Thursday, July 23, 2015

Objectivism and Immigration


How does a philosophy that champions meritocracy end up with spokespeople who sneer at the idea of a meritocratic immigration system?  How does a philosophy that champions Western ideals end up with spokespeople who demand that the West open itself up to its demographic destruction?  How does a philosophy that champions the principle of rational self-interest end up with spokespeople who insist that immigration policy altruistically serve the interests of foreign-born Muslims, Marxists, and moochers? 


Why do open borders Objectivists undercut their own philosophy?  Let’s find out…







Self-described Objectivist Harry Binswanger goes so far as to demand that our government issue a collective apology to illegal aliens:  “Amnesty ForIllegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology”.


John Galt would be shrugging in his fictional grave.  The strikers in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged who established Galt’s Gulch unapologetically rejected the notion of a positive right for outsiders to move into their utopia uninvited.  Harry Binswanger apparently believes that everyone would have a positive right to crash the border of a real-world Galt’s Gulch and take up residence there uninvited.  That’s the implication of the global right to migrate he asserts. 


But Galt’s Gulch was a private community, not a sovereign state.


Well, what possible moral objection could an Objectivist raise to a fully independent and sovereign Galt’s Gulch?  A real-life Midas Mulligan could conceivably buy up vast contiguous parcels of land, develop a private community there – membership by invitation only, and eventually build it into a self-governing, self-sufficient micro-nation that peacefully secedes and becomes the sovereign state of Galtlandia.  On the day Galtlandia becomes independent, does the rest of the world suddenly acquire a positive right to take up residence there?  A right that nobody had the day before, when Galtlandia was a private restrictive community? 


That would mean that Galtlandia’s declaration of independence achieves the opposite of independence.  Galtlandian independence ends Galtlandia as a community by and for lovers of liberty.  It turns Galtlandia into a cog in the global community that is duty-bound to take in anyone from anywhere in the world, including the very sorts of people Galtlandians sought to get away from.  Before, Galtlandia could ensure that it would be composed of a high-quality population by setting high standards for admission.  Now that it’s an independent sovereign jurisdiction, it must throw away its founding principles, and its demographic future, in the name of Binswanger’s egalitarian altruism.


Binswanger masquerades as a defender of freedom.  But opening up immigration to both friends and enemies of freedom equally isn’t how a free nation defends its freedom.  It’s how a nation sacrifices its freedom.  All in the name of freedom for them – the others.  It is through hijacking freedom movements and the language of freedom that egalitarians advance their leftist political aims.  Behind Binswanger’s superficial appeals to freedom, he reveals his egalitarian moral core.


Binswanger regards a meritocratic immigration selection process as unfair to immigrants who don’t merit selection.  He laments that they would be treated as “undesirables.”  He places “undesirables” in mocking quotation marks to express his egalitarian revulsion at the very idea of judging some immigrant populations as more desirable than others.


For the egalitarian, being non-judgmental is the highest virtue.  For the egalitarian, all immigrants have the same fixed inherent worth.  If you judge immigrants based on your own values, you might as well be a Nazi.  Either you’re an egalitarian or you’re a Nazi at heart – that’s the false dichotomy the egalitarian pushes.  But if you value the preservation of your liberty, then you oppose both Nazism and open immigration stampedes that threaten your life, liberty, and property.


Foreign-born populations that commit violent crimes at 10 times the rate of the native born or terrorism at 100 times the rate of native-born citizens are undesirable from the standpoint of any citizen who desires liberty.  Immigrants who enter illegally are undesirable in a free society that grounds itself in the rule of law and should therefore be deported.  What’s the alternative?  Amnesty, plus citizenship, plus voting rights for all past, present, and future border crossers?  An open-ended power for the government to dilute the liberty vote and transform the electorate in the image of the Third World?


