What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I've checked on CATO's website and they generally support a amnesty program and to reform the guest worker program. I could possibly be looking at certain members of CATO's website who exclusively hold this view. Even though I am a libertarian, I don't necessarily support this view.

From other Ron Paul supporters, what is the libertarian view for immigration reform, how do we deal with the current illegal immigrants, and what do we do about our border security?

Philosophically, do you think it is justifiable to provide a group of people, who essentially broke the law, with absolution from legal repercussions for their illegal actions? Also, what about those who have repeatedly been sent back to mexico for breaking other American laws? Should those immigrants who stole the identity of other Americans be allowed to receive amnesty? Should those immigrants who stole the identity of other Americans and caused bad debt for the original person be allowed to receive amnesty? These are just some ideas.

 

[.Tom]

We believe in the free movement of people.

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

We believe in the free movement of people.

Do we try to prevent the movement of law breakers (identity theft, robbery, homicide)? How do we regulate the movement of people in and out of a country given there are many repeat offenders (other than those who have broken our immigration laws)?

 

[Kregisen]

I think this issue is a lot like abortion.....libertarians are split.

Personally I believe we need to secure the border, which means we can't let a single person in undocumented for national security reasons. We can't let terrorists in, we have to defend the border.

In principle I'm against amnesty just because I don't like rewarding law-breakers. But who knows...this could be an issue I switch on. I don't know what legal immigrants have to go through fee-wise, besides waiting a few years, but any amnesty bill should definitely be worse off than legal immigration i.e. if a legal immigrant has to pay a $5,000 fee, an illegal would have to pay $10,000 to be legal. (I haven't done research on what legal immigrants have to pay so this is all just guessing)

On a practical level, deportation is extremely expensive. It can work by deterrents though...just like SB1070 is scaring away some illegals right now, the idea of deportation being used on a wide scale can send many illegals leaving on their own.


Anyway, I think overall libertarians are split on the issue....which is fine. Personally I like disagreements.

 

[Knightskye]

Quotas shouldn't be so strict. Forbes put out this chart of how long it takes to emigrate to the United States:

If you don't want Mexicans running through the desert to get in here illegally, how about we change the quotas so they don't have to wait 100 years?

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I think this issue is a lot like abortion.....libertarians are split.

Personally I believe we need to secure the border, which means we can't let a single person in undocumented for national security reasons. We can't let terrorists in, we have to defend the border.

In principle I'm against amnesty just because I don't like rewarding law-breakers. But who knows...this could be an issue I switch on. I don't know what legal immigrants have to go through fee-wise, besides waiting a few years, but any amnesty bill should definitely be worse off than legal immigration i.e. if a legal immigrant has to pay a $5,000 fee, an illegal would have to pay $10,000 to be legal. (I haven't done research on what legal immigrants have to pay so this is all just guessing)

On a practical level, deportation is extremely expensive. It can work by deterrents though...just like SB1070 is scaring away some illegals right now, the idea of deportation being used on a wide scale can send many illegals leaving on their own.


Anyway, I think overall libertarians are split on the issue....which is fine. Personally I like disagreements.

That's how I feel. I'm in no way an ethnophobe. I have had plenty of hispanic friends. Nevertheless, I do believe national security and security for individual states along the border. We do need security for those people who are affected by these loose protections.

In a lot of ways it does feel like amnesty rewards law breakers.

 

[tremendoustie]

I've checked on CATO's website and they generally support a amnesty program and to reform the guest worker program. I could possibly be looking at certain members of CATO's website who exclusively hold this view. Even though I am a libertarian, I don't necessarily support this view.

From other Ron Paul supporters, what is the libertarian view for immigration reform, how do we deal with the current illegal immigrants, and what do we do about our border security?

A person owns their land, and their business. Who they hire/allow on their land is their decision, not mine -- I have no right to dictate that they only may allow people on their land who wade through a bunch of bureaucratic b.s., or send me a bunch of cash.

