Neil Parille

Here is Binswanger from the HBL "excerpt of the day: Again, no proof that immigrants share the values and motivations which Binswanger attributes to them. -Neil Parille

I've heard that Binswanger does not think Israel should have open immigration. Can anyone confirm this?

This is what Binswanger said a few months ago on Forbes.com: Where does Binswanger get his ideas on the values that immigrants hold? I've read that Hispanics have a negative opinion to the concept "capitalism" and 2/3 support affirmative action. -NP

Well, in fairness to Binswanger, he thinks immigrants have better values than the natives and are very unlikely to have the qualities Kyrel attributes to them. I have it on good authority that Binswanger was shocked when he learned that Moslem immigrants from Chechnya were behind the Boston Bombing. He thought it was much more likely that this crime was committed by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Mayflower Society. -NP

I will give Dr. Diana some credit. On a recent podcast she said that Ayn Rand Answers was not reliable. On the other hand, she still has Mayhew's dishonest attack on RC on her website. -Neil

Dr. Diana is answering the following questions tomorrow: Why do you think that marriage contracts should be enforced by the state? Wouldn’t private arbitration be a better option?Why do you think so few people question the consensus of the culture on ethics? (People tend to form their own political views, but very few people seem to form their own ethical views.)Is magnanimity a virtue or a moral amplifier?What on earth is ‘queer theory’? Why, as a gay man, do I find it deeply troubling?What is “good taste”? Is it objective?Why is infinity incompatible with identity? Why couldn’t infinite size, for example, be part of the nature of an entity?Is a bird in the hand better than two in the bush? Doesn’t this maxim encourage mediocrity and laziness?Does it make sense for Objectivists to use “Who is John Galt?” as a slogan? It seems to me that this is what people in the novel said when they could not see what was wrong with the world.Is it true that thought and speech are limited by historical context?Are there quick ways to identify crazy people? I think I’m pretty okay myself as long as I take my medication.Is there any value to childhood ‘innocence’? Or is that just a product of Christianity?Does Buddhism qualify as a form of nihilism, since Buddhists believe that morality consists in rejecting all your desires, and clearing your mind, so that you become ‘one with the universe’ i.e. dead?I’ve heard that Kant included some good elements in his philosophy to make the rest of his ideas palatable. What were those things?Would you agree that Rand’s philosophy is a sort of reconciliation of Aristotle with the existentialists?Is it advisable for citizens in a pure capitalist society to create a “social safety net” comparable to what exists in welfare states, but through voluntary charity?What is bourgeois morality, and should we approve of it?What about the Negative Income Tax, which is sort of what Milton Friedman proposed, or the idea of a “guaranteed income” that would replace welfare?What is “a sense of duty” and how can I get rid of it?Ayn Rand thought that plot was the most important element in literature. I would say however that an aesthetic based on virtue ethics dictates that characters ought to be more important. What do you think?If you could have a superpower, what superpower would you choose?She might say something interesting, but I can't imagine contributing to her podcast. -Neil

One problem with most Objectivist websites is that the comment sections are moderated and commentators easily get banned. Dr. Diana's website hardly gets any comments, for example. -Neil

-Neil Parille

I wasn't familiar with Bennett, but I find his articles quite good. Compare his factual reporting To Binswanger's faith-based approach

Rand Paul's Imaginary Libertarian Immigrants - by John Bennett. Money quote: -Neil Parille

Well. I guess they are better called Orthodox Peikovians. Ayn Rand would have had Peikoff's head for slapping his name on her books and rewriting her material. BTW, how do you get the user's name and time in a quote box? NEIL

Kyrel, I agree. I don't think I've ever had a pleasant conversation with an orthodox Objectivist.

I read a story recently that said 30% of Mexicans would come to the US if they could. With children that is around 40 million of people. I assume the same is true with many other countries in the world. Binswanger believes they should all be let in, without any background checks. Even the legitimate functions of government would be overwhelmed. But Binswanger won't even talk about this. I have asked him if Israel should have open immigration and he didn't respond. (Dr. Diana said recently that she exempts Israel from open immigration but no other country apparently.)

Binswanger: "60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%." When Moslems become a majority in Israel - as Binswanger things they should become via open immigration -- what does he think will happen?

