Amy Peikoff on Gary Johnson

[Mark]

Before I get to Amy Peikoff, tonight -- Tuesday Oct 23 at 9:00 Eastern Time -- you can watch a debate among four “third party” candidates, broadcast by C-SPAN and live-streamed at Free And Equal.

Besides two liberals the debate will feature Gary Johnson (LP) and Virgil Goode (CP) so whatever the immediate political consequence it will be good propaganda for some better political ideas.

In the election these two candidates will syphon a few votes away from the neocon candidate, Mitt Romney.

Which brings me to Amy Peikoff. She's been doing a series of podcasts urging everyone to vote and to vote for Romney, not Gary Johnson. She calls the series "'Intervention' for Gary Johnson Voters." Here they are so far:

Sept 23 - Free Speech

Sept 12 - Interview with Leonard Peikoff

Sept 9 - Foreign Policy

Sept 2 (partly) - Foreign Policy

Aug 26 - Vote for Johnson or Romney and lose your integrity

Aug 19 - Introduction

As for me, I oppose Gary Johnson because of his stand on an issue of prime importance: unrestricted immigration. Like both Romney and Obama he’s all for it. (The Libertarian Party is its own worst enemy.) But of course this isn’t why official Objectivists -- also all for it -- oppose Johnson. Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) is on the right side in this issue, which may be revealed in the debate.

[PDS]

And why, again, should I care what Ms. Amy Peikoff thinks?

Maybe the various Peikoffs should get together and try to agree on who to vote for before giving advice to non-Peikoffs on this subject.

[syrakusos]

As for me, I oppose Gary Johnson because of his stand on an issue of prime importance: unrestricted immigration. Like both Romney and Obama he’s all for it. (The Libertarian Party is its own worst enemy.) But of course this isn’t why official Objectivists -- also all for it -- oppose Johnson. Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) is on the right side in this issue, which may be revealed in the debate.

When my paternal grandparents arrived at Ellis Island in 1920, they were given cards to wear: W.O.P. for "Without Passport." They paid 1 UK pound for their passage from Europe on a Cunard liner, hence also were called "guineas." When my maternal grandparents came here before World War I, none of that was in effect: there were no passports.

When Byron and Shelley toured Europe, when Charles Dickens and Antonin Dvorak visited America, they just went wherever they wanted...As people had for centuries... It did happen that as wars made travel dangerous, some people carried papers to show that they were (a) non-combatants and (b) generally very important. The papers were folded in two: di-ploma. They were carried by scholars and emissaries. Mostly, people just went wherever they wanted.

When you lock other people out, you lock yourself in. So-called "immigration policy" is just a euphemism for imprisoning a nation.

[syrakusos]

And why, again, should I care what Ms. Amy Peikoff thinks?

The distinction is between citation of authority and calls to authority. The first is science; the second is religion. One is provable; the other is not. Opportunity runs in families more often than talent. Without her family name, Amy Peikoff would be just another blogger, which she is, actually. You might as well cite me, and I you. She does not seem especially bright or insightful in any way that we are not.

[anthony]

As for me, I oppose Gary Johnson because of his stand on an issue of prime importance: unrestricted immigration. Like both Romney and Obama he’s all for it. (The Libertarian Party is its own worst enemy.) But of course this isn’t why official Objectivists -- also all for it -- oppose Johnson. Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) is on the right side in this issue, which may be revealed in the debate.

When my paternal grandparents arrived at Ellis Island in 1920, they were given cards to wear: W.O.P. for "Without Passport." They paid 1 UK pound for their passage from Europe on a Cunard liner, hence also were called "guineas." When my maternal grandparents came here before World War I, none of that was in effect: there were no passports.

When Byron and Shelley toured Europe, when Charles Dickens and Antonin Dvorak visited America, they just went wherever they wanted...As people had for centuries... It did happen that as wars made travel dangerous, some people carried papers to show that they were (a) non-combatants and (b) generally very important. The papers were folded in two: di-ploma. They were carried by scholars and emissaries. Mostly, people just went wherever they wanted.

When you lock other people out, you lock yourself in. So-called "immigration policy" is just a euphemism for imprisoning a nation.

Good post. There was just enough remaining of this freedom of access in Central Africa of the '50's

to have left me still with 'the world, my oyster' sense of life. The closing down of that freedom pisses me

off right to this day.

[Mark]

"When you lock other people out, you lock yourself in."

Americans weren't locked in between 1924 and 1965, the years between Calvin Coolidge's Comprehensive Immigration Act and Edward Kennedy's Immigration Reform Act, the latter supported by Jewish (eg B'nai B'rith) and Catholic organizations.

