Yaron Brook on Immigration Policy 2 - Ayn Rand Institute
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
---------------------
“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...
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.
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.
You have no private property rights anymore--so live with it:
Texas Rancher: Our Biggest Fear Is Illegals Trespassing On Our Land And Then Suing Us
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...
A federal appeals court rules that Arizona rancher Roger Barnett must pay $87,000 to four illegal immigrants he detained at gunpoint
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/...
http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonar...
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.
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.
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.