Ryan1985

A consistent Objectivist, in this specific context, should see no problem with receiving stolen goods as long as the immigrant works and pays taxes and does not ideologically support the welfare system itself. Sure, this is taken from "The Voice of Reason" by Ayn Rand where she is speaking of accepting government scholarships:

That's the point though - I don't justify the increasing theft from you. Neither does the immigrant. It is partly your fault if you advocate it. Also the immigrant is not participating in looting. See "The Question of Scholarships".

Under Objectivism it is perfectly justified for a hardworking immigrant to take advantage of government services - see "The Question of Scholarships" in "The Voice of Reason". He is NOT violating your rights by taking advantage of the system in this way. He did not create the system and is innocent. You do not have any rights to government "services" that your taxes pay for; if a government steals your money to pay for the immigrants services that is not the immigrants fault! The issue is, how do you justify violating the immigrants right to come to America?

Also, if the collapse did rain on you (which I doubt it would), how would that justify violating the individuals rights of American employers and immigrant employees etc?

I think a society would thrive with open immigration; only the welfare system would collapse. Edit: from an Objectivist perspective. I oppose open immigration for other unrelated reasons.

On the Objectivist viewpoint, immigration is a weapon against the welfare state. In the same way that any liberalisation of controls is a threat against statism. ie. If a welfare system can handle 1m people using it and an extra 1m users arrive in the country then the system will offer worse services. If a further 1m welfare users arrive then the system is worse still. The next 1m could cause the collapse of the system.

Hello! This is my first post - I am trying to find out what the consistent Objectivist position is on immigration. Note that I am not an Objectivist, rather I’d describe myself as an atheist conservative. My personal opinion is that immigration should be restricted for a plethora of different reasons, but that is irrelevant to my question. I want to find out the Objectivist opinion. So far, I believe the view of Leonard Peikoff on immigration is just plain inconsistent with Objectivism. His view is summarised in his latest pod cast available to listen here: http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010-7-5.119_B_01.L.mp3 In my opinion his view to support Arizona’s law is a pragmatist’s solution rather than an Objectivist’s solution. I think the Objectivist solution is to support open immigration even in the context of a welfare state. Although this would mean immigrants would move to rich countries in order to obtain welfare benefits, I don’t think this is a problem in the Objectivist view, since this simply hastens the collapse of the welfare system. Essentially, I believe the viewpoint described in the following two pages is the correct and consistent Objectivist viewpoint: http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm and http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=5138 Do you think Peikoff is wrong? If not, how do you reconcile his views with the views of Craig Biddle and Harry Binswanger above which both address the situation in the context of the welfare state? Many thanks in advance for your replies. Ryan