Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ARI Media Feed

Ayn Rand on Immigration

Rate this topic

10 posts in this topic

Though I fundamentally agree with this position, there is no downside to having complete open borders? I mean lets say if you had a come one, come all open border policy, why wouldn't 100 million people migrate to America in the next 6 months? Are you telling me with our current society there is no downside to that? Also I was listening to Yaron Brook's show last week, though he had a problem with trump's "Travel Ban" his main point was that it wasn't strong enough. He felt if Trump was really serious about banning threats then he would of put a ban on Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now if you agree with freedom of movement then how can you support a ban on certain people due to the "self interest" of the united states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

ARI Watch has a devastating article of the same title: Ayn Rand on Immigration.

Your ARI watch site is swill. You shouldn't be spamming the forum with your links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Your ARI watch site is swill. You shouldn't be spamming the forum with your links.

What is your problem? That was a brilliant article, very well researched and well argued from an Objectivist standpoint. That is not spam at all, jesus you are biased.

Edited by epistemologue
softwareNerd likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Grizwald said:

Now if you agree with freedom of movement then how can you support a ban on certain people due to the "self interest" of the united states?

Because I support freedom of movement in the context of individual rights, not as a floating abstraction. Rights violators shouldn't move freely, just because freedom of movement is a right.

If a country is a hostile dictatorship, and there is a movement among its citizenry aimed at hurting Americans', then it becomes a free country's job to restrict these people's movement. Ideally, this should be done on an individual basis, blacklisting suspected threats. And, in the case of US friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, that is a good option. There's no need for a ban (in fact a ban against Saudi Arabia would result in retaliation in kind, which would hurt American interests just as much as it does the Saudis).

But, sometimes, it isn't enough to blacklist threats. There are countries that don't work with the US to clear visa applicants, that harbor anti-American militants. At that point, the broader approach to security is warranted: rather than blacklisting threats, only people who are white listed should be allowed in. This is a more effective approach to security, but it also causes more hardship to innocents...so the standard for justification, just like for war, should be high.

Note: Trump's ban doesn't meet that standard. Donald Trump has announced his intention to ban all Muslims, during the campaign, and then he banned a few countries' nationals in an effort to placate people holding him to that promise...without any attempt to justify his actions, by proving any actual evidence of a threat from these specific countries.

So the courts are right to throw out this particular order. But, in general, the President should have the right to issue similar orders...as long as they're better justified than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, epistemologue said:

What is your problem? That was a brilliant article, very well researched and well argued from an Objectivist standpoint.

Spam and commercial links

Spam (multiple copies in one area or the same communication in multiple areas) or advertising/commercial solicitation messages are prohibited, including links to commercial sites. In addition, do not use this forum to promote any other web site or solicit the members of this board without the approval of the moderators (this includes promoting another site via a signature).

If a participant wishes to discuss a particular outside source, do not start a thread with just a link to the source -- please also discuss why forum members would be interested in viewing your link.

Exception: a participant may advertise websites selling products of interest to members in the Marketplace forum. If in doubt, ask an administrator whether a post is appropriate.

 

Them the rules. Doesn't say anything about the quality of the website you're promoting. All it says is DON'T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2017 at 4:30 PM, HandyHandle said:

ARI Watch has a devastating article of the same title: Ayn Rand on Immigration.

Why/how?

It needs an explanation, otherwise it is spammy.

All ARI posted is -a- quote on immigration, all that's worth noting is that Ayn Rand Answers is NOT a reliable source. ARI should not use it.

ADDENDUM: It starts out fine enough, then it's clear that ARI Watch is working from a "Whites are a superior race, and race is equal to culture" premise. Racists, no thanks.

"Ah ha !  A Third World immigrant – at least a resident visa holder – and a hispanic to boot, maybe even a mestizo!  Well no, not a mestizo.  The trouble for cultural leftists is that Rand goes out of her way to make Francisco white:  “Nobody described his appearance as Latin, yet the word applied to him, not in its present, but in its original sense, not pertaining to Spain, but to ancient Rome. ... [She begins to describe an ancient Roman’s appearance, using such words as “gauntness.”] His features had the fine precision of sculpture. His hair was black and straight, swept back. The suntan of his skin intensified the startling color of his eyes: they were a pure, clear blue.” Not exactly your typical hispanic. Not even Telemundo could pull it off."

White isn't exactly a race, but apparently ARI Watch (and Handy Handle) would not grasp that looking Roman is Rand making someone look -Roman-. She is going out of her way to make him as Roman as possible, yet American. Rome represents Western Civilization, whiteness being irrelevant.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:37 AM, Nicky said:

Because I support freedom of movement in the context of individual rights, not as a floating abstraction. Rights violators shouldn't move freely, just because freedom of movement is a right.

Fair enough, I listened to Yaron this weekend on Amy Peikoff's show and he made that same position on immigration and it makes sense, I was struggling with it for I a while myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Grizwald said:

I listened to Yaron this weekend on Amy Peikoff's show and he made that same position on immigration and it makes sense

This was a good listen, I listened to it yesterday. Here it is for others: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2017/02/10/a-discussion-with-yaron-brook-on-immigration-policy

It gives a good sense of Brooks' position, and ARI's by extension. It's "open borders" in a sense, but certainly advocates immigration law past just "deal with people only when they're here".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.