Deportation is a much more circumscribed power.  The costs to taxpayers of deportation are far lower than the costs of building more prisons to warehouse foreign-born criminals.  It’s far cheaper to close the door on open Muslim immigration than it is to wage war against Muslim countries because Muslim immigrants commit acts of terrorism.  The long-term economic and political costs of lowering the national IQ average due to low-IQ immigration and dysgenic immigrant fertility are difficult to calculate.  But immigration-driven IQ degeneration is nearly impossible to reverse without making immigration more selective on the basis of IQ.  This is because IQ is a highly heritable trait that is distributed unequally both within and between populations. 


Meanwhile, the world's most religious people and the world's poorest, most dependent people are having the most children.  Through lopsided birth rates and through migration, they will genetically swamp those of us who claim to value reason and liberty.  If we do actually value reason and liberty, then we must stop sacrificing our actual values to the phony universal ones egalitarians bait us with.  That’s how they turn us into practicing pathological altruists who work on behalf of our own demise. 


They get liberty advocates to embrace immigration policies that lead in practice to the demographic degradation of the libertarian electorate.  They get Objectivists who champion the Western-derived values of reason and individualism to promote immigration policies that replace Westerners with Third World Muslims and other cultural primitives whose congenitally low IQs predispose them against adopting a rational philosophy. 


Ayn Rand believed that the Europeans who discovered America were right to claim the land for Western civilization.  They were right because their values were superior to those of the American Indians, and so was their capacity for achievement.  Individual liberty, electricity, automobiles, skyscrapers, space flight, computer technology – none of these things would have been achieved by more primitive societies left to their own devices.


If it was right to establish Western civilization in lands ruled by savages, then it is wrong to allow Western civilization to be invaded by savages. 


Some Objectivists get it, at least in part.  Leonard Peikoff represents the doctrinaire strain of Objectivism, but to his credit he takes a contextual, non-dogmatic approach to immigration policy.  He doesn’t prescribe open immigration for all countries regardless of the detrimental consequences to those countries. 


David Kelley represents the open-tent version of Objectivism.  I asked him a few questions about his approach to immigration policy from his booth at FreedomFest.


It’s hard to tell whether Kelley is a categorically committed immigration egalitarian like Binswanger or whether he’d be morally amenable to an immigration system that filtered out high-risk culturally hostile populations.  But clearly, any self-described Objectivist who champions “open borders” as an ideal has consciously rejected the “selective borders” model of Galt’s Gulch.  And such a rejection is almost certainly the result of latent egalitarian premises that Objectivism has failed to fully expunge from its adherents.


If you claim to value the West but not the preservation of its people, you’re attempting to divorce mind from body.  A nation isn’t a mere set of abstract principles.  It’s an integrated sociobiological construct. 


If I were to say to the Japanese that I respect their culture but don’t care if their people get completely overrun and replaced by Congolese refugees because I believe in open borders, what kind of backhanded compliment would that be?  It wouldn’t be a compliment at all.  It would be a lie.  Because if I truly respected Japanese culture, I would recognize that the Japanese people are a crucial part of its identity and maintenance.


If we in the West are to stop our decline and enter into a new ascendancy, we need an ascendant demography.  We aren’t going to apologize our way to an ascendant society.  If our government did owe anyone a collective apology for its immigration policies, it would be only to the citizens it exists to serve.  If the government deprives us of bright, freedom-loving immigrants of good moral character who would have been model citizens, then it is in the name of our interests that the government should change its immigration policies.  Not in the name of an egalitarian positive right of each of the world’s 7 billion people to immigrate regardless of their cultural compatibility with our Western values.  But the core problem with our immigration policy is that it is not selective enough. 


Why was this unassimilable Haitian savage allowed into the country?  Why wasn’t he deported before he savagely murdered Casey Chadwick?  Why isn’t the government apologizing to the victim’s family for failing at its most basic duty of keeping out and physically removing foreign threats?


