Libertarians and immigration.
Submitted by hocaltar on Mon, 11/12/2007 - 11:49Many Libertarians agree that open immigration is fair and beneficial to the United States. With the current state of our country, I could not disagree more. In fact, I have read so many threads on this issue that I am putting down a couple of points that I would like explained to me. I may be wrong and I am open to changing my mind; however, I admit that it is going to be a tough sell.
1. In the preamble to the constitution it is mandated that the government will provide for the common defence. How can we reasonably expect the government to comply with this if we don't know who is coming into our country? In this time, one person infected with small pox comes across our border and all of a sudden we could be facing an epidemic. If you don't believe me look at the resurgence of bed-bugs sweeping the across the U.S.
2. The more people here the lower the wages for all. This is economics 101, simple supply and demand. In a time when Real Income is falling should we really consider dropping the wages of the American people lower?
3. (The humane factor) Another typical arguement is the, 'would you really deny immigration to refugees from Somalia, Nigeria, etc...?' While I recognize their wantingness to escape opression and seek a better life, I also recognize that we have a system of laws. We have to follow the law, so should immigrants.
Please remember that American Expats Live in Other Countries
I understand people having a problem with criminal or lazy freeloader types crossing borders and taxing resources...but my understanding ends when we start talking about the educated middle, upper and upper middle class of each country wanting the ability to, for instance, stay with a girlfriend or boyfriend for 1 or 2 years in their country.
Political correctness will dictate that anti-immigration laws against lower class entrants, or entrants from an "undesirable" country, will hurt the upper middle class entrants of all other countries all the same.
Dr. Paul needs to note that there are a few million Americans who do not live in the United States. We are called Expats and we vote Republican most of the time (until Bush started to hate us for no apparent reason - some astronomically dense evangelicals probably told him we must be all strange criminals on the lam and sex tourists if we live overseas).
I live in Europe where being foreign carries disadvantages. Each country has a rule that a foreigner can only live there 90 days out of each 180. Russia just switched to this rule as well 2 weeks ago...to take revenge against American and EU laws that persecute Russians for wanting to hang out in their countries while maybe taking white collar professional jobs or living wth a western significant other.
So what happens is that rich Americans have to set themselves up in nice apartments for 90 days in one country and then switch domicile countries. Poor Americans are screwed over in that they are caught up in so much paperwork that they lose their mobility and freedom.
When the US Immigration turns the screws on Europeans and Russians, the Europeans and Russians turn the screws on Americans over here.
It's really simple.
Follow the Law or get out. Period.
I believe America's greatness is due, in large part, to our diversity. We are the melting pot of the World and it has made us great.
However, We must insist that immigrants to our nation follow our laws, beginning with becoming legal Citizens. It really is that simple.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
Bed bugs?
Try Morgellon's Disease and Leprosy if you really want to be scared.
An Intergrated world is a peaceful world
1) Check into the Libertarian idea of issuing a Blue Card at the border for security reason.
2) The USA is not one big Union. Indeed we do all have social security numbers scratched into our forheads, but so far we Americans where FREE to hire and fire who we wanted. Read the Constitution, in no place is it the job of government to keep your wages high. By the same sort of reasoning, one could argue we should limit couples to one child only, thus increasing wages. Or we can be do as the democrats and just legislate a high wage for everyone, how does $50 per hour sound? As you said, its economics 101. Freedom 101 says keep your hands off my business, who I hire and fire, and I will keep my hands off yours.
3) As long as people come here, respect property of everyone, rent or buy a home, what is your beef? If they come here with the assistance of church charities, whats your beef?
4) Economics 202 is the science that teaches ...its all counter intuitive. A society with a growing population is a good thing....Read the late great professor Julian L Simon, The Ultimate Resourse for facts on immigration and the economics professor Ken Schooland as to why it is always better to have more people, not less, for the economy.
5) Perhaps not you, but most antimexican patriots that I have met have a bias, an anti-ethnic thing as the real deep down reason they oppose the government created problem called "illegal immigration". Its a fear of ethnic dilution, an unease with another people who do not look or speak like us. Some crazies here in Arizona email me that "these people should be shot on the spot". Yeah, thats called murder and what this idiot wants is genocide against all brown people, here and in Iraq. "illegal immigration" is a government created problem in the same sense that the "Drug war" is a government created problem. The problem is that the government does not identify who is crossing the boarder, if they pose a national or local threat or not.
