What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

[tremendoustie]

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...

Well, those people oppose immigration enforcement in the first place. If you have the political will to deport immigrants, you have the political will to eliminate welfare to those individuals.

I'm saying that liberty minded individuals should focus on rolling back welfarism, not giving government more control over persons and property.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

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...

Not only are they going to take it to court they would probably win. Welfare has become a right created by government. We The People can only thank We The People for this right. They are going to win is because nobody has wanted to pay to live in a gated United States community. Since We The People did not create any kind of gated community by putting up the no trespassing signs and enforcing trespassing you can't blame the immigrants who have are here. They were not trespassed.

The thing I find ridiculous about this whole thing is the absolute absurdity of peoples arguments.

I hear you corn subsidies put Mexican farmers out of business... but I want cheap food.

I hear you we haven't enforced trespassing.... but I don't want to pay more in taxes.

I hear you drug prohibitions have created violent black markets.... but drugs are bad.

I hear you the welfare state has subsidized immigration... but I want my welfare.

I don't think we can solve any of those problems so what we should do is just spend more money on enforcement.

Give me a break.

 

[Jace]

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?

I say your views are anti-liberty and exploitative of the poor, and play into the hands of the globalists who want to end our sovereignty and make the Constitution subservient to globalist institutions.

 

[tremendoustie]

I say your views are anti-liberty

Allowing people to work for whomever they prefer, and hire whomever they prefer, is anti-liberty? Let me guess, giving the federal government total control over everyone's property and labor is pro-liberty?

Did I slip through a wormhole into bizzarro world?

and exploitative of the poor,

Right, because allowing the people to come here and work, as they have demonstrated a desire to do, is "exploitative", but kidnapping them, dragging them away from their family, and dumping them back across the border is doing them a favor.

Got it. Bizzarro world.

and play into the hands of the globalists

who want to end our sovereignty

"Our soverignty" is a euphemism for giving the majority or the government the right to jam their arbitrary diktats down everyone else's throats. You don't have sovereignty over other people's property and businesses. I suggest you stop acting like it.

and make the Constitution subservient to globalist institutions.

Yes, the only way to fight the globalists is to institute a total police state at home, and have the federal government run our lives and property. Because, you know, there's no chance the evil globalists could have control over the federal government. Quick! Let's enslave ourselves to the federal government! It's the only way to prevent ourselves becoming the slaves of the globalists!

Once again:

 

[Jace]

Allowing people to work for whomever they prefer, and hire whomever they prefer, is anti-liberty? Let me guess, giving the federal government total control over everyone's property and labor is pro-liberty?

Did I slip through a wormhole into bizzarro world?



Right, because allowing the people to come here and work, as they have demonstrated a desire to do, is "exploitative", but kidnapping them, dragging them away from their family, and dumping them back across the border is doing them a favor.

Got it. Bizzarro world.







"Our soverignty" is a euphemism for giving the majority or the government the right to jam their arbitrary diktats down everyone else's throats. You don't have sovereignty over other people's property and businesses. I suggest you stop acting like it.



Yes, the only way to fight the globalists is to institute a total police state at home, and have the federal government run our lives and property. Because, you know, there's no chance the evil globalists could have control over the federal government. Quick! Let's enslave ourselves to the federal government! It's the only way to prevent ourselves becoming the slaves of the globalists!

Once again:

OK. Let them in but don't let them vote. That's very liberty minded.

The police state is already here, and it wants more immigrants.

 

[Xenophage]

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.

This is an issue that libertarians tend to disagree on. I'm kind of 'moderate.' I do not support amnesty, I do support private property owners protecting their property, and I think some sort of immigration reform is in order to make the process simpler and easier for people who want to be legal.

 

[tremendoustie]

OK. Let them in but don't let them vote. That's very liberty minded.

Better than attacking and kidnapping them. Why don't you ask them what they prefer? I'm sure they'd be happy to stay with no vote.

The police state is already here, and it wants more immigrants.