Open immigration proponents argue that immigrants who are peaceful, intelligent, productive, and freedom-loving add value to a country.  But that is no argument for open immigration.  It is instead an implicit argument against letting in immigrants who exude the opposite characteristics.   I am here making that argument explicit.


And open-borders proponent Don Boudreaux made explicit the fact that open borders ideology is in principle (if not in particular cases) suicidal.  Boudreaux expressed concern about the negative political consequences of unfettered immigration from people hostile to liberty.  But, he said, "I still support open immigration.  I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal." 


That level of pathological altruism is implicit in all arguments for open immigration.

32 comments:

  1. There is a guy named Mark who runs a site called www.Ariwatch.com . He seems to be a conventional Objectivist on most issues, but is against "open immigration" and favors mostly European immigration. (He's the only Objectivist I know who is, or appears to be, a racial realist.) I highly recommend his site. He has some excellent pieces on immigration & other topics.

    Harry Binswanger recently said on his website that he moved to Naples, Florida. As Mark points out, it's 94% white. Apparently Binswanger moved to a very expensive gated community which is probably close to 100% white. So does Binswanger really believe that immigrants are "self-selected for their virtue" and that they "refresh" our nation? Well, he didn't move to Dearborn, Miichigain, so draw your own conclusions.

    I and others have repeatedly asked Binswanger and other open immigration Objectivists about what they think of Islamic immigration and related issues. They refuse to answer.

    -Donald Richardson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with ARI Watch's critiques of Objectivists on immigration.

      I got Amy Peikoff and Yaron Brook to admit they're against "open Muslim immigration." But they still insisted they are for "open immigration"!

      Delete
    2. On Leonard Peikoff's show recently, he had Brook answer the question of why Objectivists disagree on immigration. Brook said that Objectivists agree on open immigration, but in today's mixed economy Objectivists will disagree on who should be let in, for example. So in an ideal world, there would be open immigration for Muslims?

      Craig Biddle is another open immigration zelot. He had a piece once where he said there should be open immigration with respect to Muslims. I posted a comment asking if he thought Muslim immigration was good and what would Europe be like if it became Islamic. He deleted my question and blocked me.

      Trying to get a straight answer from these people is almost impossible.

      -DR

      Delete
    3. I got Amy to admit that Obama's amnesty was just a "Democratic voter drive." She also reads Drudge and Jihad Watch, so she isn't ignorant of what's going on. But she still supports "open immigration" for "hard working immigrants" and even some Muslims if they are "heavily screened." Like Brook, she is totally clueless on race. She quotes from Rand's essay "Racism" as if Jensen's '69 piece and The Bell Curve were never written.

      Ed Cline is an objectivist who understand what massive immigration is about.

      -Donald Richardson

      Delete
  2. Here is Harry Binswanger's site.

    Amnesty for Illegal aliens is not enough, they deserve an apology

    On his blog he reposted his "Amnesty for Illegal aliens is not enough, they deserve an apology" article three days after the Chattanooga shooting. It has Harry's email, so perhaps people should email him inquiring about whether he thinks turning Europe Islamic via open immigration is good or bad.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a free market world there is no right of movement or immigration. The only place you have a right to move is on your own property, all other movement would require the permission of other property owners, and if you have to get permission to move then its not a right.

    In fact I would argue that it is government that has created the right of movement by usurping the private land owners rights of control of their property. Government steals land to create roads, it forces businesses to serve customers that the business does not want to serve, it forces the land owner to sell land to people they don’t want to sell to.

    Borders are not evil, they are a essential part of a free economy, its governments who have reduced borders down to 200 or so, in a market world the US would have up to 300 million borders and the world up to 7 billion borders. Government has used it force to take the rights of property owners and then reduced the use of borders for its own interests and those it is controlled by.

    And to get a borderless world, you need a one world government, the most powerful and all encompassing government of all.