You can give examples of fine European immigrants -- or even Third World immigrants -- until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that massive Third World immigration is bad news – even First World with emphasis on massive. See this review of Nicholas Pringle’s The Unknown Warriors and other articles here.

Regarding the relevance of Amy Peikoff's podcasts, at various times she features Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook, both of ARI and consequently on my radar.

Amy Peikoff is divorced from Leonard Peikoff, apparently amicably. Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim, has called her "my woman" (SP) and said they are "in a relationship" (FB). He has some talent as a graphic artist and uses it in the service of neoconservative foreign policy.

[Reidy]

Suppose you were right about immigration being bad news. Why would it be the government's business?

[Brant Gaede]

Suppose you were right about immigration being bad news. Why would it be the government's business?

Because of the welfare state. The government has to limit the freebies somehow. There also might be security concerns. Anyway, to advocate free immigration now is putting the cart before the horse.

--Brant

[Matt Faherty]

Walter Block has pointed out that in a proper legal system with no government property (aside from the bare essentials), immigration would be a non-issue as all immigrants would need to gain access to an individual's private property who has the right to let in or keep out whomever he pleases. Given this perameter, there is no risk of the "3rd world flood."

But even with the US's current framework with government property and welfare, immigration is both a moral right and economically beneficial prospect. More individuals working with better technology leads to a greater degree of the division of labor and therefore more wealth for all. Additionally, the Cato Institute has done plenty of research to demonstrate that the vast majority of immigrants have historically produced more economically then they have taken in welfare.

It also amazes me that anti-immigration people always fail to abstract their arguments to other formats. Should wealthy US states prevent immigrants from poorer states from entering? Should Manhattan close the briges to all but the fabulously wealthy and those few needed to clean the toilets?

[william.scherk]

When my paternal grandparents arrived at Ellis Island in 1920, they were given cards to wear: W.O.P. for "Without Passport." They paid 1 UK pound for their passage from Europe on a Cunard liner, hence also were called "guineas."

Are you sure about this, or is it unchallenged family lore?

The guinea was a one-pound gold coin at its introduction in 1663, according to Wikipedia. Its value fluctuated according to its gold content -- at one point reaching as high as 30 shillings. The value of a guinea was fixed in 1816 to be worth 21 shillings.

The name came from the Guinea region in West Africa, where much of the gold used to make the coins originated.^[2] Although no longer circulated, the term guinea survives in some circles, notably horse racing,^[1] and in the sale of rams, to mean an amount of one pound and one shilling (21 shillings) or one pound and five pence in decimalised currency. The name also forms the basis for the Arabic word for the Egyptian pound الجنيه el-Genēh / el-Geni, as a sum of 100 Qirsh (i.e., one pound) was worth approximately 21 shillings at the end of the 19th century.

As need not be told to anyone of Italian heritage, 'guinea' is a derogatory word referring to Italians and other 'darker-style' world immigrants. Multiple sources confirm these two distinct uses of the word, as a visit to the OED will show. The slur is apparently derived from 'Guinea Negro' and extended into a term of disparagement for 'non-white' immigrants from the southern regions of Italy ...

Have you mixed up two instances of the term, MEM?

Here is the Word Maven's take on 'guinea':

The use of guinea as an extremely offensive ethnic slur directed against Italians or those of Italian descent is only one of several uses of this word.

The earliest related form to note is Guinea negro, first recorded in the mid-eighteenth century. This referred literally to a black person from Guinea, a region on the coast of West Africa. Common in the eighteenth century in this form, by the early nineteenth century we began to see guinea used on its own (without negro) to refer to a black person. This sense is now rare or obsolete.

The usual sense 'an Italian person or person of Italian descent' is first recorded in 1890 and appears to have been reasonably common thereafter. (It even appears in the well-known 1894 song "Sidewalks of New York," the one with the chorus "East side, West side, all around the town": "Boys and girls together, we would sing and waltz/While the Ginnie played the organ on the sidewalks of New York." This verse is often euphemized to "While Tony played the organ....")

This sense was probably inspired by guinea in the sense 'a black person' with reference to the relatively dark skin of southern Italians, who made up the majority of Italian immigrants at that time. Other racial slurs that normally refer to black people are also often applied to members of other dark-skinned groups.

As for 'wop' being derived from WithOut Papers/WithOut Passport,' it is perhaps one of those words with an obscure folk etymology. Here is some dude named Casselman taking it on:

Like so many racist insults, the origin of the word is disputed. Suggested derivations include a totally false folk etymology, and two more likely sources.