If you can't see that giving the government total control over who can live or work in the US, and the ability to micromanage property owners and businesses, and having police run around demanding papers of people, and kidnapping anyone who didn't kiss enough bureaucratic behind (as well as demanding cash from the owners), is a huge expansion of the police state, I don't know what to tell you.

If you honestly think giving total control to government is a way to protect liberty ... well, the best word I can think of to describe it is "suckered". They always fear-monger to get people to give up more liberty, and give them more control. You've fallen for this one, apparently.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It should be said that Ron Paul does not promote open borders, nor does he support amnesty.

 

[ClayTrainor]

If you honestly think giving total control to government is a way to protect liberty ... well, the best word I can think of to describe it is "suckered". They always fear-monger to get people to give up more liberty, and give them more control. You've fallen for this one, apparently.

/thread

 

[LibertyEagle]

I say your views are anti-liberty and exploitative of the poor, and play into the hands of the globalists who want to end our sovereignty and make the Constitution subservient to globalist institutions.

I disagree with you about the "exploitative of the poor" comment. If people are willing to work for a wage that is offered, then it must be in their best interest to do so.

However, I do agree with you that our borders are being allowed to be overrun by illegal aliens and the whole open borders agenda is a big strategy of the globalists who want to "end our sovereignty and make the Constitution subservient to globalist institutions".

But, you see, not everyone here supports the Constitution. If you haven't seen that yet, you will.

 

[tremendoustie]

bingo!!!

Yay for total federal government control over everyone's property and business! Why, having having federal bureaucrats extort cash from anyone who wants to trade their labor with others, and demanding they wade through mountains of federal bureaucracy to do so, is the only pro-liberty position!!

Anyone who doesn't kiss sufficient bureaucratic behind deserves to be caged!!

 

[constituent]

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...

This is facepalm worthy. Tune out the fox news, man.

If the country of America is owned by America,

It isn't...

someone who isn't American is trespassing.

so that ^ is absurd.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yay for total federal government control over everyone's property and business! Why, having having federal bureaucrats extort cash from anyone who wants to trade their labor with others, and demanding they wade through mountains of federal bureaucracy to do so, is the only pro-liberty position!!

Anyone who doesn't kiss sufficient bureaucratic behind deserves to be caged!!

My, you're slow. I saw what else he had written and edited my comment 10 minutes ago.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution. Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

 

[Dr.3D]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution. Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

So are they just here to keep those of us who are here to promote the ideals of the forum mission statement from making progress?

 

[ClayTrainor]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution.

Very true.

Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

Some of us have come to realize that our principles should be rooted by the concept individual liberty, not state enforced documents.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution. Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

If complete liberty was not the founders principles, then I guess what I advocate is indeed not a return to their principles, but the fullest expression of what they so-called advocated (liberty). Voluntaryists are the pure form of George Mason & Patrick Henry (Two people who fought AGAINST the Constitution!). Got beef?

 

[tremendoustie]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution. Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

Funny, I somehow missed in the constitution where the government is supposed to kidnap anyone who gets a job without their permission, supposed to dictate who people may allow on their own property, and supposed to have armed men demand paperwork from people on the street.

Restoring the constitution is a worthy goal, because it would be a huge step towards shrinking government and restoring liberty. Anyone who supports the constitution just because it's the constitution, without an underlying belief in liberty or freedom, is completely missing the point. I wonder why those people don't want to return to British rule, or serfdom ... after all, they came even earlier. Or, perhaps we should restore slavery too.

 

[constituent]

This is only so in a context. With a welfare state as the reality, we must restrict the movement of would-be parasites.

1) So everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and in the meanwhile, all U.S. citizens must carry a passport to return to the country and return only through designated border crossing zones. And you're cool with that?

2) Why not just restrict their access to the welfare? Why limit everyone else's freedoms because you're afraid someone else is going to come along and grab up your crumbs?

 

[constituent]

I repeat... not everyone here supports the Constitution. Their interest is not in returning to our Founders' principles or most anything else in the forum mission statement.

That includes yourself, I suppose. Or has your stance on immigration changed here lately?

You do believe that federal immigration regulation is unconstitutional correct?