-27 votes

A problem with Ron Paul's immigration policy

I've been a Paul supporter since the beginning of this race; however I have one slight disagreement with him on immigration policy. As I see it; in a free society government would keep their dirty hands to themselves. That means no banning, restricting, subsidizing, or punishing immigration. Most of Ron Paul's immigration policy (should I say most off his entire philosophy) is based on this hands off idea. This is evident in his opposition to the welfare state subsidizing immigration, his desire to make immigration easier, and opposition to things like a national ID card or E-verify.

However it is not so evident in his opposition to amnesty, I can't see how crossing into a county should be classified as an act of force. In an ideal society, government wouldn't have such power over immigration; people would have the liberty to come and go as the wish without the government's hand in the way, so long as they didn't initiate force along the way.

One explanation that popped into my head was respect for the rule of law. While I believe natural law trumps any and all laws, maybe Ron Paul doesn't. However that would mean no amnesty for any other victimless crimes if he is president, such as tax-evasion, draft-evasion, prostitution, or selling drugs.

Other explanations would be appreciated. Thanks.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Exactly my point.

Property owners should decide who comes onto their land, or who doesn't; it’s their decision, not government’s. The only job of government is to stop and punish aggressors, and an immigrant going onto another's land with their consent isn't aggressing.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Collectivism rampant in here...

"the USA belongs to its citizens and we have a right to defend it and restrict access."

...and what that really means is "the State owns everything and can violate individual property rights as it pleases." Shame!

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I was not staying that the

I was not staying that the State owns everything. The State owns nothing as it exists only via the consent of the governed. In other words, we can take back whatever control we give it. So it is arguable that such power is held in trust.

I would like to also remind you of this part of Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

I call your specific attention to the "Offences against the Law of Nations;"

The Law of Nations was a text that the founders consulted during the design of the structure of our government. Here is a tidbit from that text (Book II, Chapter X):

§ 136. How we are to act towards foreigners who desire a perpetual residence.

We have seen (§ 125) how the right of necessity may in certain cases authorize a people, who are driven from the place of their residence, to settle in the territory of another nation. Every state ought, doubtless, to grant to so unfortunate a people every aid and assistance which she can bestow without being wanting to herself: but to grant them an establishment in the territories of the nation, is a very delicate step, the consequences of which should be maturely considered by the conductor of the state. The emperors Probus and Valens experienced the evil effects of their conduct in having admitted into the territories of the empire numerous bands of Gepidæ, Vandals, Goths, and other barbarians.2 If the sovereign finds that such a step would be attended with too great an inconvenience or danger, he has a right to refuse an establishment to those fugitive people, or to adopt, on their admission, every precaution that prudence can dictate to him.
SOURCE: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_02.htm

Coming here and causing economic harm is an offense against the Law of Nations. Our restrictions against walking across the border and getting on welfare, not contributing to society, etc., are justified.

________________________________________

You're using misnomers to try to deceive

Stop it

How so?

...anyone who puts the collective above the individual is, by definition, a collectivist. The poster I was addressing was talking about our collective right to defend ourselves, which, being that 300 million people cannot literally do anything at all, means that the State has the right to work on behalf of all of us, and to violate individual rights in the process if need be. Hence, collectivism.

If you do not understand the meaning of words, you should employ a dictionary.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yes. Anyone who admits we

Yes. Anyone who admits we even HAVE a government is the second coming of Joe Stalin LOL.

Ventura 2012

Right...

...because that's what I said?

Or is that just the straw-man you're attacking....hmmm

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Its called satire, live a

Its called satire, live a little.

Ventura 2012

Sorry, a good debate raises my blood pressure

: )

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Well you're going up against

Well you're going up against like 5 ppl at once, itll happen. I actually backed you up in one of em.

Ventura 2012

This issue is very deep and complex.

I look forward to the increased discussion on it from people that are weighing the implications of both heavy handed enforcement and natural law amnesty in the context of what it means to people that make up the nation of these united states.

Mexico Is One of the Most

...beautiful places on earth and with a long growing season, natural resources and wonderful people.

Can you imagine (especially once the drug traffic cartel is broken in the easiest ways imaginable) and real free trade is in full force...all of the good things that could happen in Mexico????

Nobody would want to leave. We would all just want to visit and boost their vacation trade and buy their fruits and vegetables (and one day true organics). It is simply one of many countries we helped hold back despite all of their natural resources, incredible climate, and for the most part good family people.

