This country did not have immigration controls for its first 100 years. So you are basically arguing that the United States Of America was not a country until 1882. That is simply a retarded argument. Say all you to about what you think defines a country, but you are simply wrong according to the historical facts.
Your newfound argument about immigration control does not work like you want it to. While the United States absolutely did make a mistake at not better controlling immigration early on (which ultimately caused problems that would later be harshly addressed), the existence of the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1798 demonstrate
very clearly there was to be a certain type of American citizen. The founders had a clear idea in mind for what was an American and what was not an American. Had the United States not controlled for what constituted a citizen, it would not have survived as a country. It is precisely that controlling for what was a citizen that allowed the problems caused by uncontrolled immigration to later be addressed.
When did the United States of America become a country? After Shay's rebellion. Mr. Shay was a revolutionary war vet that didn't get paid. He was in debt to the banksters and he was being taxed into poverty because the states were also in debt to the banksters. So he rebelled. A private militia put the rebellion down. In the end there was some tax relief and debt relief, but Shay's rebellion was part of the cause for ending the articles of confederation in favor of a constitution. They "founding fathers" defined having a "country" as the ability to congress to raise an army to put down insurrections over taxes and debt. This very movement is most concerned about taxes and debt which is quite ironic. President George Washington later used this new power to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The whiskey tax was imposed to pay the federal army that was sent into the frontier, without the request of the frontier farms, to "pacify" the natives.
It was a country before
and after Shay's rebellion. All countries must have the ability to raise an army via taxes and this is no new concept. Countries that do not have this ability cease to exist as they are inevitably destroyed.
Back to the history of immigration controls in the United States which didn't start until 1882! It was explicitly racist and explicitly racist against Asians. It was the "Chinese" exclusion act after all. The lie that you are pushing, that immigration controls are "needed" for there to be a country, is proven false both by the fact that immigration controls didn't exist for the first 100 years and the fact that only one group was excluded. Which brings me back to my original point. It's not wrong for Asians to vote against the party that is still pushing the idea that they should be excluded for no legitimate purpose. They are not a drain on the economy the way arguably immigrants from central America might be. They actually help the economy. They actually create jobs. They commit fewer crimes on average that any other group including whites. They love American culture. Hell, two of the three main home video game consoles come from Asia. (Sony and Nintendo). They are not asking for a hand out, just an opportunity. You can disagree with the expansion of H1B visas, but it's dishonest to claim that Asians wanting an expansion of H1B visas means they are trying to get the government to "do something for them." That's just a lie. You can keep repeating it, but it will still be a lie and a dishonest read of history that ignores the fact that there were no immigration controls for the first 100 years and the first immigration controls were explicitly racist against Asians.
Given citizenship was extremely exclusive for most of the country's history, it was a form of immigration control. The founders thinking it a sufficient approach was found lacking and the problems caused by this approach were later addressed. They were human too, so perfection is not necessary. I am fully aware of the first steps that were taken to address problems caused by thinking limiting citizenship would be sufficient in mitigating the problems of unrestrained migration.
Your point about Asians being a net gain or not is inane. The United States is not compelled to economically benefit Asians that are not United States citizens. This applies to
all ethnic groups. Finally, your point about them "loving American culture" is overly vague and meaningless. Many do
not love it (Asians tend to favor gun control, for example) beyond purely economic reasons. My position is rather simple: foreigners that disagree with fundamentally American concepts, like the 2nd Amendment (note again that Asians generally favor gun control), should not be here for
any reason. Those that
do come here, even on something like an H1B visa, should be thoroughly vetted. If you so love your foreigners that you would let them come here, settle down, and undermine the fundamental tenets of this country's liberties, then you are
the poster child for why Libertarians will always be irrelevant.
Now, if your simplistic self wants to allow untrammeled immigration because you gain an economic benefit from it, then don't be surprised when people don't want them around due to an inclination for disagreeing with fundamental tenets of this country. Sheltered Libertarians have the extraordinarily bad habit of thinking uncontrolled immigration cannot overturn their supposed rights. Numbers matter and brute force matters. If, for example, this country were majority Asian, then the 2nd Amendment would go extinct. There is a damn good reason most of the world does not have a 2nd Amendment and, for whatever supposed benefits Asians bring to the table, that is because most people around the world do not want it.
Three times in a party that was the most addicted to the warfare state! Deal with it. And Rand only ran one of those times. Ron, who never won a statewide race, was burdened by having to run in a party that couldn't admit it was wrong ABOUT AN UNPOPULAR WAR! Let that last bit sink into your thick skull. By the time Ron ran for president, a solid majority of people were against the Iraq war. But most of those people were democrats. Republicans couldn't admit they were wrong on that. After 8 years of republican rule, the American people were tired of war and the independents went for Obama. For many people, voting for Obama in the 2008 general election was not a vote for socialism. It was a vote against more war. Why do you think Obama lost the House and Senate in 2010? Losing the house was a complete repudiation of the "Affordable Care Act" as the house is a nationwide election. The Senate could be chalked up to a luck of the draw, but not the house.
Here, let me make it simple for you: "It's the economy, stupid!" Foreign policy is not why Ron and Rand lost. The people, as a whole, care
far more for what happens at home than they do elsewhere. Ron and Rand were not offering what the people
wanted and so the people
rejected them. Freedom is not popular because the people
do not want it.
Furthermore, and let this float around in the skull,
Ron was never going to win on the basis that Democrats were anti-war as they have always cared far more about their domestic benefits. Even
had Ron won the nomination, there was never going to be anywhere near enough Democrats voting for him that he would win. Modern Americans do not care for freedom and routinely vote
against it.
Back to the presidential race. Trump was able to do to the Bush's what Rand and Ron were not willing to do, which is get into a knife fight. Ron spent two election cycles talking about "blowback" and distancing himself from the 9/11 truth movement. Trump all but said "9/11 was an inside job." When he told Jeb Bush "Your brother didn't protect the country on 9/11" that took all of the sting out of the fake patriotism the Bush family and their ilk had run on for years. I will give Trump credit for that. But that doesn't mean an actual liberty candidate cannot win. Of course an actual liberty candidate wouldn't sit well with you because you don't understand history or liberty.
Your focus on character over substance as being the reason for the result is intellectually lazy. That, or you believe yourself to be some paragon of intelligence that the rest of the American people cannot possibly hope to match. If only they were as enlightened as you! The reality is liberty is easy to understand. So easy it has the habit of giving Libertarians the delusion they uniquely hold on to the truth due to their vaunted philosophy. What Libertarians utterly fail at is understanding most humans
understand liberty and
reject it. Effectively, they are autists that do not understand the species they belong to as they mentally masturbate in a corner.
And, it should be obvious from my presence here, I supported Ron and Rand during their presidential runs. They failed to win because freedom is not popular. Elected liberty candidates are a small minority within the minority party because freedom is not popular.
Here's the gauntlet: show proof that freedom
is popular. Where are all of the elected liberty politicians? Do they represent a majority? Where are the raw numbers? For God's sake, you voted Libertarian. If freedom is so popular, then the group that is supposed to be all about it would not be an
extreme minority within this country.
Asking the government to cut taxes (or cut regulations) isn't asking the government to do something for you. It's asking the government to not do something to you. You lack a basic understanding of positive vs negative rights.
Looks about it.