Philosophically, do you think it is justifiable to provide a group of people, who essentially broke the law, with absolution from legal repercussions for their illegal actions?

Philosophically, this law is immoral, so it should not be enforced. It's wrong to attack someone who's working for a willing employer, simply because they did so without begging permission from some government bureaucrat.

Also, what about those who have repeatedly been sent back to mexico for breaking other American laws? Should those immigrants who stole the identity of other Americans be allowed to receive amnesty?

I'd say if the fact that they sole an identity caused harm to the individual who's identity they stole, they should make restitution to that individual.

Should those immigrants who stole the identity of other Americans and caused bad debt for the original person be allowed to receive amnesty?

They should pay those debts. They can live and work work wherever they want, but I'd say their wages should be garnished until their debt is paid.

These are just some ideas.

Thanks for asking . I think the principled libertarian position on any issue can be derived from property rights, and the non agression principle. Basically, a person has a right to decide how they use their property, and the only appropriate use of violence/force is in defense against the violence/force of others, who harm innocent individuals or their property.

 

[tremendoustie]

I
In principle I'm against amnesty just because I don't like rewarding law-breakers.

What if the law's immoral, like jim crow, slavery laws, income tax, or the draft?

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Quotas shouldn't be so strict. Forbes put out this chart of how long it takes to emigrate to the United States:

If you don't want Mexicans running through the desert to get in here illegally, how about we change the quotas so they don't have to wait 100 years?

My girlfriend's step-father is from Mexico and legally works in the US. I know that the number of those immigrating legally have decreased from the levels it used to be. However, 130 years to get a greencard? Seriously? I don't know about that.

 

[Akus]

From other Ron Paul supporters, what is the libertarian view for immigration reform, how do we deal with the current illegal immigrants, and what do we do about our border security?

In one word - nothing.

In more then one word, look, TCL, they come, because we go something they want. The idea of a wall is bullshit. Cuba is separated by 100 mile body of water, which is better then any wall out there, because it cost no money and is much more dangerious to cross then some stupid wall. South East Asia is separated by untold thousands of miles of the biggest ocean on Earth. Do I need to tell you what kind of dangers one may and will encounter crossing it?

And yet, they're still coming, both Cubans and Viets, Laos, Thais and so on and forth.

The immigration is not a problem, it is a symptom of a problem. We got free stuff and dollars and empty spots in places where workers should be.

Get the Feds out of the 2nd. Amendment issue. There goes the crime factor.
Get the Feds out of the Labor laws. There goes the illegal immigration employment factor.
Get the Feds out of Welfare laws. There goes the Mexican mom with 100000000 babies factor.

As you can see, it is our failure to follow 10th Amendment that's causing this, not absense of some bullshit wall.

 

[Kregisen]

What if the law's immoral, like jim crow, slavery laws, income tax, or the draft?

If it's immoral I'd agree with you. I don't believe it's immoral though....I believe it's necessary. Open borders means terrorists with AK's can come right in...

If the country of America is owned by America, someone who isn't American is trespassing. (many libertarian friends think countries shouldn't exist and there should be no borders, so I understand where your argument is coming from)

My girlfriend's step-father is from Mexico and legally works in the US. I know that the number of those immigrating legally have decreased from the levels it used to be. However, 130 years to get a greencard? Seriously? I don't know about that.

Yeah I don't know either...I work part-time right now and some of my co-workers are mexican and here on green cards....they obviously haven't waited 130 years.

 

[JustinTime]

Quotas shouldn't be so strict. Forbes put out this chart of how long it takes to emigrate to the United States:

If you don't want Mexicans running through the desert to get in here illegally, how about we change the quotas so they don't have to wait 100 years?

Wouldnt people with bioengineering degrees be in high demand while some dude with a high school diploma, and a Mexican one at that, not be in high demand at all?
Thats just the market.

 

[tremendoustie]

If it's immoral I'd agree with you. I don't believe it's immoral though....I believe it's necessary. Open borders means terrorists with AK's can come right in...

