Does libertarianism require support for open borders?

[Todd]

My first thoughts is yes. But we don't live in society governed by those principles. When you can still filch your fellow neighbor to support the influx of the population that comes over the border for goodies then I don't think you can.

 

[Invisible Man]

US Chamber and Koch-beltway libertarians go with option two.

So does Ron Paul.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So does Ron Paul.

False.

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• 
  [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26


"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

 

[Invisible Man]

False.

Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• 
  [*=left]Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  [*=left]Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  [*=left]No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  [*=left]No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  [*=left]End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  [*=left]Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26
"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Nothing there contradicts anything I said.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nothing there contradicts anything I said.

Gaslighting doesn't work anymore.

 

[Invisible Man]

Gaslighting doesn't work anymore.

And neither does deceptive editing. (and a very poor job since even the part you cut it down to shows you to be a liar)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't edit anything.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't edit anything.

My mistake, I'm not used to this new software truncating quotes that can be expanded.

That just makes the gaslighting part worse.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So does Ron Paul.

Operation DDoS has failed. Looks like it's back to the usual agenda.

 

[Madison320]

There are two ways to look at it...

1- property rights.... illegal immigrants are trespassing

2- why should governments get to control the supply curve of labor?



Also keep in mind that open borders are not the same thing as unsecured borders. You can have secured borders that are open.

In my opinion both of these are correct libertarian positions. If you come here with no job or place to live you're assuming someone has to provide for you and I think that's a form of trespassing. I think you should have to be "invited" here if you want to move. So I'm against randomly letting people in but I'm in favor of people being invited in for example the H1B system.

Get rid of birthright citizenship and open immigration and only allow people who are being sponsored so that they won't be a tax burden and they won't be trespassing.

The birthright citizenship thing really bugs me because my wife is foreign born and has lived here for 30 years and still can't get her citizenship. It's hard and expensive. The last attempt she was turned down because we moved to another state and you're supposed to wait 60 days before applying if you do that. Meanwhile people sneak in and have a baby and it's automatic.

 

[Swordsmyth]

In my opinion both of these are correct libertarian positions. If you come here with no job or place to live you're assuming someone has to provide for you and I think that's a form of trespassing. I think you should have to be "invited" here if you want to move. So I'm against randomly letting people in but I'm in favor of people being invited in for example the H1B system.

Get rid of birthright citizenship and open immigration and only allow people who are being sponsored so that they won't be a tax burden and they won't be trespassing.

The birthright citizenship thing really bugs me because my wife is foreign born and has lived here for 30 years and still can't get her citizenship. It's hard and expensive. The last attempt she was turned down because we moved to another state and you're supposed to wait 60 days before applying if you do that. Meanwhile people sneak in and have a baby and it's automatic.

Infinite employment immigration is a recipe for enserfment of the working class, cultural destruction, and a huge foreign population that is eventually granted citizenship which permanently alters the politics of the country for the worse.

Immigration in any significant numbers is indistinguishable from invasion and occupation.

Your wife should be given citizenship as soon as the marriage has lasted long enough to be sure it isn't a sham marriage.

 

[ClaytonB]

Infinite employment immigration is a recipe for enserfment of the working class, cultural destruction, and a huge foreign population that is eventually granted citizenship which permanently alters the politics of the country for the worse.

Immigration in any significant numbers is indistinguishable from invasion and occupation.

Your wife should be given citizenship as soon as the marriage has lasted long enough to be sure it isn't a sham marriage.

Your conclusions are correct, but your method of reaching them is not consistent with libertarian theory.

Libertarian theory of public policy is like someone who has been kidnapped into a death cult trying to explain how the cult should actually be run. We're trapped here in Statism, whether we like it or not. But everything about Statism is patently insane, like living in a death cult. The best we can do is try to provide some counter-propaganda to the cult insanity in the hopes that it will wake some people up and prevent the worst-case, Jim Jones scenario. So, when we explain how borders (or any other feature of Statism) "should" work, this is not a rubber-stamp on border tyranny.

Because we live in an entire world that is enthralled by Statism, we must maintain enough of a State to prevent becoming the global commons. To survive being kidnapped in the death-cult, you must maintain your bodily integrity by hook or by crook, meaning, you might have to go along with the propaganda just far enough so you don't end up being the next human sacrifice victim. If we regard the United States as a sane country in an insane world (as it once was, to a first-approximation), then we have to build enough of State to protect ourselves from becoming the next body bound on the funeral pyre. In order to do this, the founders of this country gave us a Constitution. The Constitution itself is no rubber-stamp on Statism or tyranny of any kind, quite the opposite. But it has been twisted around to the precise opposite by the turncoats among us. We didn't even need a foreign invasion for this to happen, it was done from within.

With that groundwork laid, when it comes to the issue of the border, the real reasons the border is a "crisis" need to be spelled out before going any further. The border is not really an ideological issue. It's a material issue. The real reasons the border is a "crisis" are:

1) There is demographic warfare occurring by various groups aligned with foreign interests who want to simply breed out the American spirit. Whatever remains of our once great country is still an obstacle to the globalist agenda, so the globalists have deployed one of the oldest war strategies in existence: demographic warfare. Raid the village, rape the women, move on. Before long, your enemy will just be a genetic extension of your own clan and he will be unable to keep fighting you by virtue of family bonds.

