What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

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.

Yes, everything is the fault of immigration, needless to say there is no economic viewpoint to back that assertion up. In fact, the opposite is true. All those problems you laid out are because of State interventions. You want to know why people are becoming poorer, crime rates are becoming worse, and slums are popping up more frequently? Federal Reserve, Drug War, Subsidies like HUD, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with the immigration. You'll quickly notice this if you watch some of Block's videos, especially the one about the Privatization of the Roads where he goes into how people misinterpret cause and sympton, and the antidote. I don't know if it'll change any of your opinions, but needless to say even if what you wanted occurred it would only make the situation worse (Erecting an Iron Wall around the US -- ironically, the US would become the Iron Curtain). If you want to curtail immigration, then stop the Welfare. Guns aren't going to stop people coming from desolate places in the world for your money.

Stop attacking the symptom, and start focusing on the cause.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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.

People wanted more government intervention. People wanted farm subsidies. People wanted the drug war. People wanted welfare. People wanted government to do everything. It's time to take the cake out of the oven, sit down and enjoy a slice. The Prop 13 repeal slogans should be "How does the statist cake you have baked taste?"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

People wanted more government intervention. People wanted farm subsidies. People wanted the drug war. People wanted welfare. People wanted government to do everything. It's time to take the cake out of the oven, sit down and enjoy a slice. The Prop 13 repeal slogans should be "How does the statist cake you have baked taste?"

lolz! You be funny, bro.

 

[Jace]

Yes, everything is the fault of immigration, needless to say there is no economic viewpoint to back that assertion up. In fact, the opposite is true. All those problems you laid out are because of State interventions. You want to know why people are becoming poorer, crime rates are becoming worse, and slums are popping up more frequently? Federal Reserve, Drug War, Subsidies like HUD, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with the immigration. You'll quickly notice this if you watch some of Block's videos, especially the one about the Privatization of the Roads where he goes into how people misinterpret cause and sympton, and the antidote. I don't know if it'll change any of your opinions, but needless to say even if what you wanted occurred it would only make the situation worse (Erecting an Iron Wall around the US -- ironically, the US would become the Iron Curtain). If you want to curtail immigration, then stop the Welfare. Guns aren't going to stop people coming from desolate places in the world for your money.

Stop attacking the symptom, and start focusing on the cause.

Are you saying immigrants haven't empowered the Democratic Party here?

 

[Humanae Libertas]

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.

I agree with this post.

Rest assure if Obama grants amnesty to illegals, they'll be a voting block for the Democrats for 100 years. They'll vote to take away guns, private property and raise taxes like the plague. An example of that is LA County. Huge Illegal Alien population, and that county is destroyed. I would say 85% of the cities are ghettos. Very few cities in that county are actually decent (trust me, I was born there and lived there for a while, so I know); its a Democratic controlled county which has turned into little TJ.

Anyone know an illegal that harbors Libertarian beliefs such as limited government, low-taxes, gun ownership? I have yet to see one...

 

[tremendoustie]

I agree with this post.

Rest assure if Obama grants amnesty to illegals, they'll be a voting block for the Democrats for 100 years. They'll vote to take away guns, private property and raise taxes like the plague. An example of that is LA County. Huge Illegal Alien population, and that county is destroyed. I would say 85% of the cities are ghettos. Very few cities in that county are actually decent (trust me, I was born there and lived there for a while, so I know); its a Democratic controlled county which has turned into little TJ.

Anyone know an illegal that harbors Libertarian beliefs such as limited government, low-taxes, gun ownership? I have yet to see one...

I don't really care about amnesty per-se, and I don't care if "illegals" can't vote. I just want anti-immigration folks to focus on eliminating welfare and government services to immigrants, and stop trying to deport them. And, I'd like people to be able to hire immigrants without fear of repercussions from the government.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Anyone know an illegal that harbors Libertarian beliefs such as limited government, low-taxes, gun ownership? I have yet to see one...

LOL. Why would you expect them to when you dangle your big government benefit candy in front of them and then say... I don't want you to have this because I am better than you are.

 

[Jace]

I agree with this post.

Rest assure if Obama grants amnesty to illegals, they'll be a voting block for the Democrats for 100 years. They'll vote to take away guns, private property and raise taxes like the plague. An example of that is LA County. Huge Illegal Alien population, and that county is destroyed. I would say 85% of the cities are ghettos. Very few cities in that county are actually decent (trust me, I was born there and lived there for a while, so I know); its a Democratic controlled county which has turned into little TJ.

Anyone know an illegal that harbors Libertarian beliefs such as limited government, low-taxes, gun ownership? I have yet to see one...

LA was a paradise when my dad was a kid. Now, not so much.

Here in Northern California, the Democrats rule this place like a mafia. It's one party rule. And they all want amnesty and more immigration, and higher taxes and more government and no guns. So I'm not seeing why a libertarian would think open borders would result in more liberty,. I suppose if you grow grapes in Marin County and you want to pay a Guatemalan subsistence wages, then that could be considered a type of freedom. Of course, then I pay for it when the Guatemalan crashes into my car and he has no insurance, or when my local hospital is bankrupted when he and his friends use the emergency room and don't pay, or when his kids tag my garage door.

 

[Jace]

LOL. Why would you expect them to when you dangle your big government benefit candy in front of them and then say... I don't want you to have this because I am better than you are.

You have it backward. We had less government before, but the immigrants are voting for the politicians who dangle the big government candy in front of them.

That's why these leftist politicians want amnesty. More people to vote for them. The Tea Party folks who have these rallies for lower taxes are being taunted and threatened by immigrant activists. The big government leftist folks like MoveOn.org and SEIU are the political and financial powers behind the amnesty movement. These people are very anti-libertarian, but pro-mass immigration and pro-amnesty. They are the ones promising the government candy, and they are promising to provide it by taking it from the people who have managed to accumulate a little bit of wealth over the years.

 

[tremendoustie]

LA was a paradise when my dad was a kid. Now, not so much.

I know. Big government sucks. Just look at what's happened in NY, and in New Orleans (even before Katrina).

Here in Northern California, the Democrats rule this place like a mafia. It's one party rule. And they all want amnesty and more immigration, and higher taxes and more government and no guns. So I'm not seeing why a libertarian would think open borders would result in more liberty,

Because the democrats want something it must be anti-liberty? Many democrats spoke out against the wars originally ... do you think ending the wars would have been anti-liberty?

I disagree with 90% of the positions most democrats take (especially now that they're in power), but the fact that a particular person supports or opposes an idea is not a solid basis on which to judge the idea itself.

. I suppose if you grow grapes in Marin County and you want to pay a Guatemalan subsistence wages, then that could be considered a type of freedom.

Yep, or if you're the Guatemalen who wants to make those wages. The person who wants to buy cheap grapes benefits too.

Of course, then I pay for it when the Guatemalan crashes into my car and he has no insurance,

Then the Guatemalan should pay for the damages, or work off the debt if necessary.

or when my local hospital is bankrupted when he and his friends use the emergency room and don't pay,

Your local hospital should have the right to refuse service to nonpaying customers.

or when his kids tag my garage door.

The kids should work/pay to restore the garage door.

By all means, go after people for actual crimes -- don't go after people because of their race or nationality, because you think they might harm you in some way in the future. This makes as much logical sense as me saying, "Sure, you might think it's pro-freedom not to arrest people for being black, but then I pay for it once they crash into me, rob me, or tag my garage door". It's based on bigotry, to be frank.

 

[Jace]

I know. Big government sucks. Just look at what's happened in NY, and in New Orleans (even before Katrina).



Because the democrats want something it must be anti-liberty? Many democrats spoke out against the wars originally ... do you think ending the wars would have been anti-liberty?

I disagree with 90% of the positions most democrats take (especially now that they're in power), but the fact that a particular person supports or opposes an idea is not a solid basis on which to judge the idea itself.



Yep, or if you're the Guatemalen who wants to make those wages. The person who wants to buy cheap grapes benefits too.



Then the Guatemalan should pay for the damages, or work off the debt if necessary.



Your local hospital should have the right to refuse service to nonpaying customers.



The kids should work/pay to restore the garage door.

By all means, go after people for actual crimes -- don't go after people because of their race or nationality, because you think they might harm you in some way in the future. This makes as much logical sense as me saying, "Sure, you might think it's pro-freedom not to arrest people for being black, but then I pay for it once they crash into me, rob me, or tag my garage door". It's based on bigotry, to be frank.

So I'm a bigot? Is that the argument? That's a tactic Democrats take in these kinds of debates -- name calling and accusations of racism.

