-19 votes

Can you be open border and a Libertarian?

There are a couple issues that Libertarians are divided on. One is immigration. There are those who would have you believe that to be Libertarian you must be open border. They equate free markets with open borders. The problem with that is the rest of the world does not comply with free market philosophy. We have millions of illegal Mexicans in the US because Mexico is a slave state that hemorrhages people over here and thus gets rid of people who would probably overthrow the Mexican regime if they did not have the US crutch to lean on. Open borders are only practical in theory.There is a real honest concern for national security both from real terrorism and crime perpetrated by illegals. I am not demonizing .It is simply a fact that with millions of people there will be criminals among them. Our prisons are filled with proof of this fact. There is also the theory that illegals are good for the economy? Again that only works in theory or if you are only really concerned with management. From a workers perspective illegals do lower our standard of living. There is also a controversial cultural perspective. Even if you are Hispanic do you feel that the Spanish language should supplant English? You may say "well if the majority speak Spanish yes" The problem with that is there has always been an unspoken rule in this country. You come here you work hard and you might bring and celebrate privately your culture but you become an American. You do not live here as a foreigner. If we are ok with the majority of people speaking Spanish in America (as has happened in some places in America , to include Spanish only public school programs ..etc) simply because of a simple majority than how about throwing out the bill of rights?Or the 2nd Amendment? The vast majority of illegals seem to support a kind of slave/ socialist govt so if they become the simple majority should we not bow to this "new" America. The answer is of course no.Cultures do supplant others it has happened all the time in history. Weaker people's ways are overtaken by more aggressive people. The problem with that is American culture is superior to Mexican culture and Irish and English and Iranian culture. Taking freedom of speech as a given is an American trait. What happened in 1776 was a fusion of ideas from thousands of years of humans living in bondage to other humans. "Liberty is young , tyranny is old" Personally on immigration I am a Buchanan man. I want a complete moratorium on immigration . As near as I can tell we have more than enough low skilled labor We must end the welfare state but the people who remain should be compelled to "become Americans" Local schools should do away with Spanish only programs, employers should be encouraged to only hire people who speak English and our history OUR ancient traditions should be taught again in schools and universities. Do not take this as an attack on Mexicans. Mexican culture is family orientated is hard working and we have many great Americans here who can trace their lineage to Mexico. We are Americans . If you do not want to be an American you should not be here.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

So now I'm a "La Raza Infiltrator?"

I could play the game too, and accuse you of being an "infiltrator" whose purpose was to make libertarians look like people whose prejudices prevented them from being consistent about liberty. But I'm not going to do that, I'm above all that. Instead, I would like an apology from you for referring to me as a "La Raza Infiltrator."

nobody called you an infiltrator

but they are here. I have seen the exact same talking points on other sites. If you participate on the LaRaza forums they particularly say to infiltrate and push the racist note.

I'm glad you are above it all, but I'm just putting out what LaRaza does, no different than When Obama paid hundreds of people to be forum infiltrators during the campaign, it's fairly standard practice for various organizations to do.

I can get my Constitution buddies to come on here and vote down various topics too. but that's not my style.

Don't feel too bad.

She does it to everybody. Anyone who believes that the libertarian philosophy extends past the arbitrary lines drawn by the tax farmers is a 'LaRaza Infiltrator'. She has no arguments, just ad hominem attacks.

I wish to be a libertarian because libertarianism is the

only political philosophy consistent with what I believe God wants for us: "Peace on Earth, Good will toward our fellow man."

Politics is all about persons

God is no respecter of persons. God wants us to live within the law which means we accept liability for our own actions not limited liability under the name of the regulated Person subject to policy determined by the politics.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

You can be whatever you want...

And anyone that tells you differently can eat shit...
My position that differs from Dr. Paul is I don't believe in absolving birth right citizenship...I believe if you are born in the USA, under ANY circumstance, you are an American...
So if you have devised a position on, or against, open borders...Then so be it...It is actually trivial, when you look at the bigger picture, the states has been taken over by foreign enemies and we have to try to get her back on her feet...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

I agree somewhat

But the millions of illegals are, im convinced , a tool of the elite to destroy us

I would propose...

That any immigrant that comes to America should have to wait 18 yrs to vote...Just like I did...that would take politician's personal agenda out of immigration...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

Its not about being libertarian

Its about following the Law. Real law.