Arrest the terrorists for terrorism, not for crossing a border without permission from the US government.

I don't get to demand complete control over other people's lives and property, in order to ensure that they don't do something wrong. For example, if I started threatening violence against any neighbor who allows anyone into their home without a background check run by me, that would be immoral behavior.

Now, if you want, with the permission of a property owner (or group of property owners), you could construct a fence at the edge of their property, and help them enforce whatever chosen rules they have for who may enter. And, of course, you can always arrest a murderer.

It's this idea that I get to decide how other people run their property and business that I object to.

If the country of America is owned by America, someone who isn't American is trespassing. (many libertarian friends think countries shouldn't exist and there should be no borders, so I understand where your argument is coming from)

Each property owner owns their property. They have a right to set rules for its use.

You say "owned by America" but who is "America" factually? The majority? The government? Do you really want to assert that the government owns everything, and has a right to dictate to everyone else, or everyone in the minority, how they must run their property, businesses -- and lives?

Even if you did, how did this organization called government gain "ownership" of this land? By no legitimate means, I can tell you that.

Yeah I don't know either...I work part-time right now and some of my co-workers are mexican and here on green cards....they obviously haven't waited 130 years.

It's a lottery type system, as I understand it. Most will never get "approved".

 

[JustinTime]

If it's immoral I'd agree with you. I don't believe it's immoral though....I believe it's necessary.

Almost all libertarians want to keep government small in its scope, but only about half of us want its small in its size. A lot of us seem to want worldwide open borders, no nations at all, and I just think thats crazy. I want government as close to me as possible, my county could be sovereign and Id be happy.

Ergo, borders and immigration laws are necessary.

 

[tremendoustie]

Wouldnt people with bioengineering degrees be in high demand while some dude with a high school diploma, and a Mexican one at that, not be in high demand at all?
Thats just the market.

Then let's have a market -- eliminate all welfare benefits, and let people come who can find work and support themselves. If they're not needed in the market, they won't be able to afford to live here, and they'll have to go back.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The immigration is not a problem, it is a symptom of a problem. We got free stuff and dollars and empty spots in places where workers should be.

Get the Feds out of the 2nd. Amendment issue. There goes the crime factor.
Get the Feds out of the Labor laws. There goes the illegal immigration employment factor.
Get the Feds out of Welfare laws. There goes the Mexican mom with 100000000 babies factor.

As you can see, it is our failure to follow 10th Amendment that's causing this, not absense of some bullshit wall.

That plus farm subsidies and ending the drug war.

 

[JustinTime]

Then let's have a market -- eliminate all welfare benefits, and let people come who can find work and support themselves. If they're not needed in the market, they won't be able to afford to live here, and they'll have to go back.

I could entertain the idea, but under two conditions:

First, eliminate welfare immediately, before any immigration reform. I dont trust the government to allow unrestricted immigration and end the welfare state later on, do it now.

Second, open borders is taken on a country-by-country basis. If we allow free access of a certain nations citizens into the US, they must grant reciprocal rights to our citizens.

Without those two conditions being met Ill never even consider supporting open borders.

 

[Kregisen]

You say "owned by America" but who is "America" factually? The majority? The government? Do you really want to assert that the government owns everything, and has a right to dictate to everyone else, or everyone in the minority, how they must run their property, businesses -- and lives?

It's a valid argument. That's the thing with public property...who owns it? Although in this scenario it doesn't matter, it isn't owned by outsiders, so it's trespassing regardless of who actually owns it, the government or the majority, etc.

In principle borders are a tough argument. I guess I just associate them with the same idea as a property owner putting walls on his own property. No one outside can come in without his permission, likewise nobody outside the U.S. (non-citizen) can come in without permission.

A store owner who wants to do busines with a non-citizen has the right do do business, but does he himself own the border? Does he have the authority to override the other 300 million in his country and say "yes, he can cross into OUR property"?