6) On what basis and what right does the law say 80,000 immigrants from South America Ok, but 80,001 not ok? On what right did YOU grant the government to act on your behalf to allow in only 5,561 Russians, 2100 Frenchman, and 3,000 Japanese? Who comes up with these crazy numbers other than the wacked out INS?
7) As someone who has traveled the world I can tell you that most of the world does NOT want to join our little Country Club called the USA. Only the desperate, the poor, those without anywhere else to go. Contrary to US propaganda, the USA is NOT the "best country in the world" ..."with the highest standard of living". That was true in 1965, not true in 2005. FYI, the rest of the world has just past the 50 percentile in acheiving middle class status. The worlds poor is at an all time low and shrinking. The USA is in decline, its factories have long since been hollowed out, as Ron Paul knows all to well, has been living on credit and borrowed time for 20 some years. This country can not even privatize the postal system....do you think Ron Paul as President could do much more than than pull the troops home?
8) The America that we need to accept is partly the vision of the dreaded NAU. What is wrong with a continental freeway where upon I could jump on it, head south safely all the way across the Panama Canal, through Colombia through Brazil to the tip of Argintina? What is wrong with getting interconnected economically and culturally to Central and South America? The USA will need to do so if it wants to retain its preeminince. With only 350 million people, vs China's billion, India's billion, the world having joined the ranks of the middle class for the first time in history, this means we will have less and less influence, and in fact, we will soon be following the fashions in Bejing, dressing with the new colors from India, dancing to the music made cool by a billion teenagers who a thousand ways more with the internet than we do now.
9) Keeping our Constitution, enhancing our equal rights to individual Life, Liberty and Property, maintaining our legal sovergnty while at the same time connecting and trading and immigrating and emmigrating to the rest of the world peacefully, now that is an America that I can get behind.
10) Don't you find it hilariously SAD and yet FUNNY. Here we have the Alex Jones of the world screaming of a comming Police State, the NAU, and then at the same time, as if not a thought of irony, they sceam against illegal immigration for "breaking the law", using fake social security numbers, working for cash, not paying the income tax..... mmm....sounds good....and they Scream for BORDER WALL ???? Mmm think about that, Police State is comming, and they want a Border Wall to Keep "them" free unregulated un documented souls "out" and to keep us ss# stamped regulated income tax slaves "in". Do they not realize that with Immigration you get the right to emmigrate? An open and free society, or do I repeat myself, must have a free flow of people and goods in order to be "free" and "open". Show me a society that is not open, and I will show you a society that is not free.
Invest in Liberty, one Apartment deal at a time with me. Get a check each month as a passive investor, just ask me how.
My position is based on
My position is based on respect for the law. I know of no nation on earth with completely open borders, or with no official process for becoming a citizen. Such a policy would be insane. Suggesting that the border should be left wide open, smacks of world government quackery.
I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants from *anywhere* coming to America. They can pour in by the millions for all I care -- as long as they do so LEGALLY.
That's my beef with illegal aliens from Mexico. They are *not* "immigrants." They are aliens, and they are illegal. World government nuts like to call them immigrants because it's softer and elicits sympathy. "Oh, my ancestors were immigrants, so how can I be against it?" Likewise with "undocumented workers." "Oh, they're just trying to feed their families, and they're doing work Americans won't do." What a load of BS.
Call them what they are, and welcome with open arms those who don't thumb their noses at our laws. Otherwise, show no sympathy for anyone who trespasses on our property. Show them the door with a forceful hand, like you would any other home invader. That's my immigration policy.
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Please be very careful about
Please be very careful about the big-L/little-l distinction when talking about the "libertarian position." Yes, the Libertarian Party (big-L) has a loose and (in my opinion) dangerous immigration platform. This is the sole reason why I cannot count myself as a member of that party. Their position would allow the private owners of border property to determine national immigration policy, which is insane. I'm as far from a collectivist as anyone I know, but I think there are *some* areas where we do need "public" land, and that would include the actual border lands. If you can't point to a border and say "here begins the US," then why bother having a US? Pure anarchists would of course say that we shouldn't have a US, or states, or even municipal governments. I don't bend that far, personally.
The libertarian *ideology* (little-l) is something else altogether. While the private property views are pretty much universal, the ideology doesn't really address the question from a national perspective. Once you open that kettle of fish, you get into the question of whether your rights as a property owner allow you to give free passage to immigrants who then violate my rights. This is similar to the libertarian conundrum on abortion.