How are can you have a closed border that does not break the law in the process? I really want to see the responses to this question.

I have looked at this from every logical angle that is constrained only by applicable law and I cannot ANY lawful scenario in which a closed border can be implemented.

To have a closed border one must have some form of legally recognized ID associated with them to determine access or not. Lets assume this is considered a voluntary act for a moment to enable the first stage of a lawful existence of such a concept. Men and Women who voluntarily contract to be bound from certain prohibited activity are bound from performing unwarranted searches and seizures of person papers and effects. How can they not break the law and demand any papers?

If we peel it back to the real root of the situation. How can they require anyone to have any papers whatsoever? If you are travelling and someone interferes with your path of travel and says you must be under some form of contract to move around this is felony extortion being committing by the man attempting to force a contract upon you, and it is Common Law breach of your peace if they do not leave you alone when demanded to cease and desist with their unlawful activity. If they do not leave when requested to do so and then use physical violence to kidnap you then this piles up felonies quickly for the initiator of such actions.

I could go and on here with examples of how crimes must be committed to have any such closed borders applying to anyone who has not voluntarily contracted for such regulated movement.

You give opinions you have but what about factual explanation to demonstrate strict congruency in Law? Are you capable of making a case in Law for a scenario that would break the law in the act of attempting to carry out such a scenario you suggest? If you choose opinion over Real Law then by the order of divine law you shall be a in a nation of men's opinions and not in a nation of law.

You inherently choose whether realizing this fact or not. This is the inherent order within divine law. This is not about libertarian(ism) it is about people humbling themselves before the knowledge of the universe (seeking truth) and living within the Laws of the Universe.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

How can you have a totally open border

without breaking laws in the process?

If I own property bordering Canada, and a Canadian passes through on my land, what happens?
I don't shoot him because that's just wrong, but he is indeed trespassing. Is that not breaking a law?

I agree with you on the identification situation. I'll never support a national ID card of any kind. We already have a SS# that is too intrusive.
But I can't support a country-less globe where everyone goes everywhere and there is no citizenship either.
That would require a Single World Government. Or a REAL utopian worldwide Anarchy.

read below 'The orange is the apple?'

I answer this very issue there.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

You discussed a response to a law that is already broken.

Of course you can ask them to leave or take them to court, but it requires a broken law first.
You described a remedy for nearly any situation.

I want to know how we can have open borders without any laws being broken. I don't see it, just as you don't see closed borders without breaking laws.

It isn't just immigration laws in the way of an open border society, there are tons of ID restraints put on us all.

In the strictest

terms of Common Law procedure it does not require a "law" to be "broken" it requires a valid cause of action presented by the accuser for the Jury to be seated for trial where the Jury then determines if the law was broken. The jury determines the law and facts. Up to that point there is only allegations and presumed innocence.

You are correct that is the remedy for any situation. That is because it is the law.

How we can have open borders without laws being broken is easy. If no one breaches the peace of another or breaches their duty then no laws have been broken. If their is no valid cause of action then their is no jurisdiction of any court and thus no law has been broken. Simple!

I think maybe your confusion is what the law actually is and what laws are applicable to whom. Codes and Statutes to do not apply to the People and do not even claim to. The codes and statutes only claim applicability to legal persons. The legal person is government issued ID not the man or woman. The common law applies to men and women. All legislation was originally intentionally confined in law to applying to the Citizen. The Citizen is the employee capacity/person in the agency of government or government created regulated capacity. The People are not in a limited liability veil because they are full liability. In the US they made 14th amendment "citizen of the United States" person capacity in order to apply privileges and immunities defined in code. The 14th amendment was not lawfully ratified into law and still makes no claim to be applicable to the People. This is the fraud being committed against us and why We the People have consented to the removal of all rights in exchange for the citizenship subject code and not Common Law. We can only claim our rights through Common Law as a full liability man or woman not as a citizen.

Also the Constitution being supreme law of the land means that the only codes that are not color of law are those that are within the confines of the Constitutionally authorized activities of the Citizen capacity. All other code is null and void.

So code only applies to the citizens and citizens have no rights. So once we reawaken to real law then we can see that there is no way to have a closed border and have rights. The rights are inherently gone for everyone if movement requires one to be a citizen.

