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.
stayed to become a member of the nation -- perhaps
the most valuable member of the 20th century. -- j
.
http://conservativerepublicannews.com...
Shoulda said "sleeper," not mole. Just looked up mole. That's a spy who worms his way in and works his way up to a high place.
And thinking about it, yeah, maybe that too.
What do you pay for the right to rent?
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.
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.
You will have no trouble finding people who speak in English. Germans' English is almost without accent.
As for the credible military threat, it would not be all that difficult for an enemy to cripple the US through cyberwarfare.
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?
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?
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.
Load more comments...