Immigration and Liberty by Walter E. Williams

[bobbyw24]

My sentiments on immigration are expressed by the welcoming words of poet Emma Lazarus' that grace the base of our Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those sentiments are probably shared by most Americans and for sure by my libertarian fellow travelers, but their vision of immigration has some blind spots. This has become painfully obvious in the wake Arizona's law that cracks down on illegal immigration. Let's look at the immigration issue step by step.

http://www.missloumagazine.com/staff/Walter%20Williams.JPG

There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, I believe that a yes or no can be given to that question just as a yes or no answer can be given to the question whether Williams has a right to live in the U.S.

I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S. That being the case suggests there will be conditions that a person must meet to live in the U.S. Then the question emerges: Who gets to set those conditions? Should it be the United Nations, the European Union, the Japanese Diet or the Moscow City Duma? I can't be absolutely sure, but I believe that most Americans would recoil at the suggestion that somebody other than Americans should be allowed to set the conditions for people to live in the U.S.

Continue

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/05/19/immigration_and_liberty

[helmuth_hubener]

I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S. Do they have such a right? First, let's rightly divide the meaning of "right" here. Is it a so-called positive freedom, as in for example the oft-asserted "right" to health care? Or does Mr. Williams wish to discuss whether or not they have a so-called negative freedom to live here, as in the right to own firearms?

Since I think all positive rights/freedoms are phony bologna, I will discuss the negative (genuine) rights possibility.

I would, in fact say that every person on the planet has a right to live in my house if I want to rent a room to them. Just as every person on the planet has a right to keep and bear my rifle if I want to sell it to them. It is not a proper nor just nor indeed excusable course of action for anyone to interfere with the natural, god-given right of a man to keep and bear arms. It is not a proper nor just nor indeed excusable course of action for anyone to interfere with the natural, god-given right of a man to, well, live! Living involves occupying space somewhere.

That space does not need to be my space. I have every right to kick out trespassers. The choice, however, is up to the space-owners. I do not believe some full-of-themselves paper-shufflers can plausibly claim to own half of a continent solely because they live in a swamp in Maryland where they conduct strange meetings and rituals.

So yes, everyone on the planet has a natural right to live in America, in Zimbabwe, in my house, or wherever, subject only to the discretion of the current right-holder of the property (if any).

[Pericles]

Do they have such a right? First, let's rightly divide the meaning of "right" here. Is it a so-called positive freedom, as in for example the oft-asserted "right" to health care? Or does Mr. Williams wish to discuss whether or not they have a so-called negative freedom to live here, as in the right to own firearms?

Since I think all positive rights/freedoms are phony bologna, I will discuss the negative (genuine) rights possibility.

I would, in fact say that every person on the planet has a right to live in my house if I want to rent a room to them. Just as every person on the planet has a right to keep and bear my rifle if I want to sell it to them. It is not a proper nor just nor indeed excusable course of action for anyone to interfere with the natural, god-given right of a man to keep and bear arms. It is not a proper nor just nor indeed excusable course of action for anyone to interfere with the natural, god-given right of a man to, well, live! Living involves occupying space somewhere.

That space does not need to be my space. I have every right to kick out trespassers. The choice, however, is up to the space-owners. I do not believe some full-of-themselves paper-shufflers can plausibly claim to own half of a continent solely because they live in a swamp in Maryland where they conduct strange meetings and rituals.

So yes, everyone on the planet has a natural right to live in America, in Zimbabwe, in my house, or wherever, subject only to the discretion of the current right-holder of the property (if any).
That's it! I knew the border problem was the fault of the individual land owners who are failing to enforce their property rights against trespassers.:rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

do you have the right to tell someone else where they can buy property and live?

[constituent]

do you have the right to tell someone else where they can buy property and live?

I think that's one of those "community rights." ;) :D

[torchbearer]

I think that's one of those "community rights." ;) :D

well, think about this-
where does the government supposedly get its power from?
The people.
If you, as an individual, don't have the right to tell someone else where they can live, where does the government get that power?
The government becomes a power unto itself. It no longer derives its power from the people and is by definition immoral.

[constituent]

well, think about this-
where does the government supposedly get its power from?
The people.
If you, as an individual, don't have the right to tell someone else where they can live, where does the government get that power?
The government becomes a power unto itself. It no longer derives its power from the people and is by definition immoral.

Absolutely. :)

Some might even say despotic... I would. :D

[helmuth_hubener]

That's it! I knew the border problem was the fault of the individual land owners who are failing to enforce their property rights against trespassers.:rolleyes:

What is this "border problem"? I mean, what precisely is the nature of this problem you have identified? Over-population? Taco Bell not staying open late enough? A Canadian TV show about to be canceled?

Clearly and rationally identify the problem and then perhaps a solution can be identified.

[Pericles]

What is this "border problem"? I mean, what precisely is the nature of this problem you have identified? Over-population? Taco Bell not staying open late enough? A Canadian TV show about to be canceled?

Clearly and rationally identify the problem and then perhaps a solution can be identified.
Murder, rape, kidnappings, robbery, as violations of individual rights of US citizens - taking the smuggling issue as totally unrelated, just for the sake of argument.

[KCIndy]

I love Walter Williams.

I love reading his columns, love his literary style, love his sense of humor....

But wow... I'll have to be honest and admit this was probably the least satisfying column of his that I've ever read. Either he was in a hurry for a space filler and knocked this off in about fifteen minutes flat, or else he's losing his touch. :(

I was especially disappointed by his conclusion:


Here's Williams' suggestion in a nutshell. Start strict enforcement of immigration law, as Arizona has begun. Strictly enforce border security. Most importantly, modernize and streamline our cumbersome immigration laws so that people can more easily migrate to our country.

Uh... wow. How brilliant and innovative. Never heard *those* ideas before!

sigh.

[Lord Xar]

well, think about this-
where does the government supposedly get its power from?
The people.
.

If you think "The people" bestow power unto the government, currently, then you are living in fantasy land. This seems to be a major stumbling block in your reasoning and why your zealotry for open borders is bordering on marxism.

[Pericles]

I love Walter Williams.

I love reading his columns, love his literary style, love his sense of humor....

But wow... I'll have to be honest and admit this was probably the least satisfying column of his that I've ever read. Either he was in a hurry for a space filler and knocked this off in about fifteen minutes flat, or else he's losing his touch. :(

I was especially disappointed by his conclusion:



Uh... wow. How brilliant and innovative. Never heard *those* ideas before!

sigh.

I'd say his real point is what happens when 6 billion people decide to live in the USA? Is there a max number of citizens the county can accommodate? What should be the criteria for admission?

[torchbearer]

If you think "The people" bestow power unto the government, currently, then you are living in fantasy land. This seems to be a major stumbling block in your reasoning and why your zealotry for open borders is bordering on marxism.

it is hard to argue with the truth. you don't have the right to tell someone else where they can buy property and live.

