Donald Trump speaking of the 2016 presidential election: 
“I think this will be the last election that the Republicans have a chance of winning because [with Hillary Clinton] you’re going to have people flowing across the borders, you’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote, and once that all happens you can forget it.”Put it this way. After the Third World and Backward World immigrant population reaches a certain point only an extreme statist will be able to win an election. Eventually the Bill of Rights and the other principles of government Objectivists hold dear will be out the window. 
Trump promises to reverse the migrant flow and “build a wall,” both metaphorically and literally. His opponent Hillary Clinton promises to dissolve the borders. Imagine an uninhibited Angela Merkel.
If you’re new in town you might think the self-proclaimed Objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute are supporting Trump with every fiber of their being. You’d be wrong. Instead, they denounce Trump up and down and back and forth, especially do they denounce him for his promise to restrict immigration. On the other hand ARI people must love Hillary’s promise to open the borders. As they put it – in general, not just in reference to Hillary – “Open the doors. Let them in.” and “The solution to illegal immigration is to make it legal.”  They pretend that open borders is not a leftist, egalitarian, position.
Despite Hillary’s other leftist positions (which ARI people claim to abhor) and her criminality and corruption (which they never mention) they think we could survive four to eight years of this creature as president and thrive afterwards. Her effort to get millions more non-whites into the country would be praiseworthy. Appointing leftist Supreme and District court judges (Sotomayors, Ginsbergs, Curiels), and increasing the reach and power of government, would benefit us in the long run. Why? Because it would enable “restructuring.”
I know, I don’t understand it either. On Yaron Brook’s BlogTalkRadio show of 17 September 2016 titled “The Conservative War Over Trump” a caller asked:
“Do you think if Trump were to lose ... that may leave a vacuum for restructuring?”The caller doesn’t say what vacuum a Hillary administration might leave or what restructuring means but apparently it’s a vast improvement. Here’s Mr. Brook’s reply, and note that positing Hillary’s victory is not enough for him, he hopes for it (assuming he hopes for the best):
“I think it’s better that he [Trump] loses, because then there’s an opportunity for restructuring.”Mr. Brook doesn’t elaborate, quickly says “OK” and proceeds to the next caller. He knew what he was saying because he prefaced the above with “I’m gonna say something that’s gonna [vulgarity] off a lot of people.” Yet is anyone surprised? Since the beginning of the race for president he’s made it clear he wants Trump to lose even though it means President Hillary Clinton. The fact that Trump has garnered widespread support is scary, scary, scary.  Now he finally says out loud (in its Trump lose form): it would be better if Hillary won.
Mr. Brook spends the first half of the show reviewing an article written by a conservative who argues the pro-Trump case, for the most part weakly. Mr. Brook insinuates that the article contains the very best pro-Trump arguments. (Don’t wait for him to review this website’s industrial strength Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump.) Some of the article’s arguments are good. Mr. Brook summarizes one of the better ones, similar to the Trump quote we began with:
“As long as you allow the importation of Third World foreigners the Left will dominate. The Left will take over. They always vote Left and this is what’s gonna take over, as long as we allow this kind of immigration.”But Mr. Brook doesn’t address this argument; instead he says that both Left and Right – today Hillary and Trump – are equally collectivist, fascist, authoritarian and nihilistic, and attributes this idea to Ayn Rand 50 years ago, as if she thought Goldwater equaled Johnson. Then he says of the article and its author:
“Here you’re seeing the Right fascism, including the xenophobia and racism, of blaming all of our problems on the importation – and he says this – ‘the importation of Third World foreigners’. [Lowers voice dramatically:] Sorry, I find that despicable.”First, neither the article’s author nor anyone else blames all of our problems on immigration; however immigration is a huge problem. Second, self-righteousness is not an argument.
In the second half of the show a caller reintroduces the subject. Unfortunately he frames his comment in terms of what some libertarians say rather than saying it himself. This leaves Mr. Brook an opening to talk about libertarians rather than their argument.
The caller, Mark, begins paraphrasing the argument in a mocking tone of voice as if he disagreed with it, but the mockery soon disappears and by the end it’s clear Mark thinks the argument is worth considering. (The initial mockery may have been intended to placate Mr. Brook, in which case the caller got what he asked for, as we shall see.) 