2) The United States since the founding of the Federal Reserve and the New Deal has been a de facto Marxist economy even though we always talk about it as a "capitalist" country. This is the biggest Overton window shift ever. The implementation of the blockbuster welfare-warfare State in the US has created a welfare super-magnet with global reach to every corner of the world... if you can come here from any corner of the world, however, remote, you can live like a king by the standards back home, all just on the public dole.

In fact, you can get paid to impregnate American women. It's like you died and went to heaven, it's too good to be true, and yet it is true. And the only hurdle you have to jump, is wading across a knee-deep creek on the southern border with Mexico. If you're a young and even remotely attractive young man, and you can somehow work up the cash for a boat-ride to Mexico, and then pay for a guide to get you across into the US, you can find an American baby-mama in no time at a local club because American men have been pussy-whipped by the divorce-industrial-complex. All you gotta do is knock her up, and then get paid while she raises your kid on the public dole. The idea that this is not the single greatest causal factor in the southern border invasion is ludicrous, but the Beltway GOP/Cato types will never breathe a word about it because they learned in the 90's that this is a third-rail issue.

Us libertarians just want out of y'alls death-cult. You people are all insane. But given that we're shackled here on this death-ride with everybody else, the least we can do is state the naked truth clearly and fearlessly so that the issues can be seen clearly by all people, and the moral, social and political rot addressed at its root. We're so many trillions of light-years away from a libertarian border policy at this moment in history, that it's best to just shelve that discussion except as a metaphysical exercise. For now, we need to pull the brakes on this runaway train and, as a libertarian, I'm not all that worried about moving one notch further or closer to libertarian principles because we're already so far from them that it makes little difference.

Forcing the Federal government to adhere to the actual words of the US Constitution would be so revolutionary that we would be practically living in total anarchy by today's standards. Imagine a 1789 government in 2025. Is a 1789 government "pure libertarian"? Probably not but, as I said, it's trillions of lightyears closer to true liberty than we are today. The borders need to be sealed until the crisis is resolved. And the crisis will never be resolved as long as the Fed and the welfare-warfare State continue feeding at the hog-trough of the working man's wealth. This beast must be faced head-on. Either we will kill it, or it will kill us. There is no middle ground. When we have defeated the Orc invasion, then let's talk about demunicipalizing the garbage-collection in the Shire. For now, we march....

 

[TheTexan]

Your wife should be given citizenship as soon as the marriage has lasted long enough to be sure it isn't a sham marriage.

I like the Swiss method of requiring a culture fit approval from your local community/canton.

The federal government has no ability to judge the worthiness of anyone's citizenship application.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I like the Swiss method of requiring a culture fit approval from your local community/canton.

The federal government has no ability to judge the worthiness of anyone's citizenship application.

I'll take a double filter, the feds should only allow in a limited number of people from the most compatible cultures, and those people should have to get locals to sponsor them and vouch for their assimilation before they can get permanent residence or citizenship.

 

[ClaytonB]

I'll take a double filter, the feds should only allow in a limited number of people from the most compatible cultures, and those people should have to get locals to sponsor them and vouch for their assimilation before they can get permanent residence or citizenship.

I think the Federal government should filter strictly on the basis of national interests and leave the cultural aspects to individuals. If it's in our bottom-line interest for XYZ persons to immigrate, they should be permitted at the national level. In addition, they will also need a human sponsor. By "human sponsor", I am specifically excluding corporations, because the problem with corporate sponsorship (as in H1Bs) is that corporations are a liability-shielding mechanism, so having corporate-sponsorship guarantees you will have more than the actually desirable amount of immigration. If your company absolutely needs to immigrate 100 people from India, the CEO should personally sponsor them and, if they go off the reservation, he will then be held personally liable by the US government. This would allow businesses to sponsor individuals they really do need (and they will be very selective), while shutting down the immigration sponsorship-loophole in H1Bs.

 

[PAF]

I think the Federal government should filter strictly on the basis of national interests and leave the cultural aspects to individuals. If it's in our bottom-line interest for XYZ persons to immigrate, they should be permitted at the national level. In addition, they will also need a human sponsor. By "human sponsor", I am specifically excluding corporations, because the problem with corporate sponsorship (as in H1Bs) is that corporations are a liability-shielding mechanism, so having corporate-sponsorship guarantees you will have more than the actually desirable amount of immigration. If your company absolutely needs to immigrate 100 people from India, the CEO should personally sponsor them and, if they go off the reservation, he will then be held personally liable by the US government. This would allow businesses to sponsor individuals they really do need (and they will be very selective), while shutting down the immigration sponsorship-loophole in H1Bs.

Sounds like SLAVERY to me. I mean, what if human beings just want to relocate to here and already has the means to support him/herself, or wants to homestead a piece a land, or wants to work under the table to avoid the taxation extortion racket?