The only reason for a border in real law is an economic one. The border defines the jurisdictional area applicable for the process of justice and infrastructure, that's it. People pay for infrastructure and justice for their geographic area for the purpose of enabling the protections of law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Geeze that simple

Do you own your house?

If you believe in property rights, then you believe in borders, if you do not believe in property rights you are way way way on the wrong website.

The orange is the apple?

What do you do if someone trespasses on your property?

You may:
Ask them to leave.
Accuse them of trespassing and take them before a jury.
Or both

Now maybe you might be a nanny state zombie and just say you would call the police. Well if you call the police the question is; are you going to accept liability for your accusation against the alleged trespasser? If you say yes you are accepting liability for the accusation then you would be seeking lawful remedy from a jury for your breach of peace. If you said no you won't accept liability then there is no accuser who a member of the governed consenting to the powers of Justice (Just Powers) and therefore there would be no case, no jurisdiction by the courts and thus no trespassing in fact because the fact must be determined to be true beyond all reasonable doubt by a Jury.

Just calling the police to have them take care of it and demand that no one accept liability for their accusations is the path of the nanny stater and is exactly why tyranny is consuming America. This tyranny is sourced from actions by men and women without identifiable liability of accusers and no liability for there own actions. If you are not the accuser then the defendant cannot face their accuser and their rights would be violated.

If they come here and trespass private property all they need to do is be accused of trespassing and brought before a Jury for determination of lawful remedy. Either we are going to protect People's rights within our jurisdictional borders or not.

One other failure of acknowledgement is the man or woman's property you may claim to be here "illegally". Their time is their property/liberty. If anyone takes their time without their consent or without accepting liability for the time taken for false accusations then their property is taken. So the real question is do you joeinmo believe in property. What about their property Joe?

One other issue cannot address either is the fact that what about me Joe? I don't want papers and I don't want peace disturbed in any way. If anyone disturbs my peace then I want remedy for that Breach of Peace from a Jury. I want to travel anywhere I want freely without trespassing upon any other. If the border barbarians demand papers from me then they acting outside the scope of their Contractual duties because they are violating their voluntarily agreed to 4th amendment prohibitions by subjecting to me any breach of my peace from the breach of their duty. How can you resolve this in law? You can't it is impossible with our Constitution.

You still did not address the felonies that are committed under the current paradigm. That is because you can't. It is because these felonies are being committed everyday without any justice for those committing the crimes.

If you want to challenge my logic then challenge the logic in law. I am only seeking truth so I will be happy to correct any errors in my logic when the fallacies are directly pointed out in Real Law. I define Real Law as the law where no laws are broken in the process of enforcing the law. If someone breaks the law while claiming to be enforcing the law then they are just a lawless tyrant or completely confused and should be disregarded for the purpose of upholding the law.

It sounds like you might just be a supporter of lawless tyrannical government Joe.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

A strict respect for individual property rights

demands that there be no economic borders. If you think clearly and are honest and open minded, you come to this conclusion. The only way closed borders would be consistent with property rights would be if the government owned EVERYTHING. If that is the kind of society you wish for, YOU are on the wrong website.

I consider myself Libertarian

I consider myself Libertarian and I am for open borders. I am also disgusted by the how there are a lot of faux-libertarians that cling to the Republican party.

Libertarians are wack jobs

same as Neocons and if you are an open border globalist you are on the wrong site.

Ever notice what this site is dedicated to?

"Restoring Constitutional Government to The United States of America"

Thats not Mexico, that's not China that's USA.

Either your a Constitutionalist or you are not. Open Borders is not and has never been Constitutional my Amero loving, nafta super hughway pushing, Libertarian friend.

Apparently this guy forgot

Apparently this guy forgot about the great waves of Irish, Italian, Greek, etc etc etc immigration under the Constitution for years... the time it took them to vote has varied over time but we are talking millions of people either way. lmao the Constitution is pro-open borders sorry bud.

It seems clear

that you do not know what the constitution is or what it means.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...


and Indiana still have open borders from what I gather.

Well here in Missouri

we don't, we have borders.

You cannot move here from any other state without claiming residence and getting a state ID, my guess is you can't in Ohio either. Also I'm pretty sure you can't be a citizen in Ohio and vote in Indiana.

Can you live on the street homeless from state to state - sure, have fun.

