Why building a fence on the border is a HORRIBLE idea!

[RevolutionSD]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.

 

[Cinderella]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.

yes i agree...my worst fear is them using it to keep us locked in.....

 

[kombayn]

That's what I've always been saying, do what they've done in Arizona. Take away all the benefits for illegal immigrants and they'll leave willingly. I don't agree with a border fence but I do agree that we should spend our national defense on our borders. Have our troops home, protecting the homeland.

 

[yongrel]

Thanks for posting this in grassroots central instead of "Dr. Paul On the Issues."

 

[freedom-maniac]

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

I agree with most of what you said except for this part. Why? Because, if someone came into your home, without notifying you, and without your approval, you have the right to evict them. They are tresspassing. So why is it any different when citizens from another country come here, without our knowing of who they might be, any different?

 

[freedom-maniac]

Thanks for posting this in grassroots central instead of "Dr. Paul On the Issues."

Yes, now we can have a serious discussion on this issue instead of it being a dead thread by the end of the day.

 

[yongrel]

Yes, now we can have a serious discussion on this issue instead of it being a dead thread by the end of the day.

And we can dilute the value of grassroots central by another drop.

 

[freedom-maniac]

That's what I've always been saying, do what they've done in Arizona. Take away all the benefits for illegal immigrants and they'll leave willingly. I don't agree with a border fence but I do agree that we should spend our national defense on our borders. Have our troops home, protecting the homeland.

I've suggested we should have a sort of New Deal type program for hiring unemployed citizens as new border agents, instead of building a useless fence.

Still, the problem with that are the words "New Deal".

 

[Jeremy]

What's a country without borders? Imagine if we had no borders, we'd be... omg, NAU!

 

[RevolutionSD]

I agree with most of what you said except for this part. Why? Because, if someone came into your home, without notifying you, and without your approval, you have the right to evict them. They are tresspassing. So why is it any different when citizens from another country come here, without our knowing of who they might be, any different?

How is this "your" home though? Did you purchase this land?
If we're going to get into who really owns this place, shouldn't it be the native americans (indians)?

Just because you were born here doesn't mean that you somehow have the right to keep others you don't like out. Just like we didn't choose our government, or our parents, we didn't choose where we were born.

 

[runningdiz]

border fences work now in the areas they exist cause people just walk around them

Oh and my question why is it such an issue when most of our border in along Texas. All of the Texans on here brag about their wonderful guns and gun laws... SO why don't you use them?

 

[freedom-maniac]

How is this "your" home though? Did you purchase this land?
If we're going to get into who really owns this place, shouldn't it be the native americans (indians)?

Just because you were born here doesn't mean that you somehow have the right to keep others you don't like out. Just like we didn't choose our government, or our parents, we didn't choose where we were born.

Have you ever considered the fact that I might be (partly) Native American? Besides, I believe saying that someone is entitled to land just because their ancestors once lived on it is very monarchic, and collectivist. Its like the Israelis showing up after two thousand years demanding the Palenstinians to get up and leave.

I am not anti-immigrant (that's why I agree with your other statements). I think we should make immigration laws less strict, but just that they should be enforced. It's true we don't choose where we are born, but I wasn't born inside your house, and I can't just walk right in if I choose. I have to ask for permission. And as far as I'm concerned, we should be welcoming people into our nation...just as long as they come through the front door, not sneaking in the basement window...

 

[RevolutionSD]

What's a country without borders? Imagine if we had no borders, we'd be... omg, NAU!

Wrong. We would be a free country. NAU means more government, I'm talking about dismantling the federal government, or at minimum taxes and ridiculous welfare and warfare programs.

 

[nate895]

This is one of the issues why I don't call myself a libertarian.

 

[pahs1994]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
Ron Basically says the same thing. But he also realizes that border security and enforcing our immigration laws in some form is needed.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Have you ever considered the fact that I might be (partly) Native American? Besides, I believe saying that someone is entitled to land just because their ancestors once lived on it is very monarchic, and collectivist. Its like the Israelis showing up after two thousand years demanding the Palenstinians to get up and leave.

I wasn't suggesting we should have a government set up by the native americans. Your points are correct, that saying someone is entitled to land because their ancestors lived on it is collectivistic. Therefore, "protecting the borders" is also collectivistic (and non-libertarian).

I am not anti-immigrant (that's why I agree with your other statements). I think we should make immigration laws less strict, but just that they should be enforced. It's true we don't choose where we are born, but I wasn't born inside your house, and I can't just walk right in if I choose. I have to ask for permission. And as far as I'm concerned, we should be welcoming people into our nation...just as long as they come through the front door, not sneaking in the basement window...

Why not get rid of immigration laws as well as all the welfare? We don't need the laws if everyone that comes in has to make it on their own- or leave. My house is my personal property. I can defend that. The country is simply a land mass. It isn't "yours" or "mine" or even "ours". "We" don't own the country, we were simply born here. Make sense?

 

[RevolutionSD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
Ron Basically says the same thing. But he also realizes that border security and enforcing our immigration laws in some form is needed.

He is- but he is also saying we need a fence. He's pandering here. I don't like it. My hope would be that if he actually won the presidency, he would drop this ridiculous notion of a fence, and focus on ending welfare (and warfare).

 

[freedom-maniac]

This is one of the issues why I don't call myself a libertarian.

Luckily for me, this is one of the issues where Dems and Libs overlap. (This is also why Mike Gravel mistakenly believes he is more libertarian than Dr. Paul).

I do believe our borders must be enforced, but I believe that we should make it much easier for immigrants to come here legally. (Anti-immigration was something actually started by the Federalists, knowing that the poor immigrants would vote for Jefferson's gang). I can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of a crappy country like Mexico. I still have some concerns with the Reconquesta people that believe they have a right to come here without any registration though.

If I was writing the citizenship test, above the question that asks "Do you speak English? REALLY, hablas ingles?" would be "If your native country was to get into a war with the United States, what side would you be on?".

 

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

This is one issue I am definetely not a libertarian on.

I'm not opposed to immigration at all, as long as it is legal, they want to become AMERICAN CITIZENS, and the immigrants do not put a strain on social services, force me to hear Spanish, or cost taxpayers millions to "educate" their children.

I'm not for a fence, I'm for internet-controlled machine guns set up 100 yards apart on the southern border.

 

[dannno]

I thought he was against a border fence?

Last I heard, he said he wasn't so concerned about a border fence at all, he just wanted to take away the incentives.