    Some might argue that a world of 7 billion borders would lock people in their own private prison, but in fact each property owner would negotiate the use of their property by others, however it will not be an unlimited use since once you give unlimited usage you have defacto given away the property. So you might give your neighbor the ability to travel across your property in exchange for you traveling on their property, but just because you have made that agreement it does not automatically extend to every person in the world.

    Instead of giving legitimacy to governments usurping of private property rights by supporting its use of force to have “open immigration“, the objectivists should be calling for a return of property rights and the up to 7 billion borders that the free market provides for people

    ReplyDelete
  4. You probably saw this, but David Frum refutes the claim that immigrants don't committ crime at a high rate:

    http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/the-problem-with-downplaying-immigrant-crime/

    _____

    Third, statistics on contemporary immigrant crime likely contain a downward bias. When most studies report that immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives, many rely–as I did above–on incarceration rates. Prison populations are the most authoritative source of data on immigrant crime. It’s much easier to assess the immigration status of a person in custody, after all.

    But because U.S. prison sentences are so long, prisons house many people whose criminal activities occurred years, or even decades, in the past. Many of the people in prison today were sent there at a time when the foreign-born population was smaller and crime rates were higher. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that 20 percent of the U.S. prison population is foreign born. That does not imply that foreign-born persons are committing only 20 percent of crime right now. Yet that is how the statistic is often used.
    ____

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another black leatherette/criminal is convicted rapist Mike Tyson. He is on fox sports all the time.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oops, that was athlete.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  7. On today's show, Yaron Brook called for even more immigration.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  8. Harry has modulated his views somewhat. Well, maybe not, but at least he realizes it's reasonable to think flooding the west with Muslims might not be so great.

    http://www.hbletter.com/why-objectivists-disagree-on-immigration/

    Has Peikoff backtracked from his position that a country has a right to restrict immigration to protect its culture? If so I'm not aware.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's the deal: supposing you had open borders. Supposing the immigrants contracted to work for (say) $3 an hour and live three families in a house. Since this is a voluntary contract, a doctrinaire Objectivist might claim, all sides profit. The employer gets cheap labor so he can deliver goods & services at the lowest possible price. The consumer profits because they gain goods & services at those low prices. And the immigrants profit because they make more money than they would have made had they stayed in their home countries.

    But...

    What happens when the immigrants get fed up with working for $3 an hour and living three families to a house? What happens when they take it to the streets in protest? And start burning cars? And assault our Objectivist's sons in the schoolyard. And groom his daughters as sex slaves? Or perhaps invades his house and cuts him to pieces with pangas?

    Then what?

    Does our Objectivist wag his finger and tell the immigrants they have violated the terms of the contract? Call the cops with SWAT teams kicking down doors? Or does our Objectivist hide under the bed and wonder what happened to his high minded doctrines?

    Lest you think I am using hyperbole, this is precisely what is happening now in Europe and South Africa. Third world immigrants are burning cars, and assaulting children, and massacring entire families.

    Really, I would like to sit down someone like a Binswager and confront him with these realities. Is he ideologue enough that he would refuse to recognize that reality even when it is kicking down his door?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Californian,

    I and others have asked Binswanger, Brook, et al these kinds of the questions and they don't answer (or even acknowledge that you've sent them an email).

    Just look at Harry's post. If we dealt with Saudi Arabia and Iran, the threat of bad behaving Muslims in the west would be a "very minor problem." Doesn't Harry know that the Algerian Muslims riot in France if Algeria qualfies for the World Cup or if they don't.

    And these people consider themselves to be the most rational people on earth.

    -DR

    *You can find Harry's email on the post. Send him a message . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Or what happens when Europe becomes Islamic and the majority of policemen, prosecutors, and judges are Muslims?

    What happens when the immigration officials are Muslims and decide to let in ISIS fighters?

    What happens when Europe's nukes are under control of Muslim Generals? Harry and Yaron might draw the line there, because they could be used against Israel. It's the only country they really care about.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  12. On his most recent radio/blog show, Yaron said that in a perfect world he's support open immigration for Muslims.

