What do libertarians believe about immigration reform and amnesty?

Voluntaryists are the pure form of George Mason & Patrick Henry (Two people who fought AGAINST the Constitution!). Got beef?

Patrick Henry was outspoken agaisnt the constitution, eh? I never realized that. I always thought he supported it, because of this quote...

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick henry
 
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.



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.

I am thinking there is a disconnect between a belief system and what is happening in the real world.

You guys are saying fight the welfare state and leave the immigrants alone. But the welfare state wants more immigrants because they reliably vote for expansion of the welfare state.

If you want to reverse the growth of the welfare state, enforce our current immigration laws. Obama doesn't want to do this because he wants more immigrants to expand his voter base and increase the size of the government.

I think the economic argument for cheap foreign labor only allows for short term benefits. The farmers, homebuilders, restaurant owners, etc. who increase profits by lowering labor costs pay for it in the end as the SEIU organizes these impoverished workers, who then vote in politicians who increase taxes and regulations on the business owners and require them by force to pay out health care and other benefits.
 
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.

The Constitution is a set of rules and guidelines for governing a sovereign nation, of which ILLEGAL ALIENS are not a part. A sovereign nation has BORDERS. Other than that, I agree with you.

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.

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking there is a disconnect between a belief system and what is happening in the real world.

You guys are saying fight the welfare state and leave the immigrants alone. But the welfare state wants more immigrants because they reliably vote for expansion of the welfare state.

If you want to reverse the growth of the welfare state, enforce our current immigration laws. Obama doesn't want to do this because he wants more immigrants to expand his voter base and increase the size of the government.

So ... don't let them vote. Problem solved. Yet, for some reason, you won't accept that solution, and instead want to kidnap them, drag them away from their families and jobs, and dump them across the border. I wonder why.

I think the economic argument for cheap foreign labor only allows for short term benefits. The farmers, homebuilders, restaurant owners, etc. who increase profits by lowering labor costs pay for it in the end as the SEIU organizes these impoverished workers, who then vote in politicians who increase taxes and regulations on the business owners and require them by force to pay out health care and other benefits.

I already said I'm fine with not letting them vote. It's government control over businesses and private property, as well as attacks against innocent people who haven't harmed anyone, that I'm concerned about.

That's why I thought that four part plan I posted might be a compromise we could agree on. It ensures immigrants do not take over government, as you fear, and stops money being stolen from you to hand them benefits, but it allows free people to work and live as they choose.
 
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. :(

OK. I agree with you more or less on the wage issue. It's the leftist politicians who are the biggest exploiters of the poor.

I'm seeing what you are saying about the people here. The Constitution is what Ron Paul is all about. And there are all these people on this site who don't care much for it?

It's like going to the Democratic Underground and arguing for limited government, while claiming you're a big fan of Obama.
 
The Constitution is a set of rules and guidelines for governing a sovereign nation, of which ILLEGAL ALIENS are not a part. Other than that, I agree with you.

And people who claim to support the Constitution don't even support the Constitution. Where is the term ILLEGAL ALIEN in the Constitution?


What is the difference between a rule and a law?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Under the system of English Common Law as understood by the founding generations is Naturalization defined as emigration or allegiance?

Where are boundries defined in the federal constitution or are they only defined in state constitutions and legislative acts or treaties for federal territory?

Have any police powers been delegated to the federal government to police or enforce trespassing inside state boundries?

Does a state have authority in it's own right to harbor political refugees?

What is the jurisdiction of the federal government (ie. what objects can the federal constitution apply to with regards to travel or naturalization)?

Does a delegated power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization delegate any power to the federal government over citizen travel or does the power delegated to the federal government to establish a rule only apply to people who are un-Naturalized?

Is citizenship a federal, state, or some concurrent concept?

Are there any privileges or immunities offered or protected by government with regards to naturalization or travel?

What constitutes proof of citizenship?

Who or what party is the burden of proof on?

Under what circumstances can individuals be compelled by government with regards to travel? With regards to naturalization?

To what extent can government impair labor contracts?

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

What is the difference between personal property and goods?

Can personal property be an object for any of the following delegated powers; Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises? If so how/why?