Forgive me if I don't put a whole lot of credence in the "Democrats spoke out against the wars" statement. The Democrats voted for the wars, and now they are in power and the wars continue. Why are they not speaking out now that they have the power to end the wars?

They were against the Republicans, but never really against the wars, and they go along with the wars now and expand upon everything Bush did -- going further than Bush making it legal to assassinate American citizens.

The Democrats gave us all the big wars in our history, and the draft. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed in Democrat wars, not to mention the fire bombing of civilian population centers and nuking Japan.

The Democrats gave us the Federal Reserve.

The Democrats are anti-libertarian. They want more immigration and amnesty because they believe this increases their power base. This has actually been the case here in California, with the Republican small-government, low-tax folks fading into memory under a rising tide of Democrat voting immigrants. I don't see how any clear-thinking person could deny this.

 

[Arion45]

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.

Just because some bureaucrats write a law down on a piece of paper does not make it a crime. There has to be a victim for a crime to be committed. Crossing imaginary lines in the sand violates no one's natural rights.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You have it backward. We had less government before, but the immigrants are voting for the politicians who dangle the big government candy in front of them.

Is that the reason California's Constitution has been amended 512 times since 1879?

Enjoy the cake!

 

[Jace]

Is that the reason California's Constitution has been amended 512 times since 1879?

Enjoy the cake!

Are you saying we have less government in California today?

 

[Jace]

I take it a lot of people in this thread agree with the Democrats and Obama when it comes to immigration and amnesty.

Ron Paul is not for amnesty. He's not for birthright citizenship, either, so I'm wondering where this open borders talk is coming from.

It feels like the Democratic Underground in here.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are you saying we have less government in California today?

No I am saying you are full of shit blaming democrats and immigrants. California did not become a Blue state until the 1990's and you folks have been expanding the size and scope of government since 1850.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I take it a lot of people in this thread agree with the Democrats and Obama when it comes to immigration and amnesty.

Ron Paul is not for amnesty. He's not for birthright citizenship, either, so I'm wondering where this open borders talk is coming from.

It feels like the Democratic Underground in here.

You are aware libertarians are the most strict closed border types, right? It's called private property. I view the State has illegitimate (As theft is illegitimate, and that is how they acquired everything they "own"), and therefore it is no crime crossing their lines in the sand. So yes, I am 100% open borders when it comes to State lines and edicts. I am 100% closed borders when it comes to justly acquired property (Lockean/Rothbardian propertarian).

Your views are misguided. You are blaming the symptom of the cause, and not the cause. Nothing will change for the better until you realize this.

Ron Paul is in favor of open borders with the caveat that the Welfare System be destroyed first, but I disagree with his view that we have to have strict border enforcement before that happens. It didn't work for East Germany, Cuba, or the USSR, and it won't work here. It'll only increase the State to the detriment of all. So I implore you, don't give the State more power to abuse! The immigrants are not your enemy, the State is.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Even the best plumber in the world still has to shut off the water before fixing the pipe.

 

[rprprs]

IMHO, you could build the Great Wall of China 10 or 1,000 times over and you will never make a dent in illegal immigration. The answer, as has been pointed out numerous times, is to end the welfare state. I suspect few here would disagree with that.

However, given that we seem to be expanding rather than contracting the welfare state, I would like someone here to argue that unfettered immigration will make ending it a more likely, viable, or more imminent probability.

Disclaimer: You will have to make your argument pretty solid, as I would, admittedly, be predisposed to finding such an argument counter-intuitive. But feel free to give it your best shot.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

IMHO, you could build the Great Wall of China 10 or 1,000 times over and you will never make a dent in illegal immigration. The answer, as has been pointed out numerous times, is to end the welfare state. I suspect few here would disagree with that.

However, given that we seem to be expanding rather than contracting the welfare state, I would like someone here to argue that unfettered immigration will make ending it a more likely, viable, or more imminent probability.

Disclaimer: You will have to make your argument pretty solid, as I would, admittedly, be predisposed to finding such an argument counter-intuitive. But feel free to give it your best shot.

The argument against the Iron Curtain is liberty, and experience of history.

Could you please provide evidence to this assertion (bolded). Otherwise its just cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. (It seems to me you are implying that immigration is at least a cause of the increase of the Welfare State. Am I correct in this implication?)