Objectivist Round-up, Mid-April 2026

1. I wonder if there is a new schism brewing.  On the same day and on the same website, James Valliant and Leonard Peikoff published two essays criticizing, in effect, the Ayn Rand Institute’s support for open immigration (which tends to veer toward Harry Binswanger’s open borders position).  While Valliant seems to be Peikoff’s main conduit to the outer world of Objectivism, the pieces are quite different in writing style.  

Here is Valliant:

Still, there are many self-styled “Objectivists” who advocate precisely such a dereliction of government’s responsibility to protect Americans from foreign threats–those who advocate completely “open borders” and who oppose the deportation of even criminal aliens. They advocate abolishing all immigration law entirely–and they do so in the name of “Objectivism.”

It is vital to recognize in this context that many nations of the world define such basic crimes as murder and rape very differently than under American law. Some places are in a state of near anarchy and do not keep or collect data on criminals as the United States does.

This means that criminal border screening must include an active process of investigation that examines the individual’s previous conduct, not merely the willingness of a foreign country to be rid of them or to have them subjected to criminal charges.

Were there to be no screening for immigrants at the border, nothing would prevent another country from systematically expelling its own criminal populations into the United States.*

Students of Objectivism who oppose any border enforcement, or who advocate that there should be no deportations, whatever, are simply ignoring Objectivist political philosophy.

Here is Peikoff attacking a certain unnamed Objectivist for the “racism” charge”:

One anti-ICEr suggests that conservatives who defend ICE and deportation are really racists — presumably, in this case, because we are supposed to be hostile to brown bodies. In other words, this student of Objectivism (I don’t call him an Objectivist because he is clearly still learning what the philosophy is) is not only perpetrating an ad hominem, but also invoking as self-evident the WOKE explanation of all evil: RACISM.

Speaking for myself: as a teenager, I spent most Augusts in Canada lying on Grand Beach getting a great tan, all the kids did, and we all boasted how brown we looked.  Then, some years later, while dating in New York City, I applied bronzer liberally to my face and neck, wanting to look like someone who did not spend all of his time reading books (though it ruined my shirt collars).  And now I have married a person of multi-racial ethnicity, and to me Grace is the most beautiful woman I have ever known.

Interesting that Peikoff implies he is a “conservative.”**  Hard to say with certainty who Peikoff is criticizing, but it sounds like he’s talking about Yaron Brook.

2. Speaking of the above, Yaron Brook doesn’t seem to be aware (or care) that  Peikoff apparently thinks Brook supports “the left” when it comes to ICE and Peikoff has publicly  called him out for it.  Considering Brook’s continued attacks on Trump (whom Peikoff supports), perhaps Brook thinks that his hostility to Trump won’t get back to Peikoff (he seems to imply this).  The ARI still lists Peikoff as the founder so I’m not sure why Brook isn’t a bit more restrained when it comes to Trump in light of Peikoff’s habit of breaking with people.

3. Unresolved trauma?  Don’t expect any sympathy from Yaron Brook.
____________

* Which Fidel Castro did during the Mariel Boatlift (opening up Cuba’s mental hospitals as well).

** A point I owe to Scott Schiff.

----Neil Parille