Look down the road...to the way it should be...the way it can be...the way it will be!

fonta

Free immigration....

...has always been the classical liberal and libertarian position, going hand in hand with free trade.

I'm for free immigration, and so this is one issue where I disagree with Paul. However, from what I can tell, Paul's not actually for restricting immigration, he's just for controlling the border: i.e. knowing who's coming and going, but not having quotas or anything like that. That's still not quite free immigration, but it's not too far from it either. And I think Paul's only in favor of controlling the border in the context of Constitutional government - i.e. the Constitution requires at least control of the border. In the same way, Paul favors some taxation, because that is necessary for Constitutional government. However, I'll bet that if you asked Paul about his ideal world, libertopia, he'd be for true free immigration: I suspect he's really an anarcho-capitalist, as am I.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Can you name one single country in history

where free immigration has worked?

Yes

The United States from the foundation to 1875, when the first immigration control legislation (the Page Act) was passed. Though, despite the Page Act, immigration remained fairly free for several decades thereafter. Immigration control was primarily an initiative of the Republican Party, which at the time was the party in favor of a strong central government, tarrifs, industrial subsidies, central banking, fiat currency, and imperialism: they wanted to keep out Germans and other ethnic groups that tended to vote Democrat (Jefferson's Democrats: aka libertarians).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

Great Britain from the beginning of modern history until 1962, when the Commonwealth immigrants Act was passed. Though I do seem to vaguely recall some law(s) passed after WWI, don't remember the details - but the point stands, Britain had no immigration control for most of its history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1962

Most nations throughout history have had totally free immigration (except in wartime). Controlled immigration is a modern concept, and a bad one.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The United States "from the foundation?"

The Naturalization Act of 1790 set up the first rules to be followed in granting national citezenship. It was limited to "free white persons" of "good moral character". In other words, if you were white, didn't have a criminal record and passed the clerk's opinion of "good moral character", and weren't an indentured servant or slave, you could become naturalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

It was followed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which expanded the necessary time of living as an immigrant in the U.S. from two years to five before a person could become a citizen. But, even though there was no restriction on immigration (albeit on naturalized citizenship), immigration to this country was relatively mild until the 1830s.

The classical liberal Thomas Jefferson believed that we should welcome immigrants and not have a tightly, restricted immigration policy, but he also warned of the dangers in open borders and too much immigration:

"They [immigrants] will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass."

www.proconservative.net/PCVol5Is272FarrellImmigrationInsecurity....

As I said, zero immigration restrictions until 1875

...and we did just fine, didn't we?

We were the recipient of the largest wave of immigration in world history and at the very same time grew into the greatest economic and military power in world history.

Those suggesting that free immigration will cause chaos and the breakdown of the nation have history against them.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

That was Then...

This is Now!....Today is a different story.
Plus we are already busting-our-seams due to past practices
that have accelerated Immigration numbers beyond any hope of
assimilation into this society without a moratorium.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

The comparison is flawed.

Up until the 1850s, immigration to the United States was limited to mostly Northern Europeans. While there were some minute linguistic and cultural differences, the native-born U.S. citizens were not all that different form the Irish, English, Welsh, and Germans coming here, so the newcomers adjusted extremely easily. You're also completely ignoring labor supply and demand. If we have more immigrants come in than we can provide jobs for, even if we do away with all welfare (which isn't going to happen any time soon) it would still be a huge strain on the U.S. taxpayer. Plus, you're not taking into account the cultural effect. Any time throughout our history when large numbers of immigrants came, for the first two generations, they usually stuck to themselves. This created ethnic tensions at times and resulted in political chaos as these groups voted in blocs and basically disenfranchised anyone in their districts who didn't belong to their ethnic group by their overwhelming numbers (this still goes on today). Plus, as is the case of Muslims wanting to export Sharia law everywhere they go, many cultures simply refuse to work with our Constitutional form of government.

What comparison?

You asked me to name a nation that had free immigration, implying that no nation ever did, because you believe that no nation ever could: that it would tear apart the social fabric and so forth.

I provide two examples, two major examples, where there was totally free immigration and immigration on a massive scale, unprecedented in world history, and where the receiving country not only didn't tear itself apart, but greatly prospered.

My points stand unchallenged.

Now you're bringing up other issues, which I'll address:

"You're also completely ignoring labor supply and demand. If we have more immigrants come in than we can provide jobs for, even if we do away with all welfare (which isn't going to happen any time soon) it would still be a huge strain on the U.S. taxpayer."