Wait, never mind...

Your solution sounds brilliant. I would also advocate Government ID in a Central Database for every man, woman and child as the U.N. promised by 2030, and/or "Biometrics for All" to make the process more "efficient" in todays ever-advancing Technocratic Society. Bill Gates has an outline for this already, and Trump himself once promised eVerify on land, sea and air. Human Beings should be owned/controlled by others and/or national governments.

I think all of this sounds much better [and guaranteed] than promoting other solutions such as ending incentives/welfare and leaving individual people alone.


On a side note, I just wanted to throw out the fact that this place went to total sh|t quick fast and in a hurry. Since I'm good and well positioned with little care anymore, I truly hope The People get exactly what they deserve.


Has anybody noticed as of recent that the airports are asking requesting demanding to see your passport not once, not twice, but three times upon entering the building? There has to be a "more efficient" way than to pull it out of your pocket each and every time. Perhaps by waving the microchipped hand?

 

[TheTexan]

Sounds like SLAVERY to me. I mean, what if human beings just want to relocate to here and already has the means to support him/herself, or wants to homestead a piece a land, or wants to work under the table to avoid the taxation extortion racket?

Foreigners don't have any more right to relocate to America, than you would have any right to relocate yourself into my house.

It's a property rights issue, and the people currently recognized as the owners of this land, get to decide who gets to come onto this property.

If you wish to dispute the ownership of this land -- as well you should -- then I encourage you to do so, but that matter would need to be resolved if you would wish to exercise your own sovereignty to bring people onto your land.

 

[PAF]

Foreigners don't have any more right to relocate to America, than you would have any right to relocate yourself into my house.

It's a property rights issue, and the people currently recognized as the owners of this land, get to decide who gets to come onto this property.

If you wish to dispute the ownership of this land -- as well you should -- then I encourage you to do so, but that matter would need to be resolved if you would wish to exercise your own sovereignty to bring people onto your land.

Then by that analogy I have every right to dictate what goes on in your our communal house/property. Screw your deed. And you should continue to pay taxes on it too to help us out.

 

[TheTexan]

Then by that analogy I have every right to dictate what goes on in your our communal house/property. Screw your deed. And you should continue to pay taxes on it too to help us out.

If by every right to dictate, you mean every right to vote and pretend to have a voice in the governance of this nation, then yes, you do have that right lol.

Other rights, the ones you feel are entitled to you, are of course available to you, but they come with additional risks. If you're willing to accept those risks then I encourage you, genuinely and sincerely, to assert your rights

 

[ClaytonB]

Sounds like SLAVERY to me. I mean, what if human beings just want to relocate to here and already has the means to support him/herself, or wants to homestead a piece a land, or wants to work under the table to avoid the taxation extortion racket?

In context, I'm talking about the division-of-responsibility between the national government (protect national interests) and preservation of culture (up to WTP). As for the standard immigration pipeline, it's there. It's not great, but it's there and you weren't complaining about slavery a moment ago. Only once someone proposes a possible solution, then all of a sudden it's slavery. Stop dealing in absolutes and try actually thinking for once.

On a side note, I just wanted to throw out the fact that this place went to total sh|t quick fast and in a hurry. Since I'm good and well positioned with little care anymore, I truly hope The People get exactly what they deserve.

OK, enjoy your black-pill of bitterness.

Has anybody noticed as of recent that the airports are asking requesting demanding to see your passport not once, not twice, but three times upon entering the building? There has to be a "more efficient" way than to pull it out of your pocket each and every time. Perhaps by waving the microchipped hand?

The Agenda is obvious. Fratriciding libertarians for proposing workable solutions that may not be perfectly idealistic -- when the idealistic proposals have been on the table and changing absolutely nothing for well over a century -- is braindead and counterproductive. If anything, the black-pillers like you are a venom that is destroying the last final vestiges of liberty. Demoralization is the first and most powerful weapon, and no general worth his salt will enter the field of battle until he has first dealt withering blows of demoralization on the enemy troops. Black-pillers are doing the enemy's work.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I think the Federal government should filter strictly on the basis of national interests and leave the cultural aspects to individuals. If it's in our bottom-line interest for XYZ persons to immigrate, they should be permitted at the national level. In addition, they will also need a human sponsor. By "human sponsor", I am specifically excluding corporations, because the problem with corporate sponsorship (as in H1Bs) is that corporations are a liability-shielding mechanism, so having corporate-sponsorship guarantees you will have more than the actually desirable amount of immigration. If your company absolutely needs to immigrate 100 people from India, the CEO should personally sponsor them and, if they go off the reservation, he will then be held personally liable by the US government. This would allow businesses to sponsor individuals they really do need (and they will be very selective), while shutting down the immigration sponsorship-loophole in H1Bs.

Politics is downstream from culture, cultural compatibility is a natural interest.

Trump's golden visa is the perfect solution for actually necessary labor immigration, if your company needs someone badly enough to fork over millions of dollars for permission to import him then you must actually need him.
And I agree there needs to be a human citizen responsible for you.