I don't have a set answer for this, I'm just coming up with questions as they come to me.

 

[tremendoustie]

I could entertain the idea, but under two conditions:

First, eliminate welfare immediately, before any immigration reform. I dont trust the government to allow unrestricted immigration and end the welfare state later on, do it now.

Second, open borders is taken on a country-by-country basis. If we allow free access of a certain nations citizens into the US, they must grant reciprocal rights to our citizens.

Without those two conditions being met Ill never even consider supporting open borders.

I think the first is more reasonable than the second -- and I think the first is very feasible, for "illegal" immigrants. If AZ can pass a law saying illegal immigrants can be deported, why not pass a law saying that illegal immigrants may not receive any government benefits or services? Surely the political will exists.

That way, instead of increasing government control, and the police state, they'd be rolling back government.

I don't agree with your second criteria. Basically, US property owners are victimized twice. Firstly, they are not allowed to hire people who have not been approved by the US government. Secondly, they are not allowed to go trade or work for someone in Mexico (for example), without the Mexican government's permission.

I'd say even if we could remove one abuse, without the other, we should do so.

The fact is, anyone that wants to come in is coming in now, basically. The only people kept out are really the more wealthy and educated, who aren't willing to risk a covert border crossing, or who would be seeking high paying employment, which is less easily done underground.

 

[Jace]

Immigration is killing libertarianism.

California used to have a strong libertarian, civil liberties, anti-tax streak. We were home to a tax revolt that brought us Prop. 13 that severely constrained the state's ability to raise property taxes.

But we have been flooded by immigrants, both legal and illegal. The immigrants here vote consistently Democrat, for some reason. They did go for Arnold, though, but they generally vote for the candidate who promises to give them the most loot, and who plays up ethnic grievances. You have immigrant children here who are taught in our schools that they are "historically oppressed peoples."

If they are so historically oppressed by this country, why did their parents want to move here?

A big push now in California is to repeal Prop. 13. The thinking is that the majority of the young people in the state are the children of immigrants and minorities. But the old people are white homeowners. The immigrant activitists say the whites are racists who don't want to pay property taxes because the money goes to schools full of minority children. So they are pushing to get rid of Prop. 13 to raise the tax and send more money to these failing schools and to social programs that give out turkey dinners on Thanksgiving to illegal immigrants driving SUVs.

People who bought homes they could afford, say for $100,000, saw the values driven up by the influx of people, and by these sub-prime loans and inflation. The values shot up over the years to like $500,000 and higher. So the property tax goes from $1,000 a year to $5,000 and more, and the politicians keep trying to push it up to buy off all these new the voters, and you are forced out of your home by tax increases -- from a home that was affordable when you took out the 30-year mortgage. So the voters went for Prop. 13 which tied your property taxes to your purchase price and limited how fast they could go up. The whole point was to constrain the politicians from raising taxes, but we may see a new generation of voters, low-income apartment dwellers and renters, overturn the proposition.

Mass immigration has been a disaster for libertarians here in California. It's turned a prosperous, free place into an over-taxed, over-populated, nanny state hell hole. Schools that were the best in the world a generation ago have morphed into ghetto hellholes where kids get murdered -- something common now but unheard of as few as 20 years ago. Girls are gang-raped on school grounds. Hospitals are closing down. The sound of gunfire is common in neighborhoods that were safe for children in the 1980s. Gangs target those outside of their ethnic group if they enter their turf. Police helicopters with searchlights blaze down on backyards, graffiti covers everything, etc. The middle class neighborhoods are giving way to these Third World-type barrios. This drives up the price of housing even higher in places where there are good schools (ie. places where the children are Jews, Asian and white).

Silicon Valley was once a libertarian hotbed. Now its overrun with Israelis and Indians who want Obama to stimulate them, and who live and die by the H1B visa.

The immigrants come work and live here, but I am not free to go there. Immigration has been disastrous to the cause of liberty here.