What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

[CryLibertyOrDeath]

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

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.

I look forward to seeing this. Subscribed...

 

[nobody's_hero]

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

I think the experience of history is that the majority always wins.

We are not the majority.

EDIT: And, looking back, we should have kept the curtain closed.

 

[CryLibertyOrDeath]

Illegal immigration is good for our economy. Legal immigration is bad. Illegal immigration provides a loophole to our anti-growth, anti-freedom minimum wage and other labor laws. It also undermines the Social Security cataloguing system they have created for all Americans.

Legal immigration is slightly worse for our economy, because many legal immigrants have no reason for being here other than relatives, and they then sap our system.

My friend from Canada couldn't get a work visa to work for Bank of America's investment bank division, but unemployed deadbeats from the third world with no meaningful skills get to flood in because of their families. Thanks Ted Kennedy.

We need a multi-tiered approach to immigration that provides us with both cheap and skilled labor and doesn't give benefits to people based on their family ties. Our current system is un-Republican and unmeritocratic.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think the experience of history is that the majority always wins.

We are not the majority.

EDIT: And, looking back, we should have kept the curtain closed.

The experience of history shows that an Iron Curtain closed society is not possible. The East Germans tried it. USSR tried it. Cuba has tried it. People still emigrated from those places, and the wall erected to prevent that is on a scale unimaginable to Americans today. You can't stop people who are determined to enter the country because the Welfare system provides them with a greater standard of living from where they are from. They will die to come here. You aren't stopping anyone.

Secondly, that increases in State power are never reversed without considerable effort, and are few and far in between. Moreover, that power once given is often abused, and to the detriment of the native population (which would be ourselves). In fact, it is all ready very difficult to emigrate from the US especially now the IRS is rabidly going after ex-pats. Imagine how hard it will be for any of us to leave the US once the curtain is erected.

Thirdly, the cost of such a system would be tremendous. If you are afraid of collapse from welfare, the collapse from the immense burden of securing the thousands and thousands of diverse borderlands is equally crushing.

Fourthly, we are having a huge problem even reversing the current State powers. Why give them more, that are equally as hard to dismantle? If your goal is liberty, this certainly is not in that direction. Why make your fight that much harder?

Lastly, the problems of today are problems of old. The American population are not inherently liberty lovers, and immigrants are not inherently totalitarians. We got here of our earlier generations doing, not because of immigrants, but because of the native population (Not Native Indians >.>) were willing to forgo their (and their posterity) liberty for false promises. Put the blame where the blame is due!

PS: How did closed borders help Japan?

 

[osan]

We believe in the free movement of people.

This is only so in a context. With a welfare state as the reality, we must restrict the movement of would-be parasites. That we have not, well.... the chickens are now home to roost and we are broke. The wealthiest nation the earth has probably ever seen is broke. Well done, ye psychotic progressive liberals!

In this sense, political philosophy is must like macroeconomics in that within a system, all players must act by the same rules or one group will live at the expense of another. Consider the example of China, economically speaking: "free trade" has NOTHING to do with free markets. China deliberately represses the natural growth of their labor market in terms of personal income. Any individual interfering with the interference earns their very own execution. We cannot have a free market trading system with China under these conditions because they are cheating and we are the ultimate losers in that game.

So it is with political situations. Wealthy USA has welfare that far outstrips anything the Mexicans might provide, so the parasites come here to latch on to the tit. Hard working Americans subsidize Paco Taco, parasite. This is clearly unacceptable, and therefore we must redefine the boundaries of the political system such that the environment is uniform in terms of the rules.

So, as you can see, simplistic answers are not... well... the answer. In a perfect world where all nations were "libertarian" and people were equally free, we would be able to have freely open borders... maybe. But the world is not so, and we must therefore control our borders in order not to be consumed by those who would eat us alive.

The question this all raises for me is this: what will the parasites do when all the hard working hosts are dead? Who will provide the basis of their parasitism thereafter? Will they work, or will they simply die? I suspect the latter. Therefore, since their destruction is a forgone conclusion, I see no reason we should go to our demise with them. Cut them off now. Let the rotten vestiges be killed off before they take the healthy organs with them.

 

[osan]

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?

Do I have to point out that the figure of 131 years is utter bullshit? Do I have to point out that it is not a figure at which one can arrive through anything but improper methods? If you do not believe me, then I suggest you take a class in basic statistics and ask your instructor why this is so. Learn basic sampling and counting theory and you will see why these figures CANNOT be truthful. That such lies come from the US Dept. of State doesn't much surprise me, as they lost all credibility long ago.

Seriously, you should learn a bit of that which you post before posting such drivel. It does nothing for one's credibility.

 

[Southron]

Show me a world without government and you can have your open borders.

As long as citizens continue to vote my rights away you better believe I'm going to care about how many, or who we allow to be citizens.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Fourthly, we are having a huge problem even reversing the current State powers. Why give them more, that are equally as hard to dismantle? If your goal is liberty, this certainly is not in that direction. Why make your fight that much harder?

This would be a problem IF the government actually wanted to do anything about illegal immigration. Ask yourself the obvious question: What do they view more as an opportunity for power?

A) They could abuse the power that we give them to restrict the influx of immigrants into this nation, sure. And after that is done, they might be able to do more; the power grab will be difficult to stop.

Or B), they could do nothing about immigration, and then when the numbers are sufficient (majority rule, history shows), give the new voters what they want, and then do damn near anything and everything they want with their blessing. Their power grab will NOT be stopped.

If the State loves immigration because it enriches its power, then we cannot in turn say that immigration control strengthens the state. It must be one or the other, at this point.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is only so in a context. With a welfare state as the reality, we must restrict the movement of would-be parasites. That we have not, well.... the chickens are now home to roost and we are broke. The wealthiest nation the earth has probably ever seen is broke. Well done, ye psychotic progressive liberals!

In this sense, political philosophy is must like macroeconomics in that within a system, all players must act by the same rules or one group will live at the expense of another. Consider the example of China, economically speaking: "free trade" has NOTHING to do with free markets. China deliberately represses the natural growth of their labor market in terms of personal income. Any individual interfering with the interference earns their very own execution. We cannot have a free market trading system with China under these conditions because they are cheating and we are the ultimate losers in that game.

So it is with political situations. Wealthy USA has welfare that far outstrips anything the Mexicans might provide, so the parasites come here to latch on to the tit. Hard working Americans subsidize Paco Taco, parasite. This is clearly unacceptable, and therefore we must redefine the boundaries of the political system such that the environment is uniform in terms of the rules.

So, as you can see, simplistic answers are not... well... the answer. In a perfect world where all nations were "libertarian" and people were equally free, we would be able to have freely open borders... maybe. But the world is not so, and we must therefore control our borders in order not to be consumed by those who would eat us alive.

The question this all raises for me is this: what will the parasites do when all the hard working hosts are dead? Who will provide the basis of their parasitism thereafter? Will they work, or will they simply die? I suspect the latter. Therefore, since their destruction is a forgone conclusion, I see no reason we should go to our demise with them. Cut them off now. Let the rotten vestiges be killed off before they take the healthy organs with them.

Do you have any evidence to support that all immigrants are inherently totalitarians? In fact, I'd wager the opposite, seeing as how they openly defy State edicts. Secondly, if that is your position, do you support a moratorium on child birth from everyone who receives welfare?

Thirdly, we are not the losers in our trade with China, the Chinese population are the losers and the Americans are the winners. Our industrial base wasn't destroyed by China, it was destroyed by DC (In fact, our industrial base was in decline in the 70s, while China was still devoutly communist)! I concur with Hoppe that paleo-cons are completely lost when it comes to economics.

 

[osan]

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.

hello!

 

[Dr.3D]

Show me a world without government and you can have your open borders.

As long as citizens continue to vote my rights away you better believe I'm going to care about how many, or who we allow to be citizens.

Well, that pretty much explains my position on the subject.

 

[osan]

Thanks Ted Kennedy.

Speaking of whom, where is he buried? I have an overwhelming need to urinate.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Everyone who says they are for closed borders because immigrants will vote away more of your money, and then saying you care about who will become a citizen is hypocritical. If you take this position, then you must advocate for the banning of births from those on welfare. The welfare queen, and the system itself is a corrupting agent. The natural citizen, is no differently afflicted with the disease than anyone else. The solution to ending welfare isn't stopping immigration because the people will continue to vote in the Welfare State (and more importantly, you will never stop immigration so long as we have Welfare).

Everyone who advocates for the Iron Curtain is not fully thinking through the consequences.

 

[Jace]

The Iron Curtain was built to keep people in. A free, wealthy society will always be threatened by a flood of people trying to get in. The autocratic societies build walls to keep people in, not out.

The government wants to let them all in. Obama, Bush, McCain. These guys are statists but they want more immigration. Why?