This is just another reason why Ron Paul is my ideal candidate: he is a solid little-l libertarian on the core "don't tread on me" points, and his position on a strong immigration policy and border security does not violate those core principles -- it supports them. People should be free to emigrate to the US without hurdles, but they must obey the rule of law. Otherwise, you show them the door as you would any trespasser.
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
My current plan to change need toimmigrate into foreign workers.
printed in Omaha World Herald on Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Try Carrots for Sending Foreign Workers Home
Bush’s proposal for immigration reform was expensive, unworkable and punitive. As Gore Vidal states, nothing can keep workers out with the disparity of salaries to the South. Since its human nature to act in our own self interest, as even Mother Teresa benefited from personal satisfaction, carrots work better than sticks. There is no ONE solution but here is a proposal that might just make the illegal crossings controllable.
Even the term immigrant implies foreign workers’ goal is to stay. As most love their language, music, culture and flag, why not allow foreign workers free access to the US job market for 8/9 months/year to be lured home by a rebate of withheld taxes. When consulting with Nova Gas in Calgary, refunds based on sales tax receipts are sent home to foreign workers.
Some benefits (carrots) for the foreign workers:
- ‘Opt out’ of future Social Security benefits and receive withheld Payroll tax including employer match as a rebate.
- Don’t use Medicare/Medicaid services and get a rebate.
- At $7.50/hr for 40 weeks close to $1800 in rebate is a powerful carrot waiting at home.
- Back home, their village benefits from the influx of capital for commerce creating new jobs.
- The ability to cross legally (after a background check) dries up the black market for coyotes who sometimes put people at risk of death..
- Funds go further based on a lower cost of living. For instance, a child’s braces which cost thousands in the USA are only hundreds at home.
- Easy access for emergencies and the requirement to live at home a few months each year means your kids are not abandoned with grandparents for years at a time.
Some benefits for citizens:
- Since only qualified foreign workers receive a rebate, workers with nothing to hide gladly pay for health and criminal background checks at the border.
- A Mexican roofer in Michigan returns home each winter, collects the rebate, and may cross for funerals or births, so is less likely to start a new family in Michigan.
- When more Spanish speaking children stay home, the strain on our public schools is reduced.
- The need to punish employers diminishes as working on-the-books is required for a rebate. Again, foreign workers, in their self interest, demand it.
- With even 2/3 voluntary compliance, the job of immigration enforcement, raids and deportation become manageable. Foreign workers can s cross at border stations reducing illegal crossings.
- Encouraging migrants to return home for a rebate quickly returns our sovereignty.
- The return of diseases and the influx of criminals are reduced as immigration services focus on illegal entry.
- Real Immigrants waiting for legal access to citizenship again move to the top of the list. The term immigrant should be reserved for those like my Brazilian son, who came for a year of high school in the 1990’s, legally returned from Brazil for his MBA, legally got a great job and has two cars, a dog and a beautiful wife and child in their new home. He deserves the term immigrant.
Punishing employers adds burdens to our producers and should be minimized. "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Once legal foreign workers are available, raids on packing plants weed out the sick and criminals. Employers can no longer complain their workforce is being denied to them.
Most foreign workers from south of the border earn low wages and would qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit contributing little to our treasury under Bush's plan or as a citizen. There is no refund of Income Taxes withheld.
Immigration is, and should be encouraged. President Bush's immigration bill, paid for by earmarks (using our tax dollars), was proposed only to remove the issue from the 08 election campaign. Hopefully our Senators saw the flaws and will discuss alternatives.
Ron Paul is for Legal Immigration
Regardless of what the liberterian viewpoint is I have heard Ron Paul say in an interview that he is for Legal Immigration and he is for protecting the borders. I agree with a lot of liberterian viewpoints, but not open borders. From what I see and hear from Ron, he does not agree with it also. He does want to remove the benefits that illegal immigrants come here for. Sorry if you were looking for a rebuttal. I don't think we need to track everyone in the country to control this, or have a national ID. How about we let the states enforce the existing laws.
Thank you!
I like me some FREEDOM!!!
Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to zbalac's "A Libertarian Response".
Get Adjusted: From the Womb to the Tomb!
good questions
1. by your common defence argument, would you bypass Congress to go to war in that name? how can we be safe if we don't pick and choose who to attack ASAP?
2. what's wrong with lower wages? NOTHING. the only thing that's wrong about it is that people are at the same time taxed and many are out of legal jobs because competition isn't legally recognized, while others are on welfare. IF (and ONLY IF) we can take away any government interference of the market will be be OK with more immigration and lower wages.
3. Agreed, just because it is not their fault, doesn't mean we have to pay for them coming. And in most parts, average Americans DON'T SEE what they're paying if they are at all for immigrants coming, but for those who are affected, it's very real. We do not have room for the whole world, and there's no line we can draw to say who's not in enough pain to qualify to come, the only line we can draw now is NO MORE UNTIL WE NEED MORE.
It's one area that needs clarification
The libertarian position is generally one of open borders. If one takes that at face value it misses a lot of the details that are very important.
For instance, open borders are only feasible with the lack of a welfare state. Therefor, remove the welfare state and the borderds can be open.
Second, unsecure borders are a national security risk. With reports in the past of MS-16 coyoting Al-Qaeda agents over the TX border through the porous fence and the Mexican military actually facilitating such things (and even being across the line a few times!), the risk is pretty clear.
Third, the Constitution mandates as a power of the federal government the power to establish uniform naturalization. By its very nature that includes immigration, both legal and illegal. Therefore that is a proper use of the federal government, libertarian principles aside.
Fourth, good fences make good neighbors.
Fifth, proper strict enforcement is needed and is most definitely not the norm. We don't need to have our property rights violated by illegal trespassers and squatters.
Sixth, those who are illegal immigrants have no idea what it means to complete the naturalization process and the sense of accomplishment and pride that comes with becoming a legal part of the whole. Their loss. I have seen that first hand a quarter-century ago and have never forgotten it.
This is one area where the LP has it wrong, and Dr. Paul has it right.
RP has it right.
I completely agree Tannim.
Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until t
sorry
I just don't like any terrorist arguments
1. the fact nothing has happened since 9/11 should mean they've done nothing even if they've been here
2. no proof they're any more dangerous than American gangsters
this doesn't mean we can't enforce our borders "JUST BECAUSE WE WANT TO". You don't need to lie that your nieghbor is a rapist to say he can't step on your lawn, similarly we can give any stupid excuse to enforce our border SIMPLY because it is OUR BORDER. Fearmongering is unnecessary if not counterproductive.
Racism
It's about racism, not terrorism. When's the last time you heard about the plan to build a fence on the Canadian border?
When was the last time
Canadians were flocking in droves into the country. It's not about racism it far more complicated than that. Although it certainly makes for an easy answer. Terrorism is a risk and they have increased security at the Canadian boarder. In addition, it is harder for a terrorist to enter Canada than it is Mexico. They are a richer country with more resourses to screen and check Visas.
Way too complicated to sum it up in a word. BTW what percentage of our prisons contain illegals? of those...how many from Mexico Vs. Canada?
--SOB--
--SOB--
Illegal vs Legal: framework needed for discussion
We need to be clear about why illegal immigration is what I understand RP to be talking about to secure the borders. There are plenty of people who wants to come to America legally, and I know some of them has been waiting for years. I heard in some cases, it can take a generation (~20+) years to get approved, if at all.
If we have illegal immigration rampant, those prospective immigrants who abide by the US immigration law will be prejudiced.
So, let's make the discussions clear on what "immigration" we are discussing: illegal or legal; and let's take it from there. Failing this would muddle this discussion and divide us instead of galvanize RP support.
better said
better said
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
When CEOs are losing jobs to
When CEOs are losing jobs to illegal aliens ,you will hear the borders slam shut.
Good thing we wont have to wait that long Rron Paul 2008-2016
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
It is within the scope of
It is within the scope of libertarian belief to support a protected/secure border... What I'd like to see is a controlled border, where we KNOW who is coming in, and have a record of who was let in, and where we can reject those who might be "dangerous." But one where we ultimately don't put an arbitrary quota on how many people we let in.
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
Arbitrary quota
The number is not really arbitrary. It is the number that will not cause to overwhelm this country in the coming years regarding pollution, resources, etc. The "legal" number is now around a million. The old number, which is closer to where it should be, is around 200,000.
I don't have link here, but if you go back and look at photoshopwiz's links on immigration, you will understand just how damaging this problem is. It is under the thread of "what do you disagree with Ron Paul about," or something like that. Please view them.....a real eye opener.
Bob W., Naples, FL
FREE MARKET... It's
FREE MARKET...
It's arbitrary. The market will determine the need.
Immigration policy is a form of protectionism that is incompatible with free market libertarianism.
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
Free Market
This is why I am glad Ron is running as a Republican. This country needs protection and therefore protectionism is quite good in this instance. Problem is, we don't protect nearly enough. Since we know how corrupt politicians are, and they do not protect borders, and make excuses as to why they can't protect them, we can only assume this is good for corporatism and very bad for America and Americans. Otherwise, there would be no massive illegal immigration. As always, follow the money trail! And the dwindling money trail of the typical American. By all means, let them all in and finish off what's left of America.
Bob W., Naples, FL
It depends on the definition of Immigration.
I would say I would welcome anyone who believes in the values of independence, prudence, thrift, and hard work. And they must integrate themselves into our culture - it requires very little, but speaking english is a must. My grandparents learned, so can anyone who wants to be a citizen. Trying to be a pork merchant in Iran would be offensive, but so is trying to bring third world despotism here. We ask very little, but we also ask that you don't ask for anything but liberty. If you don't want to live free - with all the responsibility it includes, do not come here.
That is my "libertarian" idea of immigration.
They should apply and follow the law - that takes care of #1.
They might also start businesses bringing their unique strengths and employ more people. The mistake here is one of a static model, unless you agree that raising taxes, even to 100% will raise revenue. If a brilliant doctor wants to come here and he might do better than one of the AMA monopoly union members, yes, prices would come down, but that is a good thing. If someone is a better engineer than I am, they are entitled to more money - I can either improve and beat them, or be happy with the compensation for my laziness - sloth is no more a virtue in a citizen than an immigrant.
If we decide there ought to be refugee status (think of "displaced persons" during WW2) - consider if there was a disaster in Mexico just over the border and thousands were homeless and starving, we might welcome them for the duration of the crisis - then send them back when it is over not unlike neighboring states helped Katrina victims. Individuals would provide aid, but the federal government would still enforce the law. If the problem is one of a tyrant, individuals can provide arms or whatever they need OVER THERE to help. Mexico included. I'm for sending every illegal back to Mexico with a gun and ammo to overthrow their evil dictator and install a constitutional republic like ours so they can enjoy the benefits of liberty and they will have a good start on 2nd amendment rights. If they wish their home country to stay as it is, then they can enjoy or suffer what it lacks or provides.
Forcing someone to speak a language is not liberty
And anyway, the free market already provides plenty of incentive to learn English, so there's just no reason to use force.
I don't feel people should
I don't feel people should be forced to learn English, but I don't feel that we should be forced to accomodate people who don't speak English. I support an official language which eliminated the need to make any documents available in other languages.
But in private enterprise, you're 100% correct. The free market will dictate.
Agreed
How much of our tax dollars go to every bohemoth FED organization to put everthing in both English and Espanol. Case in point. When my wife finally got her Citizenship in DC the immigration building's intercom system would tell you the next number in both Spanish and English. As I looked around the crowded INS there was a whole melting pot of different cultures represented there. What about them I thought. How many more dollars should the goverment spend to make sure the Asians and Africans and Russian et al are accomodated for? None...we never should have started down that path to begin with.
--SOB--
--SOB--
My View
I'm a Libertarian and don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. That said, I am backing RP 100% and am spreading the word in Wisconsin. RP's stance on immigration works well since he is running in the GOP primary. Also, many Union type people will agree with RP on this one as well.
I am not worried one iota about illegal aliens, becaue this is merely a crime invented by the State. But our immigration laws are ridiculous and it should be easier for to get here legally.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
"I am not worried one iota about illegal aliens"
That might be because you're 2000 miles away from where the problem supposedly is.
Although I'm for opening the borders if we ever get rid of the welfare state.
It isn't immigration. It is
It isn't immigration. It is an invasion. I know Ron Paul's plan would put a stop to this. By eventually eliminating the welfare system and enforcing existing laws , foreign nationals wouldn't even want to come here.
"Might does not make right"
good thing is
if you get rid of the welfare state, you don't need to enforce any laws.
because if they came here just to work instead of any other incentive. and Americans here have no incentive for not working, they'd fight each other over jobs, and that'll be all the enforcement we need!
Survival of Fittest, THAT'S FREEDOM.