    -DR

    ReplyDelete
  13. Greetings-

    I go back to the days when NBI was still open. I met NB after the dustup of 1968. Our group made the first

    "Seminar" record [March 1969]. Today I am a White Nationalist, thanks to the beans being spilled via the

    mighty internet.

    Starting with three words- COMMUNISM IS JEWISH. The whole "Objectivist" malarkey, with possible exception of

    AR, is Jew Communism. The open borders goal is genocide of the White race [see videos of Noel Ignatiev, who

    calls for eliminating the White race]. Only Whites are smart enough to block the Jewish NWO. NBI book

    service was selling books by Communist authors- The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan- a card carrying member

    of the Party. Mortimer Adler's books were pushed- Adler from NWO at Aspen- a "lifelong communist."

    Objectivists lie about genetics because they are Jews. The basic lies came from Jew anthropologist Franz

    Boas. Jews did 911. Three buildings came down that fateful day- only two were hit by planes Look up

    Building 7 and Larry Silverstein. 96% of Western Media is under Jew/Communist control- THAT is why you don't

    know about this hot material. They use paper money control to buy [steal] the means of communication. Fox

    News is controlled [fake] opposition. All Western "governments" have been bought by Jews. Thus open borders

    everywhere. London is White minority- genocide the goal.

    Everything is a great big diversion away from the REAL elephant in the room [the world]- the Jewish man/men

    behind the curtain WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED. Suppose that Objectivism were 95 to 100 percent true. I

    submit that it would STILL BE FALSE, by holding back the truth about the Jewish endgame of total world

    hegemony, without any White competition. Even if ideas like the Objectivist Ethics and The Stolen Concept are

    true, they are still being used as DISTRACTIONS. [The blank slate- a major premise of Objectivism, is clearly

    false].

    I could type all day. I hope I have piqued your interest. I still believe in property and contract, of

    course- IN A WHITE ONLY COMMUNITY. This is White separatism, not "white supremacy."

    Tere are vast areas of LYING BY OMISSION. . .sleep well, my friends. ps The ARI is a Communist front. . .

    Please look up video The Secret Behind Communism and find the horrific truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Greetings-

    I go back to the days when NBI was still open. I met NB after the dustup of 1968. Our group made the first
    "Seminar" record [March 1969]. Today I am a White Nationalist, thanks to the beans being spilled via the
    mighty internet.

    Starting with three words- COMMUNISM IS JEWISH. The whole "Objectivist" malarkey, with possible exception of AR, is Jew Communism. The open borders goal is genocide of the White race [see videos of Noel Ignatiev, who calls for eliminating the White race]. Only Whites are smart enough to block the Jewish NWO. NBI book service was selling books by Communist authors- The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan- a card carrying member of the Party. Mortimer Adler's books were pushed- Adler from NWO at Aspen- a "lifelong communist."

    Objectivists lie about genetics because they are Jews. The basic lies came from Jew anthropologist Franz
    Boas. Jews did 911. Three buildings came down that fateful day- only two were hit by planes Look up Building 7 and Larry Silverstein. 96% of Western Media is under Jew/Communist control- THAT is why you don't know about this hot material. They use paper money control to buy [steal] the means of communication. Fox News is controlled [fake] opposition. All Western "governments" have been bought by Jews. Thus open borders everywhere. London is White minority- genocide the goal.

    Everything is a great big diversion away from the REAL elephant in the room [the world]- the Jewish man/men
    behind the curtain WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED. Suppose that Objectivism were 95 to 100 percent true. I submit that it would STILL BE FALSE, by holding back the truth about the Jewish endgame of total world hegemony, without any White competition. Even if ideas like the Objectivist Ethics and The Stolen Concept are true, they are still being used as DISTRACTIONS. [The blank slate- a major premise of Objectivism, is clearly false].