FALSE SOURCE # 1

Several American dictionaries will tell you that wop is an acronym for "without papers" or "without passport," supposedly formerly stamped on the immigration documents of certain newcomers arrived from Italy. Una sciocchezza! Utter flapdoodle! Poppycock! Nonsense! In all the files of all the various names under which American departments of immigration have been known throughout United States history, there is no record whatsoever of the official issuance of such a stamp. No person has ever brought forward and presented as evidence a single immigration document stamped with such a phrase. Not once.

[Reidy]

When did passports become standard? I thought it was no earlier than 1900, in which case the great majority of immigrants who came through Ellis Island, not just the Italians, wouldn't have had them. That would be further evidence against this etymology.

[william.scherk]

When did passports become standard? I thought it was no earlier than 1900, in which case the great majority of immigrants who came through Ellis Island, not just the Italians, wouldn't have had them. That would be further evidence against this etymology.

It is a tough question to answer, depending on the area of the world. Another question (which I will try to answer and post back) is what governed travel between here (North America) and the various not-heres. I will try to find out something fairly simple: what documentation did a non-US citizen require to enter the US, such entry leading to citizenship.

Here's some odd notes from the history of (Canadian) passports that lays out some realities of travel/cross-border immigration that I was ignorant of:

One of the earliest references to passports was made in about 450 B.C. Nehemiah, an official serving King Artaxerxes of ancient Persia, asked permission to travel to Judah. The King agreed and gave Nehemiah a letter "to the governors of the province beyond the river" requesting safe passage for him as he travelled through their lands.

Today's Canadian passports still carry such a letter of request. Inside the front cover is a letter issued in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. Like Nehemiah's letter, it also asks for safe passage and protection for the holder of the passport.

Not until the reign of King Louis XIV of France did these "letters of request" become popular. The King granted personally signed documents to his court favourites. The letter was dubbed "passe port," literally meaning "to pass through a port," because most international travel was by sailing ships. Hence the term "passport".

Within 100 years of Louis XIV's reign, almost every country in Europe had set up a system to issue passports. Besides needing passports from their own countries, travellers also had to have visas issued by the countries they wanted to visit, much as we have travel visas today.

The rising popularity of rail travel in the mid-19th century led to an explosion of tourism throughout Europe and caused a complete breakdown in the European passport and visa system. In answer to the crisis, France abolished passports and visas in 1861. Other European countries followed suit, and by 1914, passport requirements had been eliminated practically everywhere in Europe. However, World War I brought renewed concerns for international security, and passports and visas were again required, as a "temporary" measure.

More at this link, including this bit that I found intriguing:

Before 1862, Canadians, as British subjects, could travel freely to and from the United States without passports. To travel to Europe, however, a Canadian had to obtain a British passport from the Foreign Office in London. Those who were not British subjects by birth could still go to the United States with a certificate of naturalization, which was issued by local Canadian mayors mainly for the purposes of voting in municipal elections.

During the American Civil War, however, authorities in the United States wanted more reliable certification from people living in Canada. In 1862, the Governor General, Viscount Monck, introduced a centralized system for issuing passports. For the next 50 years, a Canadian passport was really a "letter of request" signed by the Governor General.

I think maybe before I die (or finish transcribing Uncle Kookiepants's last dialogue with Brook) I shall satisfy my curiosity by reading a good history of in-migration to the US.

Certainly there were meticulous documents kept at US ports of entry. The myth and history of Ellis Island is captured today for search among these documents. Apparently there are twenty-odd million 'cases' surviving in modern databanks, so that a gentleman like Michael Marotta can hunt down the specifics of Great-Grandpa Whatsisname and his arrival and disposal. See the site of the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island society that manages these documents and makes them publicly available (for a fee).

The larger site also contains a search feature for we amateurs: click here and search direct for a male Marotta circa 1900. I get eleven hits; MEM, do you see your forebears here?

Edited October 24, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Edit Dupe. D'oh!

[syrakusos]

(William, thanks! I am impressed. See the "Ethno-genealogical" topic)

[PDS]

And why, again, should I care what Ms. Amy Peikoff thinks?

The distinction is between citation of authority and calls to authority. The first is science; the second is religion. One is provable; the other is not. Opportunity runs in families more often than talent. Without her family name, Amy Peikoff would be just another blogger, which she is, actually. You might as well cite me, and I you. She does not seem especially bright or insightful in any way that we are not.

Re your last sentence: Because what you say could mean any number of things, I am going to go ahead and consider that a compliment of some sort.

I do see from his website that Intellectual Heir Peikoff is now in favor of a Republican vote for Romney.

I guess the "we are one step away from a state-mandated "Bible in every pot!!!" stage has now passed. I hope Peikoff's followers have whiplash insurance.