Mark, An "undocumented immigrant" is a future Democratic voter. How Cantor can live in Virginia - which now has no state wide Republicans and has voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections -- and not see that is beyond me. -Neil

Jerry, Nauseating," is a word that comes to mind. .Why? David Harriman was the editor of The Journals of Ayn Rand and is responsible for the inclusion of material that Ayn Rand, herself, did not publish during her lifetime because she did not consider it to either be representative of her thought, badly written, or she did not approve for other reasons. , Harriman included material unknown even to exist by many members of Rand's Inner Circle (Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Henry Holzer, and Phyllis Holzer. - I know this from personal conversations with them. Think what that means! Material not even shared with her closest confidants) . I am referring to Rand's previously unpublished and unfinished short story, The Little House, and her notes about the horrendous torture and murder of a little girl. Rand's notes indicate some sympathy with the murderer Hickman, although in later notes she withdraws any admiration and did not finish or publish this story. If Rand didn't want this stuff published at some point, she could have destroyed it. My objection to Harriman is that, according to Jennifer Burns, he rewrote Rand's Journals and didn't tell his readers. -Neil

It should be obvious that open immigration would be bad even for a libertarian America. Immigrants from the Third World tend to vote socialist even when they work for a living, and even if they came to the U.S. to escape the effects of socialism in their own country. A libertarian country that allowed open immigration would not remain libertarian for long. Mark, this an excellent point. Sure people come to the US for a better living. But they don't necessarily conclude that the US's relative freedom makes it possible. They may attribute the poverty of their home country not to socialism but to corruption. Consider the riots in European countries by immigrants every year or two. For all their flaws, these countries give immigrants a much better chance of success than their home countries and they still riot. Even libertarians such as Walter Block who support open borders admit that its possible for a country to lose freedom if the immigrants are statists. Binswanger can't even concede that. If the US allowed unlimited immigration from Mexico w/o any checkpoints, there would be such a flood of immigrants that even the legitimate functions of government would be overwhelmed. Although I don't agree with Biddle, he thinks the US should have checkpoints and that potential immigrants would have to prove that they are not criminals. Since you can process only so many applicants a year, this would lead to de facto quotas. Considering the corruption in Mexico, the US might reasonably conclude that their documents are not trustworthy and not allow anyone in. -Neil Parille

Mark, I sent a link to this post to Dr. Binswanger; no response. I asked him on Forbes at least 2 times whether Israel should have open immigration with respect to Moslems; no response. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Dr. Binswanger (who is nothing if not consistent) believes that Israel should allow unlimited Islamic immigration even if it becomes a Sharia state. If I misunderstood Dr. Binswagner then he knows where to correct me. -Neil Parille

Mark, Bernstein answered two or three questions on his blog talk radio a couple months back. I believe he said that he didn't think the US population would necessarily grow that much and also that we should not allow Islamic immigration until we attacked and destroyed Iran. There was, I think, some blather about Hispanics voting Democratic because the Republicans were allegedly anti-immigrant. Of course, he's too uninformed to know that the Republicans did worse after Reagan signed an amnesty in 86. -Neil Parille

I agree that "open immigration" (or something close to it) follows from a consistent application of property rights. I just think we should step back and look at the consequences. To say "the moral is the practical" or "the rational is the real" is simplistic. The UK has a large immigrant population. If this has resulted in good things, then it would continue under open immigration. To the extent that there are bad consequences, they would be magnified as a result. Although Rand was generally supportive of immigration, I don't think she would agree with Binswanger that Israel should ideally have open immigation with respect to Islamic immigration. She was no fan of Arabs or Moslems, from what I can recall. (I believe she bought Israeli bonds.) -Neil Parille

Here are a couple quotes from Dr. Binswanger. Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party–because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream. It takes independence and courage to leave the familiar hearth and home and venture to a new land. Republicans, not the “You didn’t build that” Democrats, have at least some appreciation for the American can-do spirit and the self-made man. Tell that to Mitt Romney, who got 30% of the Hispanic vote. And while the percieved opposition ot Republicans to amnesty might not have helped, poll after poll shows that Hispanics support Obamacare, bigger government, and redistribution of wealth by much greater margins than whites. Immigrants are longer-range, ambitious, and want to earn money, not grab it. The only way to know whether immigrants are going committ crimes at a lower rate or not want to live on welfare is to do empirical research. I don't think Dr. Binswanger has done much of this. As far as being long-range, when Algeria qualified for the World Cup, Algerians rioted in France. That doesn't prove Algerian immigration to France is bad, but you'd have to look at things like this to make up your mind. -Neil Parille

