tight borders = unlibertarian and unconstitutional

[Rylick]

This is one issue that has been a long time on my mind. The idea of tight USborders is not really what the founding fahters intended to have. The USA has been and is still an immigration country. As it's written on the fundament of the statue of liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Even under the economic aspect why should immigration hurt the USeconomy ?
We all accept the fact that the workingmarket is just a normal market like every other market. And we all accept that marketinterventions like customs destroy the free market. So why making a difference here ? It's not like "Mexicans are going to take your jobs" how neo-cons like to see it. If there are unoccupied jobs in the US, that simply means there are not enought resources in the homeland so you have to take foreign resources, no matter if these are low, middle or high income jobs. They all contribute to american society.
So why does Ron Paul endorse such liberal measures ?

[nandnor]

nvm

[Stary Hickory]

How about stopping the unconstitutional welfare state first then we can talk. I am sick of people wanting to allow anyone in this country and yet simultaneously pay almost no attention to the institutionalized violent welfare state that is attracting people here to exploit it.

When there was nothing to offer but freedom and opportunity that was different. The Democrats are already salivating at the idea of adding another constituency to their doles. Maybe that sounds partisan, but really this has been a stratgey of this particualr party for a long time. The exploitation of blacks was fully realized under progressives.

We have a mob government ruled by mob rule. Had we a constituional republic with a functioning constituion that GARANTEED our liberties and rights then immigration would not be a problem at all.

[paulitics]

Bull crap. A borderless country is the globalist agenda, not the founding father's. I am not a North American, but an American.

However, building a wall, rfid chips, and a thuggish police state is not the answer. It is very simple, end the welfare state, and enforce the law by going after employers who break it.

[Rylick]

How about stopping the unconstitutional welfare state first then we can talk. I am sick of people wanting to allow anyone in this country and yet simultaneously pay almost no attention to the institutionalized violent welfare state that is attracting people here to exploit it.

When there was nothing to offer but freedom and opportunity that was different. The Democrats are already salivating at the idea of adding another constituency to their doles. Maybe that sounds partisan, but really this has been a stratgey of this particualr party for a long time. The exploitation of blacks was fully realized under progressives.

We have a mob government ruled by mob rule. Had we a constituional republic with a functioning constituion that GARANTEED our liberties and rights then immigration would not be a problem at all.

Yes you are right. That was something I felt to add but then I deleted it. Of course wellfare system is unconstitutional as well. Don't get me wrong I am not talking about people coming to the USA and enjoying the wellfare state. I am talking about people who want to go to the USA and work. Working people are no burden to society. They contribute their productivity to the labour pool of America.
This additional value is no harm for the USA.

To make this clear: I am not talking about a wide open state with no borders. But cut the greencard crap. If I want to live the american way of life and if I want to contribute to the american society I shouldn't take part in a lottery.

@nandnor: I can't be a patriot...I'm from europe ;)

[Stary Hickory]

Yes you are right. That was something I felt to add but then I deleted it. Of course wellfare system is unconstitutional as well. Don't get me wrong I am not talking about people coming to the USA and enjoying the wellfare state. I am talking about people who want to go to the USA and work. Working people are no burden to society. They contribute their productivity to the labour pool of America.
This additional value is no harm for the USA.

To make this clear: I am not talking about a wide open state with no borders. But cut the greencard crap. If I want to live the american way of life and if I want to contribute to the american society I shouldn't take part in a lottery.

@nandnor: I can't be a patriot...I'm from europe ;)

Well then I agree with you under these conditions. Hard working imigrants seeking opportunity and freedom and an escape from statism was what made America great.

The problem we have now is one political party hell bent on promising anyone anywhere(even foreign nationals) the property of Americans for political support. It's an imigration nightmare.

[noxagol]

I am not a North American, but an American

I am not American, I am simply me.

[silentshout]

I am not American, I am simply me.