“There’s an analogous argument to this [article] among the libertarians. A lot of them think that there’s this Pew Research data that shows that Hispanics support more socialist handouts than non-Hispanics [and, we would add, even yet more than whites] and ... that these impulses last for decades and even [extend] to the children. [At this point Mr. Brook tries to interrupt.] And then they say we’ve failed to convince people all this time, so convincing them as individuals [Mr. Brook tries to interrupt again] is off the table. Therefore we have to restrict [and again] immigration. It’s an existential crisis for the country—Mr. Brook cuts him off. He points out that some other libertarians say just the opposite, that Hispanics are more likely to be against socialist handouts:
“There’s a book and I don’t remember the name of the book, I’ll mention it next time again, but there’s a book out by a group of libertarians making the exact opposite case about immigration and about voting patterns and everything.” Apparently you’re to rely on some open-borders libertarians who Mr. Brook can’t remember rather than the reputable Pew Research Center, not to mention your lying eyes.
Mr. Brook goes on to denounce “anarchist libertarians,” who, he claims, oppose open borders. He pretends that open borders is not border anarchy. Anarchist libertarians are as much for border anarchy as he is, and likewise as much opposed to Trump.
One well known libertarian organization is the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It publishes essays on immigration both pro and con, mostly pro and using the same stupid arguments Mr. Brook does. The Summer 1998 issue of its Journal of Libertarian Studies was devoted to immigration, and of its seven articles five argued for open borders, two for restricted. Regarding the current race for president the Mises Institute has published a number of articles on various election issues, and practically all oppose Trump’s positions.  With that real world in mind here is the rest of Mr. Brook’s reply, and note how this Israeli had to drag Israel, Israel the Alpha and Omega, into the discussion:
“The anarchist libertarians are pro Trump. ... It’s the von Mises Institute – the xenophobic, immigration hating, anarchists who hate American foreign policy, who hate Israel – it’s that group that is pro Trump. ... I don’t comment much on it cuz I find those people within the libertarian movement who surround the von Mises Institute are so despicable I don’t like to talk about them.”Mr. Brook ends by implying that the caller agrees with him:
“But you’re absolutely right Mark, it’s also among the libertarians.”In other words, besides paleo-conservatives (the main subject of the radio show) some libertarians oppose open borders too, and that was Mark’s only point. Mark, perhaps resenting being turned into a ventriloquist’s dummy, tries to reply but Mr. Brook cuts him off again. He says he has other callers on the line whom he must answer. He spends the next half minute telling a joke about running for governor of California if only people will give him 50 million dollars. A little later he spends almost ten minutes pleading for donations to ARI.
He had to cut that caller off because he knows the claim “Americans vote socialist more than Hispanics” is indefensible, and he knows that “white Americans vote socialist more than non-whites” is even more indefensible. He doesn’t care. No matter what lie he must tell to get there the goal is “Open the doors. Let them in.” And the goal of that goal is to break the back of white America.
The people at ARI want America swamped with Somalis, Indians, etc. until whites become a small minority, and they will endorse Clinton and sacrifice the Bill of Rights to make it happen. A subsidiary motivation, frosting on their main one, is the desire to pay lower wages and charge higher rents.
You’re a racist to object, and indeed in a sense – a benevolent sense – you are. Trump himself objects only implicitly. He never mentions white demise directly, nevertheless much of his political platform would help slow it down. If he makes good on most of his promises it would give us time to recoup. People know this, including the people at ARI. That knowledge is part of why Trump appeals to Americans, and repels cultural leftists like Yaron Brook.
He and the others at ARI claim that open borders – and the consequent turning of whites into a minority, which they never mention – is a moral imperative (of whites). Mr. Brook on the same BlogTalkRadio show:
“... when you’re advocating for building a wall, you’re saying to hell with individual rights. You’re saying to hell with the right to pursue your own happiness.”That’s “your own happiness” as in Raheem from Pakistan’s happiness and to hell with yours.
Mr. Brook’s position is absurd. Raheem has no right to your country. He must either work to improve Pakistan or go where he is welcome. He is not an international problem or a sacrificial blank check drawn on your life.
As in the example quoted above, to promote his open border craziness Mr. Brook speaks incessantly of individual rights. Yet if in a frisson of respect for his bogus application of rights a hypothetical free country were to suddenly open its borders, the influx of Third Worlders would lead to the wholesale violation of everyone’s rights. Look at the attacks on authentic rights today as a result of the substantially unrestricted immigration we have had since 1968. How long can we withstand them? After the tipping point of one Third Worlder for each American, consider ten. Where will Mr. Brook’s individual rights be then?
In Objectivist circles the number of people fooled by this muscle-mouthed charlatan are fewer than might appear. Those with the same agenda as he has are not fooled. They say they agree with his specious arguments even though they don’t really believe them either.