Binswanger posted a colum on Forbes a while ago. Immigration is a human right . . .. But a compromise is acceptable, if it’s a step in the right direction–i.e., if it restores lost freedom.And in that spirit, I would accept a compromise to allay a final fear: terrorists. Though the real solution to terrorist attacks lies in a crushing military defeat of terrorist-sponsoring regimes, starting with Iran, if my program were limited to immigrants from the non-threatening nations, excluding the Islamist states, that would still be a vast improvement over our present policy of restricting everyone’s rights. Based on this, I think Binswanger does support unlimited Islamic immigration. Now, I'd like to know why Binswanger thinks crushing Iran and similar countries would end Islamic terrorism. Are would-be Jihadists in the West too stupid to make pressure cooker bombs without someone in Iran telling them? By Binswanger's logic, Russia - having crushed Chechyna -- shouldn't have to worry about Jihadists from Chechyna. In fact, crushing Chechyna should have prevented the Boston Bombing. Or maybe we have to bomb Russia too. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and in another 60 years or so had to put down another rebellion in Jerusalem. Defeating radical Islam isn't like defeating Nazi Germany. And what does Binswanger think that the millions of Moslems in the US and Europe are going to do when they see their homelands bombed? The riots will make the LA riots look like a picnic. I don't think Binswanger has given much thought to this. As Robert Campbell notes, he is so convinced that "the moral is the practical" that he can't conceive of any negative consequences of open immigration. (Not that Robert would agree with me on my arguments.) -Neil Parille

What I find interesting is that Binswanger, unlike other open immigration Objectivists, would not require that immigrants show they don't have a criminal record. The burden would be on the US to prove that they are criminals or terrorists. There is, however, a procedural objection, and a decisive one: how are government officials to determine whether or not a given man about to enter the country is a criminal? Since potential or actual criminals do not carry signs announcing this fact, how can the government ferret it out—without violating the rights of the innocent immigrant? And we must ask: "criminal"—by what standard? Is "the criminal" a man convicted in Canada of stealing a car, or a man convicted by a "revolutionary tribunal" in Iran for insulting The Prophet, or a man held to be a criminal in Sierra Leone because . . . ? Is the U.S. government to review every law and every trial of every immigrant from every country in order to bar "criminals"? The crucial point is often overlooked: in its efforts to capture or bar criminals, the government may not violate the rights of the innocent. That means, no detention at borders, no demand to produce "papers" or "passports,"— such procedures violate the rights of the innocent. In order to interfere with a man's free movement, the state needs to show "probable cause"—which means specific evidence against the specific individual, not the indiscriminate subjection of everyone to a screening process. So if 100,000 men from the Boko Harum regiion in Nigeria want to come to the US, they must be allowed in immediately. Does Binswanger really believe this? -Neil Parille

I posted a few questions and have asked some open immigration Objectivists for a response. (I only got partial responses from Andy Bernstein.) 1. In the modern age it's easy for anyone to come to the US. You can hop on a plane and be here in 24 hours or less. If the US had open immigration, what would its population be in ten, twenty, thirty years? 2. What are the potential negative effects, if any, of what might be the largest population transfer in human history? 3. What would happen to wage rates in the US if tens of millions of low income workers arrive in a short period of time? Wouldn't it reduce the wage rates of US citizens, in particular low skilled workers? 4. There are countries such as Greece and Israel which border much more populous Islamic nations. Should they have open immigration? Will the world be a better place when Greece becomes "Greekistan" and Israel "Palestine"? 5. There are cities in Europe that are approaching 20% Islamic population. Has this been good for Europe? Would Europe be better if country after country eventually turned majority Islamic? Isn't this a distinct possibility given the low birth rate of the natives and the high birth rates of Moslems? 6. Is the creation of "no go" zones in major European cities related to immigration? 7. How should the US determine if a potential immigrant has a criminal record? Do Afghanistan and Pakistan keep good records? Are their officials in this area not subject to bribery? 8. How do we screen out potential terrorists? Assume someone from a pro-Taliban region of Pakistan wants to come to the US. Explain the process by which we determine if he is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. 9. California has become a one party leftist controlled state thanks to immigration. Wouldn't this happen to every other state if the US opened its southern border? 10. What would have prevented the Boston Bombing - restricting immigration or bombing Iran?

I think Binswanger should consider the consequences of allowing almost anyone to come to Europe, the US and Israel. I'm told that Binswanger does not think Israel should allow unlimited Islamic immigration, although I don't know on what grounds -Neil Parille