This article first appeared at Bruno Turner's Oath Valley - Where Objectivism is not Obleftivism
Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy, which holds both political and moral views. Unlike the case with some left-libertarians, who hold (some) political principles of liberty but are part of the cultural and moral left, certain "Objectivists" have no excuse for this bifurcated behavior.
The principle of political liberty can be upheld from a certain range of moral frameworks, as is demonstrated by history and experience; albeit in an inconsistent manner. Objectivism however demands a consistent view of both moral philosophy and political philosophy, the one underlying the other. If one upholds culturally and morally leftist views, while adhering to certain other principles of John Galt's philosophy, then one can be properly called a left-Objectivist, or, as Lindsay Perigo aptly baptized these types, Obleftivists.
The most fundamental characteristic of a leftist is his belief in both Equalism and the political corollary of Egalitarianism. Equalism is the belief that there are no biological (pre-moral) differences between individuals and groups that give rise to different abilities or moral outcome. Those differences that do exist are ascribed to either moral fault on the part of some "oppressor" or to undeserved luck. This belief leads equalists to hold Egalitarianism as a political corollary. The link between Equalism and Egalitarianism is well exemplified by Rawls, the modern egalitarian par excellence.
Briefly, since individuals and groups differ in ability through neither fault nor merit (!) of their own, the state may properly enforce equalizing measures through coercion.
The Obleftivists' Equalism and Egalitarianism shines bright when they labor to use the blank slate theory (tabula rasa) in conjuncture with the free will theory to justify the rejection of all selective standards an immigration policy based on the national self-interest inherently demands.
Since differences in ability or moral outcome are held to have no pre-moral basis, they must exclusively be moral in nature. Since morality is chosen, and since the free(er) system into which they labor to enter is morally superior to that of their origin, each new arrival will be "induced" into choosing to cherish the principles of freedom. To deny this, according to Obleftivists, is to deny free will; likewise to deny that there are inherent pre-moral barriers to achieving a proper free-willed choice is to deny tabula rasa.
A careful observer will see that the argument from free will is here contradicted by the assumption of the phenomenon I labeled as "inducement". Obleftivists don't seem to be bothered by this contradiction.
To be fair, instead of openly espousing this "inducement" process, one of the Open Borders Obleftivists takes the route of baseless assertion: "Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues". Since they are, by assertion, inherently self-selected, the need for them to be "induced" into virtue is disingenously tossed aside.
A free society can be maintained exclusively if the culture at large recognizes the inherent superiority of a free system over the semi-free or fully enslaved abominations that rule most rest of the world.
It is (now) a plainly obvious and commonplace realization that the post-1965 immigration from largely unfree and, at best, semi-civilized societies has shifted the American culture in the direction of enslavement.
I will limit myself here to point out that so called birth right citizenship (ius soli) should be immediately terminated and that the naturalization process must be revisited and made more effective and stringent, with the goal of exclusively acquiring new citizens (additions to The American People) that will, at a minimum, preserve American freedom, and, ideally, enhance it.
Immigration "without citizenship" has been dealt with by other anti-Obleftivists, but, more to the point, it is not on the table as a realistic option. I won't labor here to explain why, because the advocates of "Open Borders" themselves only use the "immigration without citizenship" argument as a mask to justify pure and unlimited immigration; from the horses' mouth we get such pronouncements as "Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology."
If unlimited immigration without citizenship were the goal to be achieved, then the advocates of this position would need to be first and foremost the champions of a complete shutdown of immigration until citizenship laws are significantly altered.
Obleftivists want open immigration; and they want it now. That is the reality of the situation. This in effect amounts to the advocacy of unlimited numbers of unvetted semi and total savages entering the country, with the consequent nefarious effects to the culture we see today in America and most other Western countries.
These newcomers are equal neither in moral nor pre-moral stature unless they are specifically selected for such traits. Selectivity for excellence in newcomers' potential and actualization is the requirement of a rational immigration policy.
A free system stands or falls based on the culture underlying it. In the name of the self-preservation of a rational and free culture, which stands or falls based on The People's willingness to uphold it, selective immigration must be the foundation of a free system.
"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
Let's be sure to select as additions to The People exclusively those who are capable of freedom, for they are the only group that needn't masters to be tamed. Whether prospective newcomers are corrupt, vicious, or simply savage, is but detail. These groups must be kept at a distance. We the civilized must separate ourselves from the uncivilized, lest we be replaced by them through demographic displacement; the ultimate result of said scenario being our loss of control over our own system of government.
In other words, Ayn Rand is welcome to America. On principle. Any savage supporter of shariah law is not. Any semi-savage supporter of the mexican reconquista of the South-West is not. Any parasitical leech wishing to suck the blood out of the American welfare system is not. Any future democrat or Bernie Sanders supporter is not. Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, killer of Kate Steinle, is not. On principle.
"[A]n individual may cross an international border if that individual’s entrance into the country in question will serve the moral goal of keeping the country free." - Ed Powell