    I could type all day. I hope I have piqued your interest. I still believe in property and contract, of
    course- IN A WHITE ONLY COMMUNITY. This is White separatism, not "white supremacy."

    There are vast areas of LYING BY OMISSION. . .sleep well, my friends. ps The ARI is a Communist front. . .

    Please look up video The Secret Behind Communism and find the horrific truth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ps AYN means "infinite nothingness" in Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Benjamin Freedman speaks in 1961- jews did the World Wars. . .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8

    ReplyDelete
  17. The discussion at Amy Peikoff's blog has been excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The link to the discussion on Amy Peikoff's blog is below. Also, listen to the associated podcast, which contains a debate between a pro-open-borders advocate and a pro-selectivity advocate.

    http://dontletitgo.com/2015/08/20/a-response-to-ed-mazlish-on-immigration/#comment-16179

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm still not sure what Amy thinks about immigration.

    DR

    ReplyDelete
  20. She still seems to be holding out for an "in an ideal world there would be open immigration" even of Muslims, but she hasn't said it.

    DR

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am onttwiiter

    @rdellomand

    Please consider following me.

    dR

    ReplyDelete
  22. I've been following Ari Armstrong, Yaron Brook and Amy Peikoff on twitter.

    They constantly complaint about this or that aspect of Islamic or 3d world culture, but support open immigration.

    Egalitarianism makes you stupid. I was raised an egalitarian but read The Bell Curve 20 years ago in college when it came out.

    What excuse do they have?

    Romello

    ReplyDelete
  23. Am I wrong, or is Twitter one user-unfriendly site?

    Romello

    ReplyDelete
  24. So we are now well into this European "refugee" crisis. Where are all the open immigration Objectivists who supposedly believing in screening of immigrants objecting to the importation of hundreds of thousands of "unscreened" immigrant?

    Romello

    ReplyDelete
  25. I've been mixing it up with Yaron Brook on twitter. I don't know what he belives, but I guess he thinks in an ideal world Israel would allow unlimited immigration of Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I saw your recent video Revolt!

    Even Objectivists seem to be getting upset that the ARI is still pushing open borders.

    Donald Richardson

    ReplyDelete
  27. These are the same predictable arguments against open borders. I agree with them, but they are not new.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "How does a philosophy that champions meritocracy end up with spokespeople who sneer at the idea of a meritocratic immigration system?"

    It doesn't. We DO want a meritocratic immigration system. YOU DON'T.

    Why is it that some fat slob automatically becomes a US citizen just by being born in a certain geographical area, while a hardworking Mexican has to wait 131 years? That doesn't seem very meritocratic to me.

    Illegal immigrants commit LESS violent or property crime and take LESS from and contribute MORE to the welfare state than natural born citizens, and are MORE likely to run a small business. A meritocratic system would FAVOR those people, giving them MORE privileges than natural born citizens, not fewer.

    ReplyDelete
  29. More dumbassery.

    rosenbaum was against rule by merit.

    “Meritocracy”



    “Meritocracy” is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates the men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power. There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an “aristocracy” is tyranny by a politically established elite, a “democracy” is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by talent or “merit” (and since “to merit” means “to deserve,” a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice). http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/meritocracy.html

    Ironic their contention is based on word etymology. rosenbaum wanted a world owned by a minority of people who exploit the masses for their benefit.

    Double irony is my ideology is being crystallized without even connecting to me: http://meritocracyparty.org/

    This is what pisses me off about rosenbaum polluting the term objectivism...Real objectivism doesn't need to be taught. I am the true objectivst, and the meritocracy parties near complete alignment with my personally developed ideology independent from anyone claiming the title is a demonstration of the reality.

    Hate me all you want, but if you can't pass an general aptitude test which is the same for everyone given equal access to all needs you don't deserve power or property. If you need privilege to compete, you are a loser.

    ReplyDelete