What Law?

Where is this Law that creates a so called Illegal Alien?

I swear if the Legal Criminals throw out a tennis ball the dogs of war go chasing it every time, even when the Legal Criminals pretend to throw the ball, the dogs keep on chasing it, every time.

What is up with all this Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question?

I don't get it.

Well, I think I do get it, but I don't think that the War Dogs among us desire to have their true motives aired in public.



Well here is the basis for it

amendment XIV.17
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

But if want to get the exact law you want to study the US Code.

The 14th amendment was never lawfully ratified

Pointing out the 14th amendment in defense of supporting the Constitution is proof of your ignorance of history and law. Read the congressional minutes of what was happening in congress when the 14th amendment was supposedly "ratified". Read about who the "representatives" were who were there. Read the damn Constitution itself and ask yourself why did they make all "persons" under employee status of the "Government" subject to its regulatory codes? Can you say treason, Fraud, Extortion?

Dude, the People are men and women and are not "Persons", are not "US Citizens" and not "citizens of the United States". You seem severely confused. Either you are trolling or confused. If confused I welcome you brother to awaken to the deception and trickery of 14th amendment. It is THE source confusion in America today and why we have no rights only privileges and immunities decided by political democracy.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

If you are subject to a

If you are subject to a jurisdiction, are you free or a subject? Clearly the fourteenth amendment creates a new class of citizen that is sub-par to people with vested sovereignty.

Benjamin Franklin joined the colonists in their goal to separate themselves from the crown because the crown treated the colonists as second rate citizens.

You are doing it again here.


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


That is not a law, that is a crime in progress.

If you are one of the people taken in by The Color of Law, so be it, there is no basis for Illegal Aliens, so called, it is a False Front.

You may want to read the following, or not, whatever basis your understanding of law is, may be competitively more accurate than mine.


Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted.

The concept of a Republic (not a Consolidated Nation State Monopoly complete with a Monopoly of Legal Money) could include the concept of invasion by foreign enemies, which would then be a Federal Problem in a working Democratic Federated Republic, otherwise this so called "illegal alien" crime appears to be an economic one which would be handled by the State or The People, not those representatives who are hired by The States, Employed by The States, and paid for by The States, not The People directly.

As to the supposed law that supposedly creates illegal aliens, so called, the basis for it being those words quoted, is hard to justify, to me.

If you think there is justification in those words, to turn a human being into an "illegal alien", then you may be qualified to sell your capacity to understand such laws, as a lawyer, but if I were on a Jury, and I were trying a case where the accused is being accused of being an "illegal alien," you would find me less gullible, or at least less able to be convinced of such a nebulous crime.


Sessions: ‘A large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of d

ollars to the debt over time’:
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, issued a statement following today’s hearing on
the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal:

“I remain concerned about the purposefully rushed timetable for moving
this immigration bill. As Senator Lee observed, good legislation
rarely results when Congress tries to rush through a single, massive,
comprehensive proposal to cover many complex and far-reaching issues.
Indeed, none of the witnesses had been able to read this just released

Today’s hearing, featuring only two witnesses, began the conversation
on the most critical concern relating to this legislation: how it will
impact American workers, both in terms of their wages and their taxes.
This bill proposes not only to legalize those here illegally now, but
also to dramatically increase the supply of low-skill legal

At a time when Social Security and Medicare are already facing huge
unfunded liabilities, studies show a sharp rise in low-skill foreign
workers and their families (including older relatives) will accelerate
the programs’ insolvency, not strengthen them. Those legalized will be
net beneficiaries—not contributors—to these programs.

Wages will also be negatively impacted. We have 90 million Americans
outside the labor force and record welfare usage. Clearly, there is
not a shortage of available labor to businesses. Wages for working
Americans have fallen for well over a decade. As Peter Kirsanow, a
member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, explained at the hearing:
‘We have an abundant supply of low-skilled labor waiting for jobs...
What we will do by regularizing a significant cohort—millions of
individuals—is leap-frogging those individuals… Due regard must be
given to the fact that we have an over-abundance of people who are not
working today.’”:


We hold these truths to be

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you do not agree with this principle maybe you should not be in this country, for this is the principle this country was founded.

you forgot this part, very important

it would be like taking the gold standard out of paper money.

amendment XIV.17
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.