Can the travel of human beings be an object of the following delegated powers; Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises? If so how/why?

What is a constitutional definition of the term invasion as would be understood by the founding generation based on English Common Law?

Does the Army have authority to execute the Laws of the Union or is this duty expressly reserved to the Militia?

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

Under what circumstances can land be an object of Constitutional delegated power?
 
Last edited:
I'm seeing what you are saying about the people here. The Constitution is what Ron Paul is all about. And there are all these people on this site who don't care much for it?

Apparently you don't care for the constitution, because the huge degree of tyranny and government control over business and property you're advocating is nowhere enumerated in the constitution.
 
So ... don't let them vote. Problem solved.

So you have foreign workers who do not have rights equal to citizens? Sounds like Palestinians in Israel.

Regardless, the leftists are pushing for amnesty so they can get their votes and expand the state. And the children of these illegal aliens have birthright citizenship and tend to vote for the Pelosis, Harry Reids, Obamas and all the rest of these big government types, and they have the numbers these days.

I disagree with you and agree with Ron Paul. He does not support open borders or birthright citizenship.
 
Regardless, the leftists are pushing for amnesty so they can get their votes and expand the state.

You keep conflating immunity from prosecution for violation unconstitutional laws with full suffrage which no one is talking about but you. :confused:
 
So you have foreign workers who do not have rights equal to citizens? Sounds like Palestinians in Israel.

Regardless, the leftists are pushing for amnesty so they can get their votes and expand the state. And the children of these illegal aliens have birthright citizenship and tend to vote for the Pelosis, Harry Reids, Obamas and all the rest of these big government types, and they have the numbers these days.

I disagree with you and agree with Ron Paul. He does not support open borders or birthright citizenship.

Are all your opinions based on good and bad associations, or can you consider a certain position on its own merits?

If you want to say the kids of illegal immigrants can't vote either, that's ok with me. Just don't go attack them for having a job.
 
Last edited:
You keep conflating immunity from prosecution for violation unconstitutional laws with full suffrage which no one is talking about but you. :confused:

Whatever. Ron Paul is not for open borders, amnesty or birthright citizenship. Obama is.

I agree with Ron Paul and support him.
 
So you have foreign workers who do not have rights equal to citizens? Sounds like Palestinians in Israel.

Regardless, the leftists are pushing for amnesty so they can get their votes and expand the state. And the children of these illegal aliens have birthright citizenship and tend to vote for the Pelosis, Harry Reids, Obamas and all the rest of these big government types, and they have the numbers these days.

I disagree with you and agree with Ron Paul. He does not support open borders or birthright citizenship
.

You keep harping on this, but watch this:

YouTube - Ron Paul - Immigration, Communism, And Drugs 1988! (Part 4/4)
 
Whatever. Ron Paul is not for open borders, amnesty or birthright citizenship. Obama is.

I agree with Ron Paul and support him.

Perhaps the owner of these forums needs to remove the name 'Ron Paul' and just make the URL libertyforest.com

At least that way, people wouldn't confuse what is on these forums with the ideals espoused by Ron Paul.
 
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".

To eliminate benefits the will would have to exist at the federal level, and I see no will to do anything there but repeatedly try for amnesty over and over until they finally get it.

You make a lot of sense, but Im still sticking to my two conditions. Get rid of welfare first, reciprocal rights for US citizens.
 
Patrick Henry was outspoken agaisnt the constitution, eh? I never realized that. I always thought he supported it, because of this quote...

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick henry

Patrick Henry against the Federal Constitution:


Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts.

Go to references

Introduction
1.3
I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
States vs. people

1.10
The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.


1.15
Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?
1.18
The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans?
Consolidated government > loss of liberties

1.22
It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.
DE, PA, NJ, GA, CT, MA, MD, SC

Partition

2.1
Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely.


Global Argument: Appeal to Liberty

2.2
Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!


2.6
But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth—suspicions of my integrity—publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country.

CONT....

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

Reading this great man brings a tear to my eye. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for sanctifying a decrepit document that nulls your liberties, and destroys the very essence of what it means to be a free individual.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top