In 1987 I attended a summer conference of Ayn Rand’s philosophy called Objectivism. The conference was held at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in La Jolla and was attended by the Who’s Who of Objectivism. It was organized by George Reisman and his wife, Edith Packer. George Reisman was an economics professor at Pepperdine University and a prominent Objectivist. The UCSD campus was high up on a rock overlooking the ocean. It was a beautiful and clean campus. Perfect weather. It was great to be there, and to be alive. I was only 22 years old then. I didn’t have much of an education, but I had a great interest in ideas after reading The Fountainhead .
Ayn Rand Institute Pushing Open Borders: A Critique of Yaron Brook
In a 2016 Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) lecture titled “Free Will, Free Borders,” Dr. Yaron Brook advocates for open borders and illegal immigration. Watching his speech, one might mistake him for a La Raza speaker or a university professor as he hysterically argues that America's borders are inherently racist. Brook is the chairman of the board of ARI. What happened to reason and the Objectivist movement? Has the ARI gone woke?
Moreover Brook's presentation is loaded with accusatory rhetoric and logical fallacies. It makes one wonder if Brook is really an Objectivist and how he became the chairman of ARI?
And as fanatical as he sounds about his demands for America to have open-borders, it turns out that Dr. Brook doesn't believe any of his arguments should apply to Israel's borders. How ironic.
Anecdotes and Historical Distortions
Brook begins his lecture with a red herring. He shares a theatrical anecdote about being shouted down by 600 Trump supporters in Chicago. He claims the crowd angrily demanded his deportation, only to be thwarted upon learning he is a naturalized citizen. While he may have been jeered, his dramatic narrative feels highly exaggerated. More importantly, it serves as a distraction to vilify Trump supporters rather than defend his policy positions.
He then shifts to an appeal to tradition, claiming America completely embraced unrestricted immigration 150 years ago. To back this up, he literally roleplays as the Statue of Liberty, shouting, “Bring ‘em on!”
Brook commits what Ayn Rand called the package-dealing fallacy by treating legal and illegal immigration as identical concepts, when they are actually opposites.
Context-Dropping and the Welfare State
This leads directly into context-dropping. The European immigrants of the 19th century came to America legally through checkpoints like Ellis Island to participate in freedom and productivity. They sought negative rights—the freedom to be left alone. At this time, there was no welfare state in America.
By contrast, many modern illegal immigrants enter the country unlawfully to partake in the welfare state. Brook drops this essential context, creating a false equivalence between two entirely different groups.
Strawmen, Contradictions, and Intimidation
Brook routinely employs strawman arguments and false dilemmas. He mocks border security advocates by claiming their stance boils down to: “We can’t have Mexicans here because we will turn America into Mexico.” This implies that if you oppose open borders, you must hate Mexican people. In reality, an alternative exists: one can respect Mexican culture while also demanding secure, lawful borders.
Brook’s speech is riddled with internal contradictions. After first claiming that past generations of Americans all loved immigrants, he then abruptly reverses himself, shouting that early British, Irish, Italian, Polish, and Jewish immigrants all hated each other. He then uses a sweeping, royal “we” to declare, “We hate the Mexicans.” This reveals a remarkably low and vile opinion of Americans. It is historically absurd to claim a nation consumed by mutual hatred could build a global superpower in record time. No country was or is perfect, but Brook plays both sides to advance his position.
When addressing critics, Brook resorts to ad hominem attacks, labeling Trump supporters as "afraid of people who look differently." This is a modern-day example of Rand’s Argument from Intimidation—using psychological guilt to silence dissent rather than to engage in discussion. It is also another example of an ad hominem: Brook knows why people support President Trump, because they are racist. This is the chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Bureaucracy and Political Biases
Brook goes on to call America’s immigration laws “the dumbest, stupidest imaginable.” Yet, he doesn't explain why or how it should be, he also never points to another country as an example of how immigration laws and policy should be. Moreover, Brook completely ignores America's vast, generous system of legal student, worker, and cultural visas.
Brook then says that Donald Trump would make the laws "even stupider." This ignores that Trump explicitly advocates for a merit-based system tailored for “people who really want to be part of America.” Trump opposes illegal immigration, not legal immigration, which aligns with the basic constitutional duty of any U.S. president.
It is strange that Dr. Brook, as a naturalized U.S. citizen and Chairman of the Board of ARI, travels the world on Ayn Rand’s dime while mocks an American president on foreign soil. Imagine if Dr. Brook as an Israeli citizen traveled abroad to advocate for illegal border crossings into Israel while publicly mocked Prime Minister Netanyahu. Something tells me his Israeli citizenship and freedom would be challenged if he were to enter Israel upon return.
Missing the Point on Borders and Law
Brook mocks border walls by stating that people can simply dig under or go over them. He even cheers on lawbreaking by noting that Mexicans can fly to Canada without a visa and sneak across the northern U.S. border. For the head of an Objectivist organization to encourage this is deeply concerning.
Furthermore, Brook claims walls keep out highly educated professionals. This entirely misses the point. Doctors, engineers, and scientists do not cross borders illegally in the desert; they apply for legal visas at U.S. consulates.
The Misuse of Objectivism
Leaning heavily on an appeal to pity, Brook frames illegal border crossings as "heroic" acts of self-preservation. He suggests that an individual's desire for a better life overrides the laws of a sovereign nation. While Objectivists champion self-improvement, Brook drops the moral context of at whose expense this occurs. What about the individual rights of American citizens to safety, security, and national sovereignty?
Brook applies the same flawed logic to "anchor babies," praising pregnant women who cross deserts unlawfully to deliver children at American taxpayers' expense. He claims they do not come for government assistance, yet immediately contradicts himself by blaming Americans when these mothers end up on welfare.
Finally, Brook uses a strawman argument. He claims that immigrants vote Democratic because Republicans call them "scumbags." Funny how Dr. Brook introduces this word into the conversation, but then claims that Republicans use it, yet doesn't provide any evidence of this. Who are these Republicans calling Illegal alien "scumbags"? No answer, no examples. But this is an example of Dr. Brook's demagoguery.
Conclusion: The Academic Betrayal
Brook fails to provide a coherent argument for open borders. He and other institutional Objectivists are blinded by a romanticized misapplication of Ayn Rand’s We the Living. They view today’s economic migrants through the lens of Kira Argounova fleeing Soviet totalitarianism.
This comparison is a false equivalence. Central American governments are not shooting citizens in the back for trying to leave the country. In fact, they are actively facilitating migration to profit from the billions of dollars wired back in remittances. For those facing genuine political persecution, a lawful asylum process already exists at every U.S. consulate and checkpoint.
I doubt any of the ARI PhDs pushing open borders have ever spent a night in a border hospital, spoken to a victimized rancher, or patrolled a sanctuary city. Ensconced in a comfortable, high-society lifestyle, they take cheap shots at Donald Trump while advocating for policies that would create chaos. What does Google AI say about this?
 |
And isn't it interesting that none of them are advocating open borders for Israel? It would be a fallacy to dismiss Dr. Brook's argument based on this inconsistency, but it is a legitimate question to ask. Why does Dr. Brook advocate for Mexican nationals to illegally cross into the United States, but not for Palestinians (or any non-Israel citizens) to illegally cross Israel’s checkpoints and borders. Why is that?
Full Google AI response about ARI open border below:
Yes, that is a core critique made by their opponents, and it accurately reflects a fundamental nuance in how the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) applies Objectivist philosophy. Critics frequently point out that ARI intellectuals heavily champion "open borders" and unrestricted immigration for Western nations like the United States, while simultaneously defending Israel’s right to strict border enforcement and military defense against neighboring populations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
ARI Objectivists resolve this apparent contradiction through specific philosophical distinctions regarding national context and national defense:
🇺🇸 The United States: Free Individuals vs. Free Will
- The Principle: For the U.S., ARI intellectuals argue that individual rights are paramount. They believe a free country has no moral authority to restrict peaceful individuals from moving, working, or buying property based on their birthplace. [1, 6]
- The Argument: ARI leaders like Yaron Brook assert that "the solution to illegal immigration is to make it legal". They view state-enforced border limits as an infringement on laissez-faire capitalism and personal freedom, arguing that the government should only screen for active criminals or military threats, not limit numbers. [1, 7]
🇮🇱 Israel: Rights-Respecting State vs. Existential Threat
- The Principle: In Objectivism, a nation's moral legitimacy stems from its protection of individual rights. Because Israel is structured as a Western-style, rights-respecting democracy, ARI argues it has a moral right to exist and defend itself. [1, 3, 8, 9, 10]
- The Argument: Conversely, ARI categorizes many surrounding groups and nations as tribalist, totalitarian, or state-sanctioned aggressors. Therefore, they do not view the movement of people from these territories into Israel as "peaceful immigration." Instead, they treat it as an existential national security threat and a military matter. [4]
Summary of the Double Standard Critique
Opponents use this contrast to argue that ARI applies a double standard. Critics contend that if open immigration destroys a nation’s culture or compromises its security, those risks apply equally to America. However, ARI maintains that America is a massive, secure superpower absorbing peaceful labor, whereas Israel operates under a constant, active state of siege. [2, 4, 11]
[10] https://fair.org