+1 ^^

[AuH20]

Unfortunately, being held accountable for large punitive damages and/or long jail sentence for defending one person's private property and rights are unlibertarian and unconsitutional as well. ;)

[TastyWheat]

I'm all for open borders so long as the process to become a citizen (with voting privileges) is just as arduous as it is now.

[Ninja Homer]

I am not a North American, but an American.

So is a Mexican... and a Canadian, and even an Argentinian. Try US national or US citizen, or even whatever state you're from... I'm a Minnesotan.

But yes, the real answer lies in ending all the benefits to illegal immigrants.

[Son of Liberty 2]

This is one issue that has been a long time on my mind. The idea of tight USborders is not really what the founding fahters intended to have. The USA has been and is still an immigration country. As it's written on the fundament of the statue of liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
The founding fathers were white racists. Isn't refuse garbage?


This law limited naturalization to aliens who were "free white persons" and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians, as well as women.

Naturalization Act of 1790 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790)

[sofia]

That rubbish on the Statue of Liberty was written by a leftist Zionist named Emma Lazurus.

Please dont quote that "wretched refuse" bullshit as some sort of sacred writ.

[jack555]

This is one issue that has been a long time on my mind. The idea of tight USborders is not really what the founding fahters intended to have. The USA has been and is still an immigration country. As it's written on the fundament of the statue of liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Even under the economic aspect why should immigration hurt the USeconomy ?
We all accept the fact that the workingmarket is just a normal market like every other market. And we all accept that marketinterventions like customs destroy the free market. So why making a difference here ? It's not like "Mexicans are going to take your jobs" how neo-cons like to see it. If there are unoccupied jobs in the US, that simply means there are not enought resources in the homeland so you have to take foreign resources, no matter if these are low, middle or high income jobs. They all contribute to american society.
So why does Ron Paul endorse such liberal measures ?


A big part of it is this.

Its not about illegal immigration, its about tax payers paying welfare and medical bills for illegal immigrants. Eliminate the welfare and you will solve a great deal of the conflict.

The second part is that many of those illegally coming in are criminals who care nothing for our natural rights or our country.


edit- Many here are small government libertarians, not anarchists. I like to think of small government as the minimum amount of government it takes to keep things running smoothly with the government mainly protecting our natural rights. A necessary part of this government may be keeping illegal immigrants out depending on the effect they would have (or are having) on our country.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is one issue that has been a long time on my mind. The idea of tight US borders is not really what the founding fahters intended to have. The USA has been and is still an immigration country. As it's written on the fundament of the statue of liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."


Just for clarity, that quote on the Statue of Liberty was written by a poet in 1883. It was not written by any of the Founding Fathers.

[papajohn56]

Workers issues and immigration aside, a "tight" border for the sake of protecting our citizens from the drug war is fine by me. I'd rather have our troops be brought home and placed on our own border. Obviously we should legalize, but in the mean time even if we did, cartel violence would still be going on, there wouldn't be an instant drop.

[mikem317]

Immigration into the United States doesn't hurt the US economy. Historically, most migrants came to the United States to escape their draconian governments and establish roots in the home of the free. Let them come and go as they please.

The problem is the socialized entitlement systems. They need to be demolished.

At any rate, most of the people I run into that are anti-immigrant, tend to preface their arguments "I'm all for legal immigration" which is just a fancy way of saying "I'm a closet racist".

[mikem317]

Workers issues and immigration aside, a "tight" border for the sake of protecting our citizens from the drug war is fine by me. I'd rather have our troops be brought home and placed on our own border. Obviously we should legalize, but in the mean time even if we did, cartel violence would still be going on, there wouldn't be an instant drop.

That "drug war" was manufactured by the US government's anti-economic polices.

[FrankRep]

Tight Borders = Constitutional

Jack McManus on the Immigration Invasion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8777665565344843988#)

[South Park Fan]

Tight Borders = Constitutional

Jack McManus on the Immigration Invasion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8777665565344843988#)

Where in Article I, Section 8 does Congress have the authority to prevent immigration into this country?

[bchavez]

vote in the poll here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=241788

[FrankRep]

Where in Article I, Section 8 does Congress have the authority to prevent immigration into this country?

Article 4, Section 4: Obligations of the United States

-- Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_2:_Protection_from_invasion_and_domestic_viole nce)

[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Illegal Immigration is an Invasion.

[The Patriot]

I am not American, I am simply me.

"More seriously, we must not fall into a nihilist trap. While only individuals exist, individuals do not exist as isolated and hermetically sealed atoms. Statists traditionally charge libertarians and individualists with being "atomistic individualists," and the charge, one hopes, has always been incorrect and misconceived. Individuals may be the only reality, but they influence each other, past and present, and all individuals grow up in a common culture and language. (This does not imply that they may not, as adults, rebel and challenge and exchange that culture for another.)

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised. It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious. Let us never forget the great libertarian Randolph Bourne's analysis of the crucial distinction between "the nation" (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and "the State" (the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians), and of his important conclusion that one may be a true patriot of one's nation or country while – and even for that very reason – opposing the State that rules over it."

Murray Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

[South Park Fan]

Article 4, Section 4: Obligations of the United States

-- Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_2:_Protection_from_invasion_and_domestic_viole nce)

[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Illegal Immigration is an Invasion.

Invasion in that context, alongside domestic violence, would most likely refer to an armed force wreaking havoc and intent on conquest, essentially foreign violence as opposed to the domestic violence mentioned immediately afterward. Somehow I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have thought of someone crossing a river to mow someone's lawn as a crime on par with domestic violence, especially considering that there were few immigration restrictions until the 1880s.

EDIT: Also, just out of curiosity, since you believe that the free movement of individuals constitutes an "invasion", would you have opposed the immigration of Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, and Chinese during the 19th century, when there was no welfare state and the main reason for such opposition was due to anti-Catholicism, zenophobia, anti-Semitism, and racism?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Article 4, Section 4: Obligations of the United States

-- Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_2:_Protection_from_invasion_and_domestic_viole nce)

[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Illegal Immigration is an Invasion.

That is an appalling position from an organization that preaches all wars should be declared. It would establish unconstitutional police powers, exceed the well established limited jurisdiction of federal government, and usurp state sovereignty. Furthermore it does not appear the legislature of Arizona has made application for protection, quite the opposite.

[FrankRep]

That is an appalling position from an organization that preaches all wars should be declared. It would establish unconstitutional police powers, exceed the well established limited jurisdiction of federal government, and usurp state sovereignty. Furthermore it does not appear the legislature of Arizona has made application for protection, quite the opposite.

Arizona, the state, has the right to protect itself from the invasion of illegal immigrants.

[South Park Fan]

Arizona, the state, has the right to protect itself from the invasion of illegal immigrants.

So when your ancestors immigrated to this country, were they invading? Does that not make you yourself part of the "invasion"? Also, were East Germans who risked their lives to escape from the Iron Curtain invading? Was the S.S. St. Louis a band of Jewish invaders?

[AuH20]

Invasion in that context, alongside domestic violence, would most likely refer to an armed force wreaking havoc and intent on conquest, essentially foreign violence as opposed to the domestic violence mentioned immediately afterward. Somehow I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have thought of someone crossing a river to mow someone's lawn as a crime on par with domestic violence, especially considering that there were few immigration restrictions until the 1880s.

EDIT: Also, just out of curiosity, since you believe that the free movement of individuals constitutes an "invasion", would you have opposed the immigration of Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, and Chinese during the 19th century, when there was no welfare state and the main reason for such opposition was due to anti-Catholicism, zenophobia, anti-Semitism, and racism?

I'm almost 100% sure that the number of current mexicans and OTMS who have illegally emigrated over the last 3 decades EXCEED any of those past immigration waves COMBINED!!! This is a sheer numbers problem thanks in large part to proximity.

[JeNNiF00F00]

So when your ancestors immigrated to this country, were they invading? Does that not make you yourself part of the "invasion"? Also, were East Germans who risked their lives to escape from the Iron Curtain invading? Was the S.S. St. Louis a band of Jewish invaders?

This! Technically its their land anyways, and we are occupying it. So how can someone invade an occupation of what was their land in the first place?

[peacepotpaul]

if we don't believe in having boundaries, why shouldn't we expand our government to Mexico and Iraq?

How can you reconcile the idea that invading, occupying a foreign country is wrong, spreading our funds and force is wasteful, with not having borders to limit our government's power?

[peacepotpaul]

Arizona, the state, has the right to protect itself from the invasion of illegal immigrants.

does the State of Arizona get to decide who is a legal or illegal immigrant?

[papajohn56]

That "drug war" was manufactured by the US government's anti-economic polices.

Of course it was - but it doesn't mean it would end overnight if legalized.

[Brian4Liberty]

This! Technically its their land anyways, and we are occupying it. So how can someone invade an occupation of what was their land in the first place?

Let's talk about Southern California. Who's land was it? American Indians? Spaniards? Californios? Based on what "technicality"? The eight month reign of the "first Mexican Empire"? The law usually applies to the current owner.

[FrankRep]

does the State of Arizona get to decide who is a legal or illegal immigrant?

Arizona has spoken:

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

[John Taylor]

does the State of Arizona get to decide who is a legal or illegal immigrant?

Under the law it's the federal government. The state of AZ is merely enforcing the existing federal law that's been on the books 50 years and that the open-borders Hugo-Chavez guys have prevented the federal government from enforcing.

[South Park Fan]

Arizona has spoken:

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

So when 70% of the population supported the Iraq War, that justified it too?

[peacepotpaul]

Arizona has spoken:

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

so, they're only using the federal government's measures and decisions as to what makes a "legal immigrant", and enforce it. if they disagree, could they or should they enforce it selectively and arbitrarily?

[peacepotpaul]

Under the law it's the federal government. The state of AZ is merely enforcing the existing federal law that's been on the books 50 years and that the open-borders Hugo-Chavez guys have prevented the federal government from enforcing.

this may sound like hair splitting, but are they then in effect enforcing laws outside of their jurisdiction (State enforcing federal)? Or merely assisting the federal government via compliance and cooperation? Or are the actually introducing a new law that in effect makes federal immigration law, mirrored and copied as State law?

[Vessol]

Getting rid of Mexicans > Liberty

[Don't Tread on Mike]

solution. make legal immigration easier. then they can take it upon themselves to learn english just like my grandparents had to. if it ever comes to the point where i be forced to learn spanish or my children are then ima be pissssed.

[torchbearer]

solution. make legal immigration easier. then they can take it upon themselves to learn english just like my grandparents had to. if it ever comes to the point where i be forced to learn spanish or my children are then ima be pissssed.

the solution actually is easier immigration. then there is no reason to sneak in. if the process was simply to make a record of each person here and to make sure you aren't wanted for crimes. then come and find your place. produce and make a better life.

[peacepotpaul]

solution. make legal immigration easier. then they can take it upon themselves to learn english just like my grandparents had to. if it ever comes to the point where i be forced to learn spanish or my children are then ima be pissssed.

how is that not amnesty or open borders rephrased?

[peacepotpaul]

the solution actually is easier immigration. then there is no reason to sneak in. if the process was simply to make a record of each person here and to make sure you aren't wanted for crimes. then come and find your place. produce and make a better life.

I fail to see where you two disagree, you're both saying "let them in"

[mikem317]

Of course it was - but it doesn't mean it would end overnight if legalized.

True.

One of the federal government's discharged powers is to protect the border. That comes irrespective of any "war", contrived or real, that exists on our nation's borders.

[mikem317]

the solution actually is easier immigration. then there is no reason to sneak in. if the process was simply to make a record of each person here and to make sure you aren't wanted for crimes. then come and find your place. produce and make a better life.

You could be wanted for some "trumped up" crimes though.

A person should only be disallowed entry if they are a bona fide threat.

[peacepotpaul]

admins, is it time to Hot this topic?

[ChooseLiberty]

Do my borders look tight in these pants?