We know the Democrats support the welfare state, amnesty and mass immigration. Obviously, they see immigrants as a voting bloc that votes to expand the welfare state, expecially the poor uneducated immigrants. The Democrats want amnesty, and they hate limited government, libertarian types.

The open borders folks on the right say more immigrants and more free trade bring more prosperity. This is a neoconservatives argument. They argue till their face turns blue, talking about how lower wages and cheaper products mean more money in our pockets and more capital for businesses to invest. This is how the globalists sold NAFTA and the European Union.

Yet NAFTA and the EU have been disasters. They have led to less prosperity, a declining standard of living, more debt, more government, more power for central banks, and a concentration of wealth in the financial sector.

So you guys can argue that open borders means freedom, but reality intervenes. Open borders mean high taxes, redistribution of wealth, the welfare state and global government institutions. NAFTA and amnesty are the road to serfdom in the NAU. We are all to be proletariat ruled by a small clique attached to central banks.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Iron Curtain was built to keep people in. A free, wealthy society will always be threatened by a flood of people trying to get in. The autocratic societies build walls to keep people in, not out.

The government wants to let them all in. Obama, Bush, McCain. These guys are statists but they want more immigration. Why?

We know the Democrats support the welfare state, amnesty and mass immigration. Obviously, they see immigrants as a voting bloc that votes to expand the welfare state, expecially the poor uneducated immigrants. The Democrats want amnesty, and they hate limited government, libertarian types.

The open borders folks on the right say more immigrants and more free trade bring more prosperity. This is a neoconservatives argument. They argue till their face turns blue, talking about how lower wages and cheaper products mean more money in our pockets and more capital for businesses to invest. This is how the globalists sold NAFTA and the European Union.

Yet NAFTA and the EU have been disasters. They have led to less prosperity, a declining standard of living, more debt, more government, more power for central banks, and a concentration of wealth in the financial sector.

So you guys can argue that open borders means freedom, but reality intervenes. Open borders mean high taxes, redistribution of wealth, the welfare state and global government institutions. NAFTA and amnesty are the road to serfdom in the NAU. We are all to be proletariat ruled by a small clique attached to central banks.

NAFTA is not free trade. The EU is not in any shape or form free-trade. I also do not say more immigrants. Let the market decide the optimal population levels that can be supported in any given area. And jesus christ on a stick, how many fallacy of association can you conjure in one post? So, Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, and Henry Bright are neo-conservatives?

As for the wall comparison. They are not fundamentally different in their mechanism. Both seek to curtail the movement of people. Both failed (or will in the case of restricting immigration -- As seen with Japan). How do you intend to secure the entirity of the US borders? Its impossible, and the money spent towards that goal would be just as crushing as the Welfare State, not to mention you would give the State the mechanism to keep you corralled. How are you going to emigrate from the US when they crackdown and the infrastructure is all ready in place? Sure, it'll still be possible, and likely as seen from East Germany, and USSR, but a lot of people will be killed in the process and liberty restricted.

Democrats, blah blah blah. I don't give a shit what those people think, or what their positions are. It has zero relevance and bearing on the philosophy of liberty.

Honestly if you want a realistic approach to how tyranny surfaced in America, it started in 1787, and then exploded in 1861, and then was enshrined once the compulsory educational system was introduced. It wasn't because of open borders that we got the Welfare State. It was primarily because of the education system. It seems to me you appear to believe that natural Americans are pure as saint libertarians, and immigrants are pure as sin communists. This is fucking absurd.

 

[tremendoustie]

Show me a world without government and you can have your open borders.

As long as citizens continue to vote my rights away you better believe I'm going to care about how many, or who we allow to be citizens.

Ok, don't allow them to be voting citizens, and don't even allow them to receive government benefits -- just allow them to come here and work.

 

[JustinTime]

Ok, don't allow them to be voting citizens, and don't even allow them to receive government benefits -- just allow them to come here and work.

America had something vaguely similar to that once.

 

[JustinTime]

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.

It wasnt the bankrupt, begging nightmare it is today until the last 10 to 15 years though.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It wasnt the bankrupt, begging nightmare it is today until the last 10 to 15 years though.

Wrong, besides the first real welfare didn't come until FDR, and it takes a while for the older generation who valued work, and independence to die off for the vast majority to be welfarists. The last 40 to 50 years or so have been heavily inundated with great calls for more welfare, more welfare, and more welfare. It has also been bankrupt since about 1960 or so, especially so after LBJ Great Society.