[helmuth_hubener]

Murder, rape, kidnappings, robbery, as violations of individual rights of US citizens - taking the smuggling issue as totally unrelated, just for the sake of argument.

Ah, good, for the sake of non-argument, I will, because I feel America was founded on smuggling, was a nation of smugglers, and that smuggling is a great and important part of the American heritage and an ancient, honorable, and highly noble profession. So, we will set that aside.

You identify the problem as to solve as "murder, rape, kidnappings, robbery", that is, violent crime. To reduce violent crime in an effective long term way, I propose some proven solutions:

1. Increase arms ownership and especially arms bearing by making concealed-carry permits extremely easy to obtain (shall-issue) or even unnecessary (Vermont, Alaska).
2. Repeal all drug prohibition.
3. Decrease the quantity of police officers.

These measures would dramatically decrease violent crime.

I cannot think of any measure related in any way to any conceivable border, Mexican or otherwise, that one could realistically expect to decrease violent crime in any significant way. So, your problems,upon examination, do not seem to be "border problems" at all.

You clearly see crime and immigrants to be closely-linked topics. Presumably, the link is that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate amount of violent crime. I have lived in Arizona and have deep Arizona roots. I have lived in places with tons of illegal immigrants, and places with virtually none. I also just got back from a trip to L.A. and San Francisco. Let me tell you, I do not find there to be more crime in illegal-infested areas. I absolutely do not find illegal immigrants to be more likely to commit violent crimes. I find Hispanics to be overwhelmingly ethical, friendly, and honest people. Hardly ever is a Hispanic dishonest to me, especially a newcomer immigrant. White people try to cheat me all the time. The streets of L.A., Berkley, and most especially San Francisco are filled with annoying beggars and derelicts. They are all white or black. Not a single Hispanic beggar, nor a single Chinese beggar. So, am I supposed to believe that the thousands of doubtlessly-illegal Chinese in Chinatown are bringing S.F. down and making it a more crime-ridden place? Sorry, I'm not that credulous. Walking through Chinatown, even real late at night, I felt as safe and at home as a lie in an Al Gore book.

So, your link just completely fails to hold up to my own experience of reality. I can sympathize with your (probable) desire to not have America become fundamentally altered in character by a flood of immigration. To be surrounded by people who can't speak English and have no interest in learning, a different culture, and different religion, etc. Take France: is there any such thing as a France that's 50% Muslim and yet retains any meaningful identity as France? Perhaps not. Probably not. So to kind of extend an olive leaf of sorts, let me point out a fourth measure that would lower violent crime:

4. Allow groups to self-segregate by race, culture, etc. if they desire. Relatively homogeneous groups are able to provide for their security more efficiently. Settling among people like one's self is an ancient defensive technique proven successful for thousands of years.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd say his real point is what happens when 6 billion people decide to live in the USA? Is there a max number of citizens the county can accommodate? What should be the criteria for admission?
That is not his real point, for that would be a point worthy of ridicule, not consideration. No, that is his reductio ad absurdum that he uses to dismiss a certain point of view. Is it valid?

I think the entire population of Earth could live within the USA. It already does! The guesstimated global population did not exceed 300 million until around 900 A.D. More than 300 million people probably live in the USA. It's just a matter of technology and other factors. Could 6 billion people live comfortably in the USA? You bet, with technological advancement and economic freedom! Drive through Wyoming, or Nebraska, or northern Nevada, or the Dakotas. There's mind-bogglingly vast tracts of land with virtually no human habitation. Anyway, that is all a side-track. All 6 billion of us could probably squeeze onto Hong Kong island if there were some economically profitable reason to do so.

So, in conclusion: Just let the market decide! Your questions about max numbers and entrance criteria is central-planning thinking! Central planning doesn't work! Free minds, free markets, free commerce, free travel, free movement,... free life! Let's fight for that!

[nayjevin]

I find Hispanics to be overwhelmingly ethical, friendly, and honest people.

I find this to be true of many non-Americans. Culture can predispose, and it can appear to be based on race, but it's actually environmental. America's media-driven culture seems particularly suited to breed uneducated arrogance and bigotry. Humility and work ethic define other countries in the modern day, not ours.

In fact, many countries are embracing the capitalist roots of our country, and prospering, while we abandon them and watch the dollar plummet. I don't see many other countries out to police the world either.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you think "The people" bestow power unto the government, currently, then you are living in fantasy land. This seems to be a major stumbling block in your reasoning and why your zealotry for open borders is bordering on marxism.

Dude... the only people in fantasy land are on your side. If there is any and I mean ANY question on whether the people bestow power to government let us have an earnest discussion about SCOTUS, the commerce clause, and democratic process.

Judicial doctrine used to strike down legislation unrelated to interstate trade but following the new deal era the doctrine has changed so that commerce can be defined by congress via the ballot box and democratic process.

[helmuth_hubener]

I find this to be true of many non-Americans. Culture can predispose, and it can appear to be based on race, but it's actually environmental. America's media-driven culture seems particularly suited to breed uneducated arrogance and bigotry. Humility and work ethic define other countries in the modern day, not ours.

I don't know about arrogance and bigotry specifically, and I don't think that "media" is the main thing to blame, but otherwise I agree. The difference between lower class Hispanic people and lower class white Americans, for example, is that more and more of the latter have simply no moral foundation whatsoever. Now I'm not a collectivist, so I judge individuals based on themselves not whatever collectives they might be part of, but this is just a generalization. So many low-class white Americans are just total rejects as human beings. It's not just that they're completely blanketed with tattoos, riddled with piercings, and obsessed with any "body modification" deviancies they can dream up, though that certainly is foreign to my idea of acceptable culture. Hey, that's freedom. It's not just they're completely stupid, almost illiterate, and proudly crude, rude, and promiscuous. No, It's like they're living in another world where it's OK to skip out on the rent, to not pay your bills, to borrow and not pay it back, to live off the government, and all in all to take what you can get, because the world owes it to you. The world owes you. The world owes you everything. That's the philosophy. The phrase "entitlement philosophy" just doesn't capture the depth of the depravity and sickness of this phenomenon. It's an entitlement lifestyle! Well, Hollywood says landlords and employers are just exploiting you and all that Marxist jazz, so why shouldn't you rip them off? Why, it's downright moral to do so.

I guess it all comes down to dishonesty. Many Americans have abandoned, or never cared about, or do not even comprehend, the ethic of telling the truth, of paying your debts, of being up-front, and of keeping your word whatever the cost. They will pretend to agree with it, but will have no guilt, no problem whatsoever, breaking their word whenever it's convenient. It's not even an issue. Not even a factor. Totally irrelevant to any decision they might make.

I watch in sadness and astonishment as my entire culture and civilization crumbles around me.

[helmuth_hubener]

As I thought about it more, I realize it's actually not race so much as Americanization that makes the difference. It's the brand-new immigrants who are good. Life-long Americans are more likely to be lousy. As nayjevin says, it's environmental and cultural.

I guess the point is illegal immigrants raise the quality level of humans in this country, they don't lower it. So all you anti-illegal-immigrant people are just wrong. Sorry!

[nayjevin]

Well, I don't know.

Being in America can be destructive to a person, if the television is on particularly. But those who are choosing to immigrate legally are by and large attempting to improve their condition in an honest way, which is a trait found in quality individuals.

Those who choose to immigrate illegally can more broadly be assumed to be attempting to improve their condition in a dishonest way, by taking advantage of subsidies, etc. But this is by no means necessarily the case.

The blame should be on the policy. If we subsidize, we should expect that it will attract those who would take advantage. Why blame them? We should know they are coming when we enact a policy which attracts them.

Like Ron says, the solutions are economic. I feel bigotry has deeply confused the issue.

[Southron]

How do you propose to keep 6 billion people from voting away what little liberty I have left?

Or is that my problem once they all get here?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How do you propose to keep 6 billion people from voting away what little liberty I have left?

Or is that my problem once they all get here?

How do you propose all the babies of American Marxists, Socialists, Neocons, and other anti-liberty ideologues to be kept from voting? You going to quota them?

You going to outbreed them? Whats your solution?

The solution to our problems isn't to enact anti-liberty legislation, but to enact pro-liberty doctrinaire.

I guarantee you that a strong immigration policy will be turned on the American populace, and be used in the guise of "security" to steal more of your liberties. You are letting fear drive you.

[nobody's_hero]

Socialism wasn't born in America. It immigrated here.

[nobody's_hero]

How do you propose all the babies of American Marxists, Socialists, Neocons, and other anti-liberty ideologues to be kept from voting? You going to quota them?

You going to outbreed them? Whats your solution?

The solution to our problems isn't to enact anti-liberty legislation, but to enact pro-liberty doctrinaire.

I guarantee you that a strong immigration policy will be turned on the American populace, and be used in the guise of "security" to steal more of your liberties. You are letting fear drive you.

That is a good question. I believe it will eventually happen (a massive voting block of big-government supporters will be granted voting rights), because this country failed to handle this problem when immigration standards started slipping down the slope to begin with. It's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations, because if you don't give up liberty in exchange for security to stop them now, then they'll simply vote to take your liberties away in the end anyway. I don't like to give up either one, so I'm with you on that.

I'm going to wait and see what happens in Arizona. I suggested a while back that the states should be the variables in an immigration experiment, and decide their own various regulations on immigration (since the Federal goverment has no interest in the issue anyway). Arizona is tough on it, and California isn't. Arizona has even offered to escort illegal immigrants to California if they want (which makes the lefties really happy in California, but I do feel for those who are Ron Paul supporters living in that state).

There are so many things that could be learned from such an experiment. Will Arizona turn into a massive police state where buying a sack of groceries requires I.D. and birth certificates? Will California turn into a blossoming libertarian paradise where cheap labor equates to prosperity and a strong economy? Will private property owners be happier in California, or Arizona? Rephrase: Will there be any more private property owners in California or Arizona? What about crime? Disease? Welfare? Elections?

There are a lot of theories to test.

[Peace&Freedom]

How do you propose all the babies of American Marxists, Socialists, Neocons, and other anti-liberty ideologues to be kept from voting? You going to quota them?

You going to outbreed them? Whats your solution?

The solution to our problems isn't to enact anti-liberty legislation, but to enact pro-liberty doctrinaire.

I guarantee you that a strong immigration policy will be turned on the American populace, and be used in the guise of "security" to steal more of your liberties. You are letting fear drive you.

Protecting the borders IS pro-liberty. Laws that do so reflect the people's wish to delegate to government the defense of their property rights (to maintain a rational jurisdictional process for determining who is and is not an American, so their rights can be honored in the first place) and liberty rights, including the right to disassociate (from aliens who so not subject themselves from the process).

If people have not made themselves subject to American jurisdiction by naturalization, how can they claim American protection for property rights, or occupy others' property who do have those protections? Or must American resources be defined as infinite, and tasked to protect the rights of people whether they are in America or not? Shall we then also declare that the summers cannot be too hot?

The point of the "should 6-7 billion people move to America" concept was not reducto ad absurdum, but to point to the need for a reasonable logistical basis for immigration, and to accept the existence of limits to resources that factor in to creating the process. Yes, I'm sure 6 billion could fit into Wyoming, but where would the water come from to support them?

If you were evacuating a sinking ship using a lifeboat that had a 50 person capacity, but 500 demanded to get on, at some point someone has to say "Women and children first" or, "Enough! Anymore and you'll sink the lifeboat. We'll come back with more boats." If you agree the people have the right to create such a reasonable process, then the people have the right to delegate that process.

Border protection is a reasonable delegated power for government to rationally moderate the free immigration of people into this country. It is an unregulated open borders policy that has been turned by the elites into a lever for curtailing American liberties, wealth (through downward pressure on wages), and quality of life. Note that the same elite that has stressed "security" and fear on Americans for years now, have stressed open borders and amnesty.

Meanwhile the most free and wealthiest countries (like Switzerland) have held the strictest immigration policies. The implication is clear---free immigration and protected borders are not in opposition in maintaining a free society, while open borders encourages antagonism towards free immigration and the fear contributing to the security state.

[torchbearer]

Socialism wasn't born in America. It immigrated here.

FDR was from mexico?

[tremendoustie]

There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, I believe that a yes or no can be given to that question just as a yes or no answer can be given to the question whether Williams has a right to live in the U.S.

Here's the answer: Williams, and everyone, has a right to live on any property where the owner permits them.

I'm a big fan of williams, but he's wrong here. In fact, I'm startled he missed this, given how brilliant he is.

[helmuth_hubener]

Protecting the borders IS pro-liberty. Laws that do so reflect the people's wish to delegate to government the defense of their property rights...
Oh my goodness, you believe in the social contract! And you are a leader of the NY LP?

You do realize, of course, that absolutely any government action can be justified with this same social contract "delegation" rationale. We delegate the right to keep drugs out of our homes. We delegate the right to be generous towards the poor. 'Tis all the same.

[Peace&Freedom]

Oh my goodness, you believe in the social contract! And you are a leader of the NY LP?

You do realize, of course, that absolutely any government action can be justified with this same social contract "delegation" rationale. We delegate the right to keep drugs out of our homes. We delegate the right to be generous towards the poor. 'Tis all the same.

You do realize, of course, you put words in my mouth. I only said government can be legitimately delegated powers individuals (we the people) already have. WE have the right to defend our life, liberty and property, so we can elect to delegate the defense of same to civil government. No social contract presumed, just an upholding of individual rights and their first or third party protection. Only actions that are justified at the individual level would be justified at the delegated level, so government is absolutely NOT being given a blank check.

So the only remaining objection to the delegation issue would be coming from an anarcho-capitalist direction, which leans towards rejecting the legitimacy of any government, on any basis. If you are an anarchist I respect that position, but as a minarchist (whose party membership is founded on a minarchist pledge that accepts the defensive use of force as legitimate) my above formulation is fully consistent with liberty.

[AuH20]

socialism wasn't born in america. It immigrated here.

qft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AuH20]

How do you propose all the babies of American Marxists, Socialists, Neocons, and other anti-liberty ideologues to be kept from voting? You going to quota them?

You going to outbreed them? Whats your solution?

The solution to our problems isn't to enact anti-liberty legislation, but to enact pro-liberty doctrinaire.

I guarantee you that a strong immigration policy will be turned on the American populace, and be used in the guise of "security" to steal more of your liberties. You are letting fear drive you.

Open borders policy is completely acceptable if ONE CONTROLS THE ASSIMILATION PROTOCOL. Unfortunately, that former staple has been blown to pieces by the left and various international organizations which thrive from this takeover. What is preached to these unfortunate souls is:

(1) the dying gringo and his backward culture is bad. don't listen to him.
(2) you're "entitled" to social services American citizens receive
(3) feel free to flaunt your culture and language since it's really your land to begin with

What is the endgame you ask? Balkanization or a Tower of Babel situation in which domestic strife will exacerbated to the benefit of the elites.

[helmuth_hubener]

You do realize, of course, you put words in my mouth. I only said government can be legitimately delegated powers individuals (we the people) already have. WE have the right to defend our life, liberty and property, so we can elect to delegate the defense of same to civil government. No social contract presumed, just an upholding of individual rights and their first or third party protection. The justification you gave most certainly is the social contract justification.

We, "the people", most definitely have the right to keep drugs out of our homes. Thus, we can delegate that right to the government. Thus, the gov't can prohibit drugs without violating libertarian principles.

What's wrong with the above paragraph?

[tremendoustie]

My reply to Dr. Williams:

Dr Williams,

In your recent article "Immigration and Liberty", you ask, "There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, I believe that a yes or no can be given to that question just as a yes or no answer can be given to the question whether Williams has a right to live in the U.S."

As a libertarian, I'd like to answer your question, if I may. You, and any individual, has the right to live on any land on which the owner permits you to live.

I do not have a right to dictate to you who you may or may not allow on your property, and you do not have a right to dictate to me who I may or may not allow on mine. Laws that presume to make such diktats are immoral, and should not be enforced -- just as any immoral law should not be enforced.

This is the core of immigration law -- the presumption that I have a right to dictate to my neighbors how they use their property.

Regards,
Paul

P.S. Thank you again for your excellent and insightful articles, and especially your ongoing, superb economic analysis over the years. While I disagree with the view you're expressing in this particular article, I consider your work heroic, and you certainly remain one of my favorite columnists.

Thanks also for answering my earlier query -- I found your article on the great depression invaluable, and continue to refer to it.

[Theocrat]

For those people who say it should be left up to property owners to decide who comes onto their property, I just want you to beware of one thing. If the federal government decides that it owns properties along our nation's borders (in order to secure them), then it will be perfectly okay for it to allow or restrict whomever it wants by the legislation it enacts for those ends.

[tremendoustie]

For those people who say it should be left up to property owners to decide who comes onto their property, I just want you to beware of one thing. If the federal government decides that it owns properties along our nation's borders (in order to secure them), then it will be perfectly okay for it to allow or restrict whomever it wants by the legislation it enacts for those ends.

You can't just "decide" you own land, you know. Nor is doing so (which is called stealing) "okay".

And, even if you, Theo, somehow collected a massive amount of money to buy all the land on the Mexican border, I'd have every right to bring people to my land by boat or plane -- and if there are right of ways, those too. If you want to put yourself in charge of who's in the country, you have to own the whole country.

[Peace&Freedom]

The justification you gave most certainly is the social contract justification.

We, "the people", most definitely have the right to keep drugs out of our homes. Thus, we can delegate that right to the government. Thus, the gov't can prohibit drugs without violating libertarian principles.

What's wrong with the above paragraph?

The paragraph. Hiring a contractor is not the same thing as selling the house and neighborhood to the contractor and becoming his tenant, such that he can do the opposite of what some homeowners would have permitted. The delegation discussed is conditioned on libertarian principles, principles which are not superceded by the delegation itself. None of the delegation surrenders any sovereign power to the government; the power remains with individuals. It is not intended to maintain social order, but to protect individual rights (though order may be among its effects). Thus the delegated agent has no power to prohibit what may be permitted by individuals.

I still await your response to the limited resources point I made earlier. If government is presumed to have unlimited ability to accommodate the entire world's population, with or without the immigrants even consenting to come under American jurisdiction through naturalization, how in the world can you maintain any semblence of limited government? It takes a limitless, total state to protect a limitless population without defined boundaries. It is the open borders view that forces a social contract on the rest of us, in the name of its faux libertarianism, by committing the state to such a course of expanded jurisdiction, where our sovereign liberty right to disassociate from those not consenting to be Americans by submitting to naturalization, yet occupying America, is no longer protected.


From Wikipedia:

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”...

[tremendoustie]

The paragraph. Hiring a contractor is not the same thing as selling the house and neighborhood to the contractor and becoming his tenant

Sorry, you don't have a right to extort money from me, and use it to hire a contractor, who will enforce upon me your preferences about who I may and may not allow on my land.

Hire your own contractor with your own money to enforce your will on your own land, if you want.

Nice try though.


If government is presumed to have unlimited ability to accommodate the entire world's population,


I don't want the government "accommodating" anyone (whatever that means). I want them to leave me the heck alone.



with or without the immigrants even consenting to come under American jurisdiction through naturalization, how in the world can you maintain any semblence of limited government?


Forcing everyone to "come under" the government enables tyranny. Allowing people to opt out would hold them accountable. Tell me, which is more accountable, a business which enjoys a government enforced monopoly, or a business in a competitive industry, where people have options?



It takes a limitless, total state to protect a limitless population without defined boundaries.


Who wants their "protection" -- let alone a "total state"? Not me. Buy into it if you want, but count me out. See, that's actual freedom of association.



It is the open borders view that forces a social contract on the rest of us, in the name of its faux libertarianism, by committing the state to such a course of expanded jurisdiction


I don't advocate "expanded jurisdiction", do you?



where our sovereign liberty right to disassociate from those not consenting to be Americans by submitting to naturalization, yet occupying America, is no longer protected.

Actually, I fully respect your right to disassociate from them. Don't allow them on your property, or hire them, or be their customer, if you wish. I also respect your right to keep your money, and not have it stolen by government and handed to others.

It's only in the context of a one sized fits all state, to be jammed down all our throats, that any of these fallacious arguments hold. If you advocate that, you've already destroyed freedom of association.

[helmuth_hubener]

Hiring a contractor is not the same thing as selling the house and neighborhood to the contractor and becoming his tenant, such that he can do the opposite of what some homeowners would have permitted.... Thus the delegated agent has no power to prohibit what may be permitted by individuals. Aha, so even if the vast majority of people want to keep drugs out of their homeland, the 10% or 1% or .0000000001% that does not can veto their right to protect him from something he doesn't want to be protected from?

Well then, try this on for size: even if the vast majority of people want to keep immigrants out of their homeland, the 10% or 1% or .0000000001% that does not can veto their right to protect him from something he doesn't want to be protected from?

[Pericles]

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html

Latest immigration poster boy.

[Peace&Freedom]

Aha, so even if the vast majority of people want to keep drugs out of their homeland, the 10% or 1% or .0000000001% that does not can veto their right to protect him from something he doesn't want to be protected from?

Well then, try this on for size: even if the vast majority of people want to keep immigrants out of their homeland, the 10% or 1% or .0000000001% that does not can veto their right to protect him from something he doesn't want to be protected from?

AGAIN, for those hard of hearing, the delegation is conditioned on libertarian principle. The downstream actions being delegated do not supercede the sovereignty being maintained by individuals. Whatever percentage breaks down over the action, the delegated power is limited to protection of life, liberty and property. Quit forcing a confrontation that isn't there.

The issue is NOT "people want to keep immigrants out of their homeland," the issue is they want a reasonable legal process to go forward, and this process facilitates free immigration, not opposes it. Just as one can support a free market in rental housing, AND landlord-tenant laws that protect the rights of both sides from abuses. The two are complimentary, not in opposition.

I agree completely with the LP platform statement (which is amazing, because libertarians usually find something wrong in the wording of nearly every LP platform statement), that acknowledges and upholds both the free immigration and controlled/protected borders elements of the issue. Do you?:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

[Peace&Freedom]

Sorry, you don't have a right to extort money from me, and use it to hire a contractor, who will enforce upon me your preferences about who I may and may not allow on my land.

Hire your own contractor with your own money to enforce your will on your own land, if you want.

Nice try though.

It's only in the context of a one sized fits all state, to be jammed down all our throats, that any of these fallacious arguments hold. If you advocate that, you've already destroyed freedom of association.

You seem to have miscomprehended the entire post. I am appalled by the one size fits all state as well, but against the fallacious abstract arguments of open borders being foisted off as the "real" free immigration position when it is not, as it is jammed down all our throats. That is the view that is actually being championed by the statist establishment, which in the real world is leading to more government force, a larger welfare state, and a loss of property and liberty.

[tremendoustie]

You seem to have miscomprehended the entire post. I am appalled by the one size fits all state as well, but against the fallacious abstract arguments of open borders being foisted off as the "real" free immigration position when it is not, as it is jammed down all our throats. That is the view that is actually being championed by the statist establishment, which in the real world is leading to more government force, a larger welfare state, and a loss of property and liberty.

You seem not to have addressed any of my points.

You don't have a right to tell me who I may or may not allow on my property, because it's mine.

Do you disagree? Is that somehow not clear?

The notion that the majority (or a bunch of politicians) can dictate to everyone else, who they may or may not allow, is itself statism, and big government.

If I want to allow mexicans on my property, even ones who haven't jumped through a bunch of arbitrary bureaucratic hoops, or paid a bunch of fees and fines to the state, that's my right. I certainly don't want them kidnapped off my land and dragged away, because they didn't sufficiently beg the state. It's the "immigration enforcement" folks who are attempting to jam their one size fits all preferences down my throat. Hire whoever you want to enforce rules for your property and your business. Stop trying to make and enforce rules for mine.

[helmuth_hubener]

AGAIN, for those hard of hearing, the delegation is conditioned on libertarian principle. Yeah, man, I heard you. You were saying that the drug war fails the libertarian test because it abridges the right of each individual to go against the consensus. You have the right to keep drugs out of *your* home, but not *mine*. This is the libertarian equivalent of remedial arithmetic, and I'm sure you're familiar with it and I jolly well hope you agree with it.

Also, just because you have the right to be generous towards the poor with*your* money doesn't mean you may do so with *mine*. OK.

So, just because you have the right, as a property owner, to set up a "reasonable legal process" that any newcomer must go through to join you on *your* property doesn't mean you have any right to impose this legal process on people wishing to enter or occupy property which is *mine*.

I can see no libertarian way around this reasoning. The only way to enforce immigration laws on property you don't yourself own is to initiate force. You don't have the right to make decisions for my peaceful use of my own property. Since you do not have this right, since this right does not exist, you may not delegate the non-existent right to the government, just as you may not delegate the right to kidnap your neighbor for using drugs.

Now, there is a way a community, or even a large region, could restrict immigration and not violate libertarian principles. That is through voluntary contracts, such as deed covenants. First, all property must be privatized: no "public" roads or parks or anything. Everything owned by someone. Then, if everyone in the area in question unanimously agreed to only allow in newcomers willing to accept the ideals of the community or go through a citizenship class or pay some $$$ or even if they decided to keep out all newcomers, this would be fine. So there's the only way you can get absolute legal immigration restriction. You could get an approximation of this closed community without formal contracts, though, culturally via shunning, etc.


The downstream actions being delegated do not supercede the sovereignty being maintained by individuals. Whatever percentage breaks down over the action, the delegated power is limited to protection of life, liberty and property. RIght. *Your* own property, not *mine*. If I want to turn my corn field into hippy camp for 10,000 third-world refugees, there's nothing you can do to stop me, unless you want to aggressively attack me. You would then be the bad guy.


The issue is NOT "people want to keep immigrants out of their homeland," the issue is they want a reasonable legal process to go forward, and this process facilitates free immigration, not opposes it. Umm, if there is a mandatory "reasonable legal process", then the human activity subject to this legal process is not free. You are confusing "free" with "un-free". I don't have to go through a "reasonable legal process" to print a newspaper, and that's why it can rightly be called a "free press". If I have to jump through the hoops of a "reasonable legal process" in order to travel, I cannot be said to be experiencing "free travel" as I do so.


Just as one can support a free market in rental housing, AND landlord-tenant laws that protect the rights of both sides from abuses. No, my friend, one really cannot. I think New York thinking has corrupted your thinking. Free market means free market.



I agree completely with the LP platform statement (which is amazing, because libertarians usually find something wrong in the wording of nearly every LP platform statement), that acknowledges and upholds both the free immigration and controlled/protected borders elements of the issue. Do you?

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. No, peace and freedom. I do support the 1996 platform plank:

IMMIGRATION

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

[nobody's_hero]

We must have a bunch of landlords here on RonPaulforums. I hear this rental/tenant/immigrant analogy quite a lot.

If all the illegal immigrants wanted to do was rent someone's property here in the U.S. and then not do anything else, that'd be great and there wouldn't be an immigration issue. That's fine, it's your property—no argument from me.

Unfortunately, most don't (not anymore, the immigrant dream of 'making your own life here in America and getting a fresh start' was killed long ago by the welfare system). And both welfare-supporting parties are eyeing the illegal immigrant population as a potentially game-breaking voting block, so it'd be nice to keep the goal of restoring our freedoms/prosperity somewhat within reach (I'd like to know that OUR numbers are getting larger without the other team calling random people out onto the field to stack the odds in their favor).

Someone mentioned assimilation before, and that's what is missing. We didn't assimilate with the Native Americans, and they lost both the sovereignty of their people AND their personal property.

[tremendoustie]

We must have a bunch of landlords here on RonPaulforums. I hear this rental/tenant/immigrant analogy quite a lot.

If all the illegal immigrants wanted to do was rent someone's property here in the U.S. and then not do anything else, that'd be great and there wouldn't be an immigration issue. That's fine, it's your property—no argument from me.

Unfortunately, most don't (not anymore, the immigrant dream of 'making your own life here in America and getting a fresh start' was killed long ago by the welfare system). And both welfare-supporting parties are eyeing the illegal immigrant population as a potentially game-breaking voting block, so it'd be nice to keep the goal of restoring our freedoms/prosperity somewhat within reach (I'd like to know that OUR numbers are getting larger without the other team calling random people out onto the field to stack the odds in their favor).

Someone mentioned assimilation before, and that's what is missing. We didn't assimilate with the Native Americans, and they lost both the sovereignty of their people AND their personal property.

Then, your problem is the welfare/warfare state, not immigration.

To assume that all immigrants want to take your freedom away is extremely untrue and unfair. There are also plenty of homegrown statists. Are you suggesting all people who support statism should be deported, or jailed?

This argument makes about as much sense as saying, "a majority of black people support statism, therefore we should deport all black people", or "the majority of people from NY support statism, therefore we should deport all New Yorkers". The fact that a person belongs to a particular ethnic or cultural group, or is of a certain nationality, is not sufficient justification to attack that person -- no matter what views you believe the majority of that group hold.

People should be treated as individuals.

[nobody's_hero]

Then, your problem is the welfare/warfare state, not immigration.

To assume that all immigrants want to take your freedom away is extremely untrue and unfair. There are also plenty of homegrown statists. Are you suggesting all people who support statism should be deported, or jailed?

This argument makes about as much sense as saying, "a majority of black people support statism, therefore we should deport all black people", or "the majority of people from NY support statism, therefore we should deport all New Yorkers". The fact that a person belongs to a particular ethnic or cultural group, or is of a certain nationality, is not sufficient justification to attack that person -- no matter what views you believe the majority of that group hold.

People should be treated as individuals.

It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with mindset. There ought to be one question that is asked of people when they try to cross the border (though this will never happen):

"What is the proper role of government?"

If they give a wrong answer, turn them around. It doesn't matter at all what color their skin is. It matters tremendously what their philosophical learnings are.

DO: Let in a few at a time. Offer to teach them about freedom/limited-government and be sure they understand. Let them assimilate.

DON'T: Open the floodgates. Let them be taught by pro-statists. Hope for the best, and keep dreaming about the libertarian utopia that we'll never see so long as our numbers continue to dwindle.

EDIT: I don't think that people who are pro-statists could be jailed/deported/etc (obviously, because they're running the jails). There was a time when you had to own property to vote and I think it was a mistake to give Peter the opportunity to use government to rob Paul. — . . . anyway, hindsight is 20/20, but only for people who look back.

[torchbearer]

I still haven't found anyone here who claims to have the right over another man's life, and thus the right to tell him where he can live on this planet.
The tyrant will use many justifications for using force on other humans as if he is superior to them by simply being born at a certain location on this rock.

[tremendoustie]

It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with mindset. There ought to be one question that is asked of people when they try to cross the border (though this will never happen):

"What is the proper role of government?"

If they give a wrong answer, turn them around. It doesn't matter at all what color their skin is. It matters tremendously what their philosophical learnings are.


You're right that it will never happen.

If someone steals your money, or hires others to do so, you have a right to self defense.

What you don't have a right to do is go after innocents -- which is precisely what you apparently are advocating. Am I wrong about your position on this?



DO: Let in a few at a time. Offer to teach them about freedom/limited-government and be sure they understand. Let them assimilate.

DON'T: Open the floodgates.


Thanks for the advice on how to run my property. Being a person that respects property rights, I'm sure it's just that ... advice.



Let them be taught by pro-statists.


I'm no fan of public schools, that's for sure.



Hope for the best, and keep dreaming about the libertarian utopia that we'll never see so long as our numbers continue to dwindle.


As Gandhi said, peace is not the end, it is the means. I'm not going to use violent means to try to achieve a nonviolent society.

Violence leads to more violence. Giving the government the power to demand papers of people in order for them to live or work, is a recipe for disaster.



EDIT: I don't think that people who are pro-statists could be jailed/deported/etc (obviously, because they're running the jails). There was a time when you had to own property to vote and I think it was a mistake to give Peter the opportunity to use government to rob Paul. — . . . anyway, hindsight is 20/20, but only for people who look back.

I think giving the government the power to rob was a mistake in the first place. Giving it the power to track and control who may work or obtain housing is a double mistake. If you think this power won't be used against you, you're dreaming -- it's the old lie: "Government will protect you" -- when in reality, it's government you need protection from. You're growing the monster that will eat you.

[helmuth_hubener]

Bump for Peace&Freedom

[Peace&Freedom]

In summary response to helmuth's repetitive statements:

Laws that protect the rights to life, liberty and property are justified in a libertarian, minimum state. The minimum ones needed for ensuring that free immigration AND a free market proceeds, are the only ones being advocated. This is why I suspect your opposition to any such laws indicative you are premising your objections on anarchistic grounds, not libertarian ones. Your merely tediouslydeclaring it is a matter of your property rights versus mine does not make it a correct construction of the matter. I used the landlord-tenant example as illustration for clarity purposes, not to to characterize the issue itself.

The 1996 immigration platform plank was replaced because despite being three or four times lengthier than the current one, it was unreponsive to 50% of the issue. The fact of the matter is federal power and government force has increased with each pro-amnesty, pro-open borders law that has been passed into law or policy. The position is associated with the factions determined to grow the state larger, not smaller. You have studiously derailed the discussion from answering this point from the beginning of the exchange. There simply is no necessary connection between a free immigration and an open borders position, and the confusion of the two elements have been destructive of social peace, AND freedom in promoting free immigration.

[tremendoustie]

In summary response to helmuth's repetitive statements:

Laws that protect the rights to life, liberty and property are justified in a libertarian, minimum state. The minimum ones needed for ensuring that free immigration AND a free market proceeds, are the only ones being advocated. This is why I suspect your opposition to any such laws indicative you are premising your objections on anarchistic grounds, not libertarian ones. Your merely tediouslydeclaring it is a matter of your property rights versus mine does not make it a correct construction of the matter. I used the landlord-tenant example as illustration for clarity purposes, not to to characterize the issue itself.

The 1996 immigration platform plank was replaced because despite being three or four times lengthier than the current one, it was unreponsive to 50% of the issue. The fact of the matter is federal power and government force has increased with each pro-amnesty, pro-open borders law that has been passed into law or policy. The position is associated with the factions determined to grow the state larger, not smaller. You have studiously derailed the discussion from answering this point from the beginning of the exchange. There simply is no necessary connection between a free immigration and an open borders position, and the confusion of the two elements have been destructive of social peace, AND freedom in promoting free immigration.

You still didn't respond to my points, or answer my questions.



The position is associated with the factions determined to grow the state larger, not smaller. You have studiously derailed the discussion from answering this point from the beginning of the exchange.

Many democrats, who favor big government, are anti-war and torture, at least superficially. Does that mean the pro-war, pro-torture position is pro-liberty? An issue should be examined on its own merits, not based on who it's "associated" with. Party of principle, remember?

[Peace&Freedom]

You didn't understand my points, or address my prior logistical issues. I have quoted from the current party platform, to demonstrate the immigration position is consistent with what I have stated. The association of pro-state force folks with open borders/amnesty is not just a matter of "who its associated with" but the substance of the legislation that continues to come up to codify it, as the bills positively presume greater government intervention, powers, and bureacracy to enforce or administer both.

As noted recently in LRC, "The State’s being an implied "owner" of all the territories has diminished private property rights, and the combination of the State’s monopoly of overseeing immigration and the State’s monopoly of territorial protection has turned immigration into invasion. As we have witnessed these last 20 years, the centralized protection monopolists grandiosely expand their power to foreign lands and abandon their responsibilities at home."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz5.1.1.html

[helmuth_hubener]

In summary response to helmuth's repetitive statements:LOL, just being thorough, trying to make sure communication was taking place. Since in this post you give up on quoting or responding to even a single sentence of mine, I am left in doubt as to whether I was successful.

I really, really am wondering just this: how do you get out of my property rights reasoning? As I said, just because you have the right, as a property owner, to set up a "reasonable legal process" that any newcomer must go through to join you on *your* property doesn't mean you have any right to impose this legal process on people wishing to enter or occupy property which is *mine*. I can see no libertarian way around this reasoning. How do you get around it? Where did my logic take a wrong turn? That's the big thing. If you could just tell me that.

I will reply to the rest of your post line-by-line as a courtesy, but feel free to ignore the rest. I just want to know how you can justify, on libertarian grounds, restricting my right to let anyone on my property from anywhere in the world.



Laws that protect the rights to life, liberty and property are justified in a libertarian, minimum state. The minimum ones needed for ensuring that free immigration AND a free market proceeds, are the only ones being advocated. Restricted does not equal free. Am I living in double-think land all of a sudden? Would reasonable legal processes for permitting newspapers make me free to enjoy freely published free speech? Free and restricted are opposites!! Are you now going to give me an analogy about a kite?


This is why I suspect your opposition to any such laws indicative you are premising your objections on anarchistic grounds, not libertarian ones. I favored open borders when I was a minarchist libertarian, and I favor them now that I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. So it is on both grounds, but I am arguing, you may have noticed, only the minarchist case. One has a night-watchman state, great, out protecting our rights and enforcing contracts, wonderful. Does this minimal night-watchman state have the right to tell me I can't ship in 1,000 refugees from Cameroon and house them in my corn field? It does not have that right. I can't figure out any way or formulation or logic whereby they could have that right. It's not a right anyone else has, to tell me who I can invite onto my land, so it's not a right they can delegate. This is just an air-tight case. I'm trying to think totally clearly and logically. What am I missing?


Your merely tediouslydeclaring it is a matter of your property rights versus mine does not make it a correct construction of the matter. Is it your position that someone other than me owns my property? Are you proposing to restrict immigration only on your own property? What is wrong with the construction "I own my property"? What alternative construction do you propose?


I used the landlord-tenant example as illustration for clarity purposes, not to to characterize the issue itself. The issue is: where can I go? Which property? That makes it an issue of property rights. The correct answer: any un-owned property(out in space, the ocean, whatnot) and any property owned by me, and any property owned by others if they invite me onto it implicitly or explicitly.


The 1996 immigration platform plank was replaced because despite being three or four times lengthier than the current one, it was unreponsive to 50% of the issue. Umm, says you. Many Libertarians beg to differ. The water-down soft-peddlers may have succeeded in changing the platform at Portland, but they did not change the philosophy. How could they: they don't believe in philosophy! Libertarian philosophy remains unchanged.



The fact of the matter is federal power and government force has increased with each pro-amnesty, pro-open borders law that has been passed into law or policy. Did you know that immigration was completely, totally, 100% unrestricted in these united States until 1875? You may look it up to confirm.<waits...> OK, now knowing that, would you stand by your claim of open borders being correlated to bigger gov't? Because it seems to me that pre-1875 America was more free, in general, than post-.



The position is associated with the factions determined to grow the state larger, not smaller. The position is associated with what the actual practical reality was in America for hundreds of years! It's not just some theoretical, esoterical, wacky anarchistic idea. It was policy in America from the 1600s-1800s. It seemed to serve pretty well.



You have studiously derailed the discussion from answering this point from the beginning of the exchange. What point? That immigration increases the average statism of the populace or otherwise somehow increases big gov't's hold on us? Far be it for me to avoid any point! I stated earlier in the thread that it is my informed opinion, based on my own life experience (admittedly limited, as everyone's life is) that illegal immigrants are of a higher quality of human being than life-long Americans. By entering the country, they raise the average quality of the population: politically, morally, culturally, etc.



There simply is no necessary connection between a free immigration and an open borders position, and the confusion of the two elements have been destructive of social peace, AND freedom in promoting free immigration. Again, it's like I've entered a la-la land where freedom isn't freedom. The gov't has no just role in preventing people from traveling into and out of its jurisdiction. To do so is usurpation. Even if you don't believe in libertarianism it's a usurpation. There's no power granted in the Constitution to do such a thing. And they didn't. Until almost 100 years later, after the Constitution had been trashed by the War of Yankee Aggression anyway.

[tremendoustie]

You didn't understand my points, or address my prior logistical issues.

What issues? The pro-freedom position seems clear as crystal to me.



I have quoted from the current party platform, to demonstrate the immigration position is consistent with what I have stated. The association of pro-state force folks with open borders/amnesty is not just a matter of "who its associated with" but the substance of the legislation that continues to come up to codify it, as the bills positively presume greater government intervention, powers, and bureacracy to enforce or administer both.


I'm not expressing support for any particular law. Indeed, as you say, most "amnesty" bills have included a great deal of government power.

It's about principles -- Although I would certainly say any consistent, liberty loving person would oppose the Arizona bill.



As noted recently in LRC, "The State’s being an implied "owner" of all the territories has diminished private property rights,


Do you accept the idea that the state is the "owner" of everything?

Rights are not eliminated, or diminished, because some violate them. They are inherent. If I am mugged I have not suddenly lost my right to property -- my right has simply been violated. And, the fact that I have been mugged would not in any way justify further abuse.



and the combination of the State’s monopoly of overseeing immigration and the State’s monopoly of territorial protection has turned immigration into invasion.


Baloney. Invasion is people attacking you with weapons. You are using violent language to describe what are in many cases peaceful people, in order to make violence against those people seem more excusable.

If a person comes across the border, gets a job for a willing employer, and rents an apartment from a willing landlord (and that's all they do), do you support violence against this individual, simply because they did these things without jumping through a bunch of governmental bureaucratic hoops? Yes or no?

I want people to be free from such bureaucracy, and coercion. I wish more people did things without begging the government's permission.



As we have witnessed these last 20 years, the centralized protection monopolists grandiosely expand their power to foreign lands and abandon their responsibilities at home.

Sure. That doesn't make further violations of my property rights, further attacks on innocents, or further expansion of power, in any way acceptable.

[Peace&Freedom]

Helmuth_: "The gov't has no just role in preventing people from traveling into and out of its jurisdiction. To do so is usurpation. Even if you don't believe in libertarianism it's a usurpation."

Since my point has been merely traveling into and out of a country is NOT consenting to be naturalized, and thus subject to the country's jurisdiction, the condition for such people to be 'prevented' has not even been reached. Freedom for migration purposes is not merely freedom of movement, it is freedom of association by allegiance. A foreign national is not an American until they have shifted their country of allegiance. Until that point, they have not consensually migrated, and lawfully remain foreign. That's why we call them illegal immigrants, duh. The state is thus fully justified in not recognizing them, for the sake of protecting the life/liberty/property of the Americans who have so consented.

Temendoustie: "Do you accept the idea that the state is the "owner" of everything?"

Obviously no, but that is the implication in the bills in Congress pushing a defacto open borders and amnesty scheme. Each one expands government force and bureaucratic reach, which is why I associate open borders/amnesty bills as expanding force and bureaucracy. Since the rest of the posts of the above two persons continue to discount any of the other freedom issues I have mentioned or misconstrue the rest, I will let this debate go. My view is the party's current understanding, and Ron Paul's perspective (though I will concede his articulation of the matter is superior to mine). On many issues, more than one liberty issue is actually involved---but if that simplest of complexities seems lost on some, so be it.

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth_: "The gov't has no just role in preventing people from traveling into and out of its jurisdiction. To do so is usurpation. Even if you don't believe in libertarianism it's a usurpation." Golly gee, Peace&Freedom, all I wanted to know was an answer to one little question, just one little thing. Instead, you picked one completely different little thing, that I had written as an afterthought, and replied to that. And then declared the debate over! I'm sorry, but if you're declaring the debate over, you're declaring yourself the loser. I have crushed you. That's a great way to make friends and influence people, of course: crush them in debate, just totally demolish all their points. So understand it's nothing personal. I'm sure in real life you're a fine and decent chap, but correspondence debate is definitely not your gift in life.

Now, your reply to my bit about travel and usurpation is about as clear as mud. You say:


Since my point has been merely traveling into and out of a country is NOT consenting to be naturalized, and thus subject to the country's jurisdiction, the condition for such people to be 'prevented' has not even been reached. So are you saying here that anyone and everyone should be free to helicopter into my corn field, just not to become naturalized citizens, and I've been misunderstanding you the whole time? If so, I have no problem with that position. We're in total agreement, in fact. If you want to become a citizen, you should have to go through a class and a "reasonable legal process" and maybe even be screened based on a certain minimum level of ideological pro-liberty-ness. But if you just want to live here and never vote, never be a citizen, never receive any of benefits and protections of citizenship, then have at it, that's totally legal, too. That was how it was in the earlier days of the republic, and that's what I'd like to go back to. Immigration laws are, I think, mostly a 20th century innovation. Naturalization laws are not; they're ancient.


Freedom for migration purposes is not merely freedom of movement, it is freedom of association by allegiance. No, you can migrate without becoming a citizen.


A foreign national is not an American until they have shifted their country of allegiance. Until that point, they have not consensually migrated, and lawfully remain foreign. Yes, they are still a foreign national, not an American citizen. But they should be left alone in liberty to remain a foreign national in America as long as they wish. If you want to call that "long-term visiting" instead of migration, fine.


That's why we call them illegal immigrants, duh. Until the 20th century when immigration restrictions really started to take off, they would not have been called illegal immigrants. As I say, there was no restriction at all on immigration to the U.S.A. until 1875. None! No health checks, no sponsors, no Ellis Island, zippo. No government interference. Totally free migration (or visiting or whatever you want me to call it).




The state is thus fully justified in not recognizing them, for the sake of protecting the life/liberty/property of the Americans who have so consented. Absolutely! I agree! Is it possible I am so dense I've misunderstood you this whole time? Yes, moving in and becoming a citizen are two different issues! The moving should be left free and open, like it used to be. If you can find a place to live, a place to work, and places to shop, all of which voluntarily permit you to "immigrate" onto their property, you aren't violating anyone's rights and thus must be left alone. Any not-leaving-alone would be aggression. BUT, the naturalization issue is one over which the gov't does have legitimate jurisdiction. They don't violate anyone's rights by restricting naturalization. Restrict the tar out of it! Fine by me!


Since the rest of the posts of the above two persons continue to discount any of the other freedom issues I have mentioned or misconstrue the rest, I will let this debate go. I have tried to reply to any and all coherent issues I could glean or wring from your messages to me. Was there a sentence or two that escaped my watchful eye? Present them to me! Bring them forth, that I might demolish them as well and hurl them into the pit with their brethren.

[catdd]

"Bring them forth, that I might demolish them as well and hurl them into the pit with their brethren."

This issue has been debated and argued to death and you are not adding anything new with your personal opinions.

[helmuth_hubener]

This issue has been debated and argued to death and you are not adding anything new with your personal opinions.

Thank you for your own personal opinion about the worthlessness of my personal opinion. Entering a thread in order to opine about the worthlessness of the personal opinions of the posters, as well as the worthlessness of the entire thread itself, and indeed of ever bringing up the topic again since it is long-dead, this is one of the most endearing and attractive things one can do on an internet forum. :)

[tremendoustie]

Intellectually honest people, who believe the ideas they espouse are correct, can answer simple questions, P & F, like the one I've put to you at least three times.