Explain to me how immigration could be a "huge strain on the U.S. taxpayer" in the absence of the welfare system? What, are you talking about wear and tear on infrastructure?

As for the rest of your comments about the differences between different sets of immigrants (which are not quiet accurate - but no matter), so what? The point is that the United States made it through that period just fine: growing, powerful, rich, the greatest nation in the history of the world. So how is any of this an argument against free immigration?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

How can you claim the U.S. had

a "totally free" immigration policy when a person couldn't become a citizen unless he was white? If we brought that rule back, our immigration flow would be cut in half over night because at least half of the immigrants that come here are non-white people hoping to become U.S. citizens someday. I'm sure one of the reasons the Naturalization Acts included that stipulation was to keep non-white people from wanting to immigrate here.

If you have millions of people here out of work who left everything in the countries they came from, you're either going to have a welfare state or massive pillaging and looting as people have to steal for food. Private charity wouldn't be able to handle that kind of burden.

Response

"How can you claim the U.S. had a "totally free" immigration policy when a person couldn't become a citizen unless he was white?"

...because entering the country freely and becoming a citizen are two totally separate things? Free immigration means anyone can enter the country. I'm for that. I'm certainly NOT for anyone becoming a citizen, in fact I'm for much tougher restriction on citizenship than we currently have.

"If we brought that rule back, our immigration flow would be cut in half over night because at least half of the immigrants that come here are non-white people hoping to become U.S. citizens someday."

That's fine by me.

"I'm sure one of the reasons the Naturalization Acts included that stipulation was to keep non-white people from wanting to immigrate here."

That's possible, but nonetheless, the point stands: there was no immigration control until 1875, and things went just fine.

"If you have millions of people here out of work who left everything in the countries they came from, you're either going to have a welfare state or massive pillaging and looting as people have to steal for food. Private charity wouldn't be able to handle that kind of burden."

So you're saying that without a welfare state, there will be "massive pillaging and looting" whenever there's high unemployment? Well now you sound like a run-of-the-mill socialist, and I'm not going to even bother refuting this point, as (if you're on the DP) you should already know better. And the fact of the matter is, we HAVE had massive immigration and massive unemployment, and no calamity as you describe ever happened. And it's not as if free immigration turns on a never-ending spigot of immigrants. If they see opportunity, they come. If not, not. This has always been true, and is true right now, as Mexicans are leaving or not coming in record numbers because of high unemployment: as opposed to rampaging down main street looking for food.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

You can't have open immigration and NOT have a welfare

state. Take a look at California. 27% of the people in CA are foreign-born. 46% of its immigrants are naturalized citizens. That means they vote! And there's no telling how many legal and even illegal immigrants the Democratic Party lets vote under the table. California has one of the most massive if not the most massive welfare government in the nation and of course is on the brink of bankruptcy. The fact that the vast majority of immigrants flock to the party of government (the Democrats) is proof that open borders and free immigration will defeat our cause and increase, not end the welfare state. Poor immigrants coming from the third world want the rich natives to pay for their medical care, education, food, and cell phones, that way they can spend their minimum wage salaries on the essential things like flat-screen tvs and nice cars.

Then maybe

democracy is not the answer, it just provides a legal way for individuals to aggress against each other. That's why a republic that protects everyone's basic right to not be aggressed against, is ideal.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

If people are allowed to vote,

there's always the opportunity to change the laws. If the laws are able to be changed, redistribution of wealth is possible. But, that doesn't mean we should eliminate the right to vote.

Voting is pointless in a free society.

Voting is pointless if no aggression is allowed whatsoever; you (or a group of individuals) can do anything you wish as long as you don't aggress against another person, regardless of majority rule. And by the same token, aggression will be punished regardless of what the majority says.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Who punishes the aggression

if nobody votes?

Why the extremely limited slither of government of course.

No one needs to vote, they will protect against aggression; nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: I suppose you could vote for a body to oversee the police, but it really wouldn't matter who's up there,as there's no major decisions to make.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

The Constitution is not a perfect document.

So ideally we would have to start over. But practically we can make due; it may not be as strict as I would like it to be, but at least it gets some basic things right. Such as the protection of most liberties, equal protection under the law, and a limited government that has to follow certain limitations and obligations,regardless of the whims of the masses or the desires of politicians.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises