What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

[tremendoustie]

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.

No, the main point is that you're arrogantly and tyrannically dictating to your neighbors how they must run their property and business. You'd demanding that everyone who lives or work here be forced to wade through government bureacratic B.S. and send them cash, and that people may only hire government approved workers, or house government approved renters.

But yes, if you believe people from Mexico drive recklessly with no insurance, don't pay medical bills, and their kids are vandals, that's bigoted.

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?

Sure, politicians are liars, nearly all of whom just want more power for themselves. No surprise there. Bush spoke against big government, and then grew government at a collosal rate -- faster than any had to that time.

The point is, "Democrats support X, therefore X is wrong" is a really intellectually weak and flawed way to consider an issue. Most democrats I know think charity is a good thing, does that mean charity is evil? Most think it's bad to be racist. Does that mean racism is a good thing?

Develop your own positions -- don't simply react to what your opponents do -- don't become a red/blue sheep. People in this paradigm who would support an exact same policy under Bush oppose it because it's Obama, and vice versa. It's about people, letters, and colors to them, not ideas.

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.

Because they're scumbag lying politicians, same as just about all of the Republicans.

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.

Dude, I'm not saying you should join the democratic party. I'm just saying, "A democrat supports X therefore I must oppose it" is not a valid basis for considering issue X. Use your own brain.

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.

Don't let them vote. That's fine with me. And, don't let them get government benefits.

All I ask is that you don't assault and kidnap some poor woman making an honest living at McDonalds and trying to feed her family, because she didn't kiss enough federal bureaucrat behind. That's anti-liberty, and absolutely immoral.

 

[JustinTime]

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.

In my proposal they wouldnt "victimized" at all, I said the open border should open both ways. You wouldnt need any government permission, from either side.

Surely you understand what I said, dont you?

I hope Im wrong, but I get the feeling this is the usual leftist tripe, you want the US to open its borders, but every other country has a perfectly legit right to guard its borders, and have even the most draconian immigration and citizenship laws.

Like I said, open borders must be reciprocal.

 

[ChaosControl]

I think if someone wants to come here and isn't going to harm other people then they should be able to come here. I think our immigration policy needs to be dramatically restructured so that immigration is easier.

 

[tremendoustie]

In my proposal they wouldnt "victimized" at all, I said the open border should open both ways. You wouldnt need any government permission, from either side.

Surely you understand what I said, dont you?

I hope Im wrong, but I get the feeling this is the usual leftist tripe, you want the US to open its borders, but every other country has a perfectly legit right to guard its borders, and have even the most draconian immigration and citizenship laws.

Like I said, open borders must be reciprocal.

No, no, I don't want anyone to have such draconian policies. I agree, your solution would be ideal. I'm just saying that if we can't get another country to give up on their big government abuse, we should still eliminate ours.

I mean, I want North Korea to be free, but in the mean time, I'm not going to say we should have a reciprocal dictatorship, and treat North Korean immigrants as Kim Jong Il would treat Americans. Now, if you want to treat Kim Jong Il himself that way, that might make sense .

 

[JustinTime]

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.

Im talking about California's finances, youre talking about the slow acceptance of the welfare state across the country. As bad as the entire country is, California is worse and sadly, leading the trend. Yes, I do believe the demographic changes are partly responsible for it.

 

[Jace]

No, the main point is that you're arrogantly and tyrannically dictating to your neighbors how they must run their property and business. You'd demanding that everyone who lives or work here be forced to wade through government bureacratic B.S. and send them cash, and that people may only hire government approved workers, or house government approved renters.

But yes, if you believe people from Mexico drive recklessly with no insurance, don't pay medical bills, and their kids are vandals, that's bigoted.



Sure, politicians are liars, nearly all of whom just want more power for themselves. No surprise there. Bush spoke against big government, and then grew government at a collosal rate -- faster than any had to that time.

The point is, "Democrats support X, therefore X is wrong" is a really intellectually weak and flawed way to consider an issue. Most democrats I know think charity is a good thing, does that mean charity is evil? Most think it's bad to be racist. Does that mean racism is a good thing?

Develop your own positions -- don't simply react to what your opponents do -- don't become a red/blue sheep. People in this paradigm who would support an exact same policy under Bush oppose it because it's Obama, and vice versa. It's about people, letters, and colors to them, not ideas.



Because they're scumbag lying politicians, same as just about all of the Republicans.



Dude, I'm not saying you should join the democratic party. I'm just saying, "A democrat supports X therefore I must oppose it" is not a valid basis for considering issue X. Use your own brain.



Don't let them vote. That's fine with me. And, don't let them get government benefits.

All I ask is that you don't assault and kidnap some poor woman making an honest living at McDonalds and trying to feed her family, because she didn't kiss enough federal bureaucrat behind. That's anti-liberty, and absolutely immoral.

So let them in so they can make an honest living at McDonalds. Just don't let them vote?

 

[tremendoustie]

I think if someone wants to come here and isn't going to harm other people then they should be able to come here. I think our immigration policy needs to be dramatically restructured so that immigration is easier.

Hear Hear! Our enemy should be welfarism, not immigration.

 

[tremendoustie]

So let them in so they can make an honest living at McDonalds. Just don't let them vote?

Yep, fine with me. By george, I think we've reached an agreement!!

Let's nail this out, shall we?

1. Require ID to vote. No "illegal" immigrants get on the voter rolls.

2. No "illegal" immigrants may receive any government benefits, or welfare.

3. No government restrictions on who may be hired, or rented to. Each person decides who's allowed on their property.

4. No deportations, or immigration arrests. Reduce or eliminate border enforcement, and use that manpower to stop criminals who harm others, or their property (e.g., gangs, drivers who hit people, taggers, trespassers).

What say ye?

 

[tremendoustie]

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.

How about the closest government of all -- you, running your property?

I absolutely support your right to put up a fence and keep anyone off your property you choose.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How about the closest government of all -- you, running your property?

I absolutely support your right to put up a fence and keep anyone off your property you choose.

Indeed. I think many people conflate the issue at hand here. State borders are illegitimate. Hence, void (Open borders -- open to homesteading, etc.), until justly and properly homesteaded. Once justly acquired, it is then closed, at the discretion of the owner of said property. As I said, Rothbardian libertarians are the most closed border crowd you will EVER find. This is where people get mixed up with Hoppe and see him as an advocate for closed state borders, but what Hoppe advocates is exactly the libertarian position -- that the property owner has sole discretion to allow or disallow individuals on his property the very definition of closed border. He in no way advocates for the illegitimate state enforcement of their borders they have stolen.

So, will we reach an agreement with Paleo's here? I'd like to, but I don't see it happening. They want the return to Japan (both protectionist & total closed borders -- meaning that property owners have no say in regards to their property).

 

[tremendoustie]

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"?

If 300 million people don't want immigrants on their property, that immigrant is going to have a hard time finding work and a place to stay. I guess the store owner could hire him and rent him a bed upstairs.

But then, if the 300 million decide they're also going to boycott anyone who hires immigrants, he's really out of luck.

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

Thanks for doing so!

 

[JustinTime]

No, no, I don't want anyone to have such draconian policies. I agree, your solution would be ideal. I'm just saying that if we can't get another country to give up on their big government abuse, we should still eliminate ours.

I mean, I want North Korea to be free, but in the mean time, I'm not going to say we should have a reciprocal dictatorship, and treat North Korean immigrants as Kim Jong Il would treat Americans. Now, if you want to treat Kim Jong Il himself that way, that might make sense .

Im not proposing mirror image immigration policy, that we should treat foreigners the exact way Americans would be treated by their government. Im just saying we should have an immigration policy.

If we allow unrestricted immigration from a country that isnt willing to do the same for us, its invasion, especially from a place with lots of people and money. Our entire culture and government will change, and the freedoms we wish to keep will be gone.

 

[tremendoustie]

Im not proposing mirror image immigration policy, that we should treat foreigners the exact way Americans would be treated by their government. Im just saying we should have an immigration policy.

If we allow unrestricted immigration from a country that isnt willing to do the same for us, its invasion, especially from a place with lots of people and money. Our entire culture and government will change, and the freedoms we wish to keep will be gone.

Ok, don't allow them to vote. Then, they can't take over the government.

 

[JustinTime]

How about the closest government of all -- you, running your property?

I absolutely support your right to put up a fence and keep anyone off your property you choose.

And thats fine with me, but until Im a sovereign citizen for real, not just some dude wishing I was, Ive got to accept the fait accompli.

We're kicking around lots of theories here, but you know what will likely happen in the real world, dont you? Amnesty, and no end to the welfare state will even be proposed.
Therefore I will oppose "comprehensive immigration reform", it'll do more harm than good.

 

[tremendoustie]

And thats fine with me, but until Im a sovereign citizen for real, not just some dude wishing I was, Ive got to accept the fait accompli.

We're kicking around lots of theories here, but you know what will likely happen in the real world, dont you? Amnesty, and no end to the welfare state will even be proposed.
Therefore I will oppose "comprehensive immigration reform", it'll do more harm than good.

For me, it'd depend on what's in the bill.

I'm just saying, I wish people would stop focusing on immigration enforcement, and focus on restoring your property rights and eliminating welfare.

Surely, if the political will exists to deport "illegal" immigrants in AZ, the political will exists to require ID for voting, and eliminate government benefits to "illegals".

I mean, such measures are more tame than outright deportation -- and as I say, they roll back the state, and restore freedom -- instead of increasing the size, power, and intrusiveness of government.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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?

This isn't exactly a "libertarian" forum. Ron Paul is a libertarian leaning Republican. Ron Paul followers come from quite a few different backgrounds, with a major divide on immigration and borders.

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

Yep, this forum is very split on this issue. You will not get one answer.

That's how I feel. I'm in no way an ethnophobe.

That is the convenient accusation that gets thrown around. I personally know Americans of every race/ethnicity that are against amnesty and more immigration. Once the bus is full, the bus is full.

The people I know that are for amnesty are Obamabot Democrats. Usually white or Hispanic. They really are questioning their Democrat dogma right now as they sit around unemployed and unemployment insurance is running out. Their preferred solution is for more government unemployment payments. Imagine that, they agree with unlimited immigration if the government pays them to agree.

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.

Silicon Valley is now New Asia, with neighborhoods that are almost fully Chinese, Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. Your mention of Israelis is interesting. That does result in prejudging people. Most people assume immigrants that are white are Americans, based exclusively on skin color. It isn't until they speak with an accent that people realize that they are recent immigrants.

The Tea Party folks who have these rallies for lower taxes are being taunted and threatened by immigrant activists.

You must be talking about the La Raza Anarchist Communists.

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

...and the Republicans, and the Oligarchy, and the Corporatists, and the Globalists, and Wall St. and the US Chamber of Commerce.

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I noticed some people mentioned the welfare state acting as a catalyst to immigration. This does seem to be like one of the major contributors to illegal immigration. I believe that immigration reform is more likely than getting the welfare state reduced to a size where it doesn't harm us to have a growth of immigrations. Since this is probably the case, we have to fight to restrict illegal immigration. I mean seriously, how likely is it that we can reform social security, medicare, medical, minimum wage, to where it doesn't hurt the nation as a whole? Because, if we were to extend these benefits to illegal immigrants, our unfunded liabilities would skyrocket! Do we provide amnesty with exclusion from these benefits?

 

[tremendoustie]

I noticed some people mentioned the welfare state acting as a catalyst to immigration. This does seem to be like one of the major contributors to illegal immigration. I believe that immigration reform is more likely than getting the welfare state reduced to a size where it doesn't harm us to have a growth of immigrations. Since this is probably the case, we have to fight to restrict illegal immigration. I mean seriously, how likely is it that we can reform social security, medicare, medical, minimum wage, to where it doesn't hurt the nation as a whole? Because, if we were to extend these benefits to illegal immigrants, our unfunded liabilities would skyrocket!

Then just elminate these benefits to "illegals". That's a good stepping stone to eliminating it entirely.

Do we provide amnesty with exclusion from these benefits?

Sounds good to me . You can stop them from voting too, if you like. But, free people should be able to hire/work for anyone they choose, without begging the government for permission.

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Then just elminate these benefits to "illegals". That's a good stepping stone to eliminating it entirely.



Sounds good to me . You can stop them from voting too, if you like. But, free people should be able to hire/work for anyone they choose, without begging the government for permission.

The only problem is that civil rights groups will not agree with it. They will have some montra like "they are Americans like the rest of us. They deserve these rights too." As if welfare is a right...

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only problem is that civil rights groups will not agree with it. They will have some montra like "they are Americans like the rest of us. They deserve these rights too." As if welfare is a right...

Do not cease the fight out of inconvenience or hardship. Do not change what you know is the right cause because it may not succeed. By abandoning what you know is the right course of action for the wrong course, you destroy the cause to which you are fighting for. Slavery would have gone on for far longer, and far worse if there were no abolitionists, for example.

There have been the courageous before us, and its now our time.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito​