard and depressing wages. the salad days are over. the effect so far went in the other direction. Now it IS going in the other direction. USA changed itself no help needed there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 2 months ago
    Israel is in a state of war with enemies that have attacked them militarily and are a credible threat to them militarily. The US is not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 2 months ago
      Why did that get a down-vote? +1
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
        It already had a downvote when I took my upvote away and replaced it with a non-vote, for the reasons stated below. I reject the premises that a) the US is not at war, b) that it has not been attacked militarily, and c) are a credible threat to them militarily (Terrorism is a form of military attack for an outmanned opponent.). Most people forget, or didn't know, that accompanying 9/11/2001 was a "short" bet by international terrorists that the stock market would tank. In fact, the concept was made into a James Bond movie.

        As for the credible military threat, it would not be all that difficult for an enemy to cripple the US through cyberwarfare.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
          You do not get to constrain men over what ifs. That 's how we ALL lose freedoms. That thinking leads to the NSA in your bedroom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
            With due respect, what I discussed were not "what ifs". They have already happened via ISIS except perhaps for the cyberwarfare, which has happened via other sources earlier this year. Past tense, not future tense. You are correct though about this is how the NSA gets into your bedroom.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
      Are you sure? The US was attacked on 9/11/2001, been called The Great Satan, and been at war continuously with what the US government has deemed its enemies for most of the time since. ISIS has made it clear that they are at war with us, even if we have not taken them seriously. Remember that an opponent does not need to be a serious military threat in order to defeat the US. The North Vietnamese defeated the US without winning a single battle, for example.

      Does being in a state of war change the debate with regard to open vs. restricted immigration policy? Someone (perhaps you, but I honestly don't remember) suggested earlier today that the Gulchers in Atlas Shrugged were in a different position than America because they were in a war. Whoever mentioned this also included reference to Ragnar's piracy.

      I have read that some Objectivists think that America must have an open immigration policy while it is permissible for Israel to have a restricted immigration policy. Do you hold this viewpoint? If so, is it related to being in a state of war?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
        Having been there just to the point of a gangway length and asked the last answer seems correct. We did have from sundown to sunup to unload and beat feet or rock props a disappointment but necessary.

        The State of war without declaring war might be extended earlier as we were militarily active in the no fly zones for example fairly steady from Kuwait on. I think we won that one...didn't we?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo