On political strategy and immigration

[Imperial]

Notice the massive paleocon versus libertarian war we have going on right now? The massive dividing issue is immigration. The easiest way to secure the border in the short-term is something like Arizona's law, which is seen as upholding federal law. However, civil libertarians think that these are unjust means, and the law should not permit this.

We have a legitimate ideological dispute. But this also means we must tread carefully.

Notice when in 2006 "comprehensive immigration reform" was pushed, the Republicans lost BIG. Immigration is a wedge issue- it forces Republicans to either isolate the Hispanic vote or a significant portion of the conservative vote. Democrats don't really have this problem, as conservatives are not a most significant constituency of the Democratic coalition.

However, many might be surprised to realize we have a similar divide. When Ron Paul ran the anti-immigration ads in New Hampshire, it probably turned off a significant portion of civil libertarians. While in states like Texas our numbers may be more inclined to err on border security, in New Hampshire our numbers are probably more likely to be in favor of a more liberal policy (in the "open" sense of the term).

So, what is the solution? Remember, we still see eye to eye on foreign war, on most civil liberties issues, on fiscal issues, on government mandates, and on SO many other issues.

But the flame wars we are currently experiencing must be pushed aside come November. Indeed, we probably shouldn't let it become too much of an issue in certain primaries as well. Our candidates, whether libertarian or paleocon, are 90% better than the status quo. Don't let perfect get in the way of good.

[low preference guy]

Don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Since when the violation of rights of innocent American citizens is "good"?

[Imperial]

Since when the violation of rights of innocent American citizens is "good"?

Im not saying it is good or bad. (My personal opinion on the legislation is that it is dangerous for our civil liberties).

However, look at most politicians in DC. They support bailouts, corporate welfare, foreign adventurism, governmental secrecy, reckless spending, and the works. If I have to disagree about 1 issue, then sobeit.

[AuH20]

Libertarians are my kinsmen, but I won't be bashful in disagreeing with them on a few topics.

[Brian4Liberty]

Since when the violation of rights of innocent American citizens is "good"?

:D :rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

So, what is the solution? Remember, we still see eye to eye on foreign war, on most civil liberties issues, on fiscal issues, on government mandates, and on SO many other issues.

qft

[BuddyRey]

Notice the massive paleocon versus libertarian war we have going on right now? The massive dividing issue is immigration. The easiest way to secure the border in the short-term is something like Arizona's law, which is seen as upholding federal law. However, civil libertarians think that these are unjust means, and the law should not permit this.

We have a legitimate ideological dispute. But this also means we must tread carefully.

Notice when in 2006 "comprehensive immigration reform" was pushed, the Republicans lost BIG. Immigration is a wedge issue- it forces Republicans to either isolate the Hispanic vote or a significant portion of the conservative vote. Democrats don't really have this problem, as conservatives are not a most significant constituency of the Democratic coalition.

However, many might be surprised to realize we have a similar divide. When Ron Paul ran the anti-immigration ads in New Hampshire, it probably turned off a significant portion of civil libertarians. While in states like Texas our numbers may be more inclined to err on border security, in New Hampshire our numbers are probably more likely to be in favor of a more liberal policy (in the "open" sense of the term).

So, what is the solution? Remember, we still see eye to eye on foreign war, on most civil liberties issues, on fiscal issues, on government mandates, and on SO many other issues.

But the flame wars we are currently experiencing must be pushed aside come November. Indeed, we probably shouldn't let it become too much of an issue in certain primaries as well. Our candidates, whether libertarian or paleocon, are 90% better than the status quo. Don't let perfect get in the way of good.

Absolutely right!!! :)

[silus]

I stress perfection out of whatever I support--that way it will never be adopted. Therefore I will never be disappointed and will always be in position to bitch about everything. Which in the end is really all that matters to me.

[Philhelm]

Actually, everyone on this forum is wasting their time debating this issue. There will be amnesty and there will be a national ID card. I am one who would like to secure our borders, but I also have to look at the reality on the ground, and anticipate the likelihood of future events. Ultimately, a new block of primarily Democratic voters will magically appear and continue with the government's agenda.

[Pete_00]

Its not exactly "paleocon" vs "libertarian". Its more like ethnocentrists vs ethnocentrists.

Most of the open borders types have those opinion because of tribalism, they are looking after "their own" just like the ones that oppose open borders.

However, the open borders type are so but so racist that they dont even care for the fact that under the current economic/political system such immigration policies would be a disaster for the cause they claim to champion. They hide behind libertarian slogans but the only thing on their mind is "race", "my own", "my tribe above all the others".

Any libertarian with half-a-brain would realise that, for now, such immigration policies are a disaster but for some here "tribe" speaks louder than ideology. Dont hide behind libertarian slogans, be honest.