Soros pushing for "North American Passport"

[Son_of_Liberty90]

http://rightedition.com/2015/01/29/soros-group-advocates-north-american-not-u-s-passports/


Globalist thinktank promotes EU-style North American Union

A Soros-funded group arguing to replace the U.S. passport with a North American passport appears ready to take up the mantle of championing the concept of a European Union-style regional government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico and Canada, fulfilling the dream of the late American University professor Robert Pastor.

The future of the U.S. lies in North America, not in the United States as a sovereign nation, contends the New America Foundation, a Washington-based leftist think-tank with ties to Jonathan Soros, son of famed leftist billionaire George Soros.


“In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America. Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states,” Martinez and Kurtz-Phelan declared.

I imagine this will kick into full gear after the election.

[Ronin Truth]

Who the frick ever elected Soros to anything? Go to hell, Jonathan and take your dad with you!

[otherone]

That certainly eliminates the illegal immigrant problem.

[misterx]

It's too bad these people aren't dumb enough to just announce one day they are merging our governments. The people would revolt. When they do it piece by piece like this nobody cares. We're all just frogs being slowly brought to a boil.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh no. There's that agenda of a North American Union, that when mentioned here, a good many ridiculed as being non-existent.

Ron Paul has known all about it for a long time and has spoken out against it. But, a large number of anarchists do not. Is that because mises.org, nor lew's site does not discuss such things?

[TheTexan]

It's too bad these people aren't dumb enough to just announce one day they are merging our governments. The people would revolt. When they do it piece by piece like this nobody cares. We're all just frogs being slowly brought to a boil.

I dunno. Merging governments isn't a terrible idea. The Federal government after all isn't nearly big enough or powerful enough on its own, to do things like basic income, free health insurance, free postgrad education, free internet, free housing for all citizens, guaranteed good jobs for all willing to work, 60 days a year paid vacation with a 4 day work week, and all kinds of other great government services. Like a moon colony. Or a mars colony.

All this and more will become possible if we can just become a single global country working together for a better, more globalized, tomorrow

[misterx]

I dunno. Merging governments isn't a terrible idea. The Federal government after all isn't nearly big enough or powerful enough on its own, to do things like basic income, free health insurance, free postgrad education, free internet, free housing for all citizens, guaranteed good jobs for all willing to work, 60 days a year paid vacation with a 4 day work week, and all kinds of other great government services. Like a moon colony. Or a mars colony.

All this and more will become possible if we can just become a single global country working together for a better, more globalized, tomorrow

That's all true, what was I thinking. Oh yeah, it becomes possible because the people can then be enslaved and they'll have nowhere to run.

[pcosmar]

Interesting..

and I thought it was a Bush thing.

:rolleyes:

[Danke]

I dunno. Merging governments isn't a terrible idea. The Federal government after all isn't nearly big enough or powerful enough on its own, to do things like basic income, free health insurance, free postgrad education, free internet, free housing for all citizens, guaranteed good jobs for all willing to work, 60 days a year paid vacation with a 4 day work week, and all kinds of other great government services. Like a moon colony. Or a mars colony.

All this and more will become possible if we can just become a single global country working together for a better, more globalized, tomorrow

What about free mail? Why should anyone have to pay postage?

[erowe1]

“In recognition of our shared destiny, the three countries should create a North American passport that would, over time, allow their citizens to travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America. Work, tourist and student visas are necessities in the modern world to regulate the flow of people between sovereign states,” Martinez and Kurtz-Phelan declared.

Preferably, we should be able to do all that without any passport. But having everyone in North America be able to travel without restrictions everywhere else on the continent, including working in all other countries, is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose.

[erowe1]

Oh no. There's that agenda of a North American Union, that when mentioned here, a good many ridiculed as being non-existent.

Ron Paul has known all about it for a long time and has spoken out against it. But, a large number of anarchists do not. Is that because mises.org, nor lew's site does not discuss such things?

I haven't seen anyone here ridicule that as non-existent, especially not anarchists. But if anyone does, it's not because Lew Rockwell has ignored it:
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=010115542726049794836:lpyn2ylmqe8&q=north%20american%20union&oq=north%20american%20union&gs_l=partner.3...1968.4769.0.5074.20.20.0.0.0.0.14 9.2139.7j13.20.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.2792j770802j20 ..1ac.1.25.partner..20.0.0.QkQkAFJM6XA#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22north%20american%20union%22&gsc.sort=

[Son_of_Liberty90]

It's too bad these people aren't dumb enough to just announce one day they are merging our governments. The people would revolt. When they do it piece by piece like this nobody cares. We're all just frogs being slowly brought to a boil.

How timely. I just read this comment yesterday in response to a review on Amazon of Gary Allen's book None Dare Call it Conspiracy.


However, it is important to note that many globalist theoreticians argued that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built: "In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-'world federalism,' `charter `review,' and `world peace through world law.'... If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?... In short, the `house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.":
http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf

[alucard13mm]

Oh no. There's that agenda of a North American Union, that when mentioned here, a good many ridiculed as being non-existent.

Ron Paul has known all about it for a long time and has spoken out against it. But, a large number of anarchists do not. Is that because mises.org, nor lew's site does not discuss such things?

Yep. NAFTA, open borders and force migration is just working towards that. Once that happens, can kiss The Constitution good bye for good and it will become a super socialist union.

Our country is already slowly becoming more socialist/communist/facist... lets just fast track it :p hehe.

Lets not stop there, if Canada-USA-Mexico merges. Let's merge with the entire south american continent too! Yeah! Nothing much happens in the southern hemisphere anyways! lets invite them all to come up north and have a good time.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

How timely. I just read this comment yesterday in response to a review on Amazon of Gary Allen's book None Dare Call it Conspiracy.

he continues:


I do not have the requisite knowledge to respond to everything about Golitsyn. Nevertheless, the fundamentals of the story are sound. In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: "We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road." (cited in Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. "Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation" Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118)

Communism did not "fall", but dialectically synthesized into the Communist-Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism. This, is of course being implemented via regionalism. The EU would follow this pattern of Capitalist-Communist convergence (and other Continental Unions are to follow). The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, proved this in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration", which shows that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing:
http://ia601603.us.archive.org/12/items/ArticlesOfInterest/87502960-EUSSR-The-Soviet-roots-of-European-Integration.pdf

a document leaked by wikileaks concerning regionalization in North America stated the following, in contrast to the claims of deniers:
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html

"An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers. Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both "security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious integration goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them."

But, although giving lip service to popular sentiment, it is (or was, until leaked) still a clandestine initiative, and the document stated that it would be implemented gradually, mostly by appealing to the interests of the multinationals, and not by public referendum (p. 2):

"There is little basis on which to estimate the size of the "upside" gains from an integration initiative concentrating on non-tariff barriers of the kind contained in NAI. For this reason, we cannot make claims about how large the benefits might be on a national or continental scale. When advocating NAI, it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers."

WTF?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-06-15/news/8902090826_1_communists-bolshevik-revolution-world-peace


Gorbachev`s Words


June 15, 1989|By Larry W. Bettenhausen.

MIDLOTHIAN — In view of all the glowing publicity that Americans are exposed to concerning Gorbachev and glasnost, perhaps we should look at what Mikhail Gorbachev says when he addresses his fellow Communists.

On the 70th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution on Nov. 2, 1987, his words carried far more meaning. At the end of his three-hour speech to 6,000 fellow Communists he concluded: ``In October, 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif
What direction is America headed when we increase programs that deliver massive amounts of aid, credits, equipment and technology to the USSR?

Is the road to ``the world of communism`` really the road to freedom and world peace?
I think not!

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif

I don't remember learning that in history class.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

ALSO:


Just a couple of other items of correction:
These critiques of the Federal Reserve did note begin with the dearborn independent, father coughlin, and eustace mullins, but were already present in the text http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Currency-Aldrich-Confessions-Combine/dp/B002MRQKYO

by Alfred Owen Crozier, which is in many cases better than those texts, as it contains facsimiles of relevant primary sources in the form of exchanges with the major banks involved. It could be called an ur-text for critics, much more than those other three items.
Another relevant item, predating it, is

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Battle-M-W-WALBERT-ebook/dp/B004HW7Q8G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1460174475&sr=8-2&keywords=coming+battle#customerReviews (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Battle-M-W-WALBERT-ebook/dp/B004HW7Q8G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1460174475&sr=8-2&keywords=coming+battle#customerReviews)

by Martin Wetzel Walbert.

[Danke]

What could go wrong...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc

[pcosmar]

Preferably, we should be able to do all that without any passport. But having everyone in North America be able to travel without restrictions everywhere else on the continent, including working in all other countries, is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose.

True,, and there should be no passport necessary or required within the republic.

Used to be that border crossing was relatively unrestricted.

My Dad married a Canadian girl.

[pcosmar]

As I remember ,, from history,,,

a lot of folks came to build the railroads that connected this country.
My ancestors included.

[Chomp]

Possible, when dollar collapses.

[LibertyEagle]

Preferably, we should be able to do all that without any passport. But having everyone in North America be able to travel without restrictions everywhere else on the continent, including working in all other countries, is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose.

Ron Paul is absolutely against a North American Union!!


The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments.


The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution — which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.


A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight — and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you, erowe. So why is it that you keep trying to make people believe that Ron Paul is for such a thing? He clearly is not and has stated exactly that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y30k3nkk54

"Some people believe in globalism; some people believe in national sovereignty". - Ron Paul

[erowe1]

[SIZE=4]Ron Paul is absolutely against a North American Union!!

Of course he is. As am I.

I don't see how you think that relates to anything I said though.

[LibertyEagle]

Possible, when dollar collapses.

Yes, they will likely try to rush us into world government or at the very least, regional government like a North American Union or worse.

Ron Paul is most certainly against this.

[LibertyEagle]

Of course he is. As am I.

I don't see how you think that relates to anything I said though.

You know very well, erowe.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493538-Soros-pushing-for-quot-North-American-Passport-quot&p=6191958&viewfull=1#post6191958

[erowe1]

You know very well, erowe.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493538-Soros-pushing-for-quot-North-American-Passport-quot&p=6191958&viewfull=1#post6191958

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about the North American Union.

[LibertyEagle]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about the North American Union.

It's not the name that is important; it is the contents.

[erowe1]

It's not the name that is important; it is the contents.

But you tried to make it look like I somehow misrepresented Ron Paul by posting all this stuff about the North American Union, rather than addressing the content of what I actually said.

[LibertyEagle]

But you tried to make it look like I somehow misrepresented Ron Paul by posting all this stuff about the North American Union, rather than addressing the content of what I actually said.

And you did. RP knows that this Soros move is for the purpose of the NA Union. I'm pretty sure you know that too.

[erowe1]

And you did. RP knows that this Soros move is for the purpose of the NA Union. I'm pretty sure you know that too.

How did I misrepresent him? Go back to my own words and show me. I said nothing about any NAU or any Soros move.

The truth is, you just personally disagree with me, and want to pretend Ron Paul is with you, so you pull up all these irrelevant quotes of his that don't mention anything related to what I said and try to twist his words to make it sound like he supports all the same protectionist nonsense that you do, when he clearly doesn't and has said so many times.

[donnay]

Interesting..

and I thought it was a Bush thing.

:rolleyes:

He started it. March 2005. Nevertheless, it is a globalist plan so they can usher in the One World Government.

[Wilf]

How did I misrepresent him? Go back to my own words and show me. I said nothing about any NAU or any Soros move.

The truth is, you just personally disagree with me, and want to pretend Ron Paul is with you, so you pull up all these irrelevant quotes of his that don't mention anything related to what I said and try to twist his words to make it sound like he supports all the same protectionist nonsense that you do, when he clearly doesn't and has said so many times.

She did call anyone who agreed with Paul's position with Trump; "Paulbots".

[LibertyEagle]

How did I misrepresent him? Go back to my own words and show me. I said nothing about any NAU or any Soros move.
The title of the thread is about Soros pushing a NA Passport. In your post, you comment in support of it and then go on to say...

is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose.


The truth is, you just personally disagree with me, and want to pretend Ron Paul is with you,
He IS with me on this.


so you pull up all these irrelevant quotes of his that don't mention anything related to what I said and try to twist his words to make it sound like he supports all the same protectionist nonsense that you do, when he clearly doesn't and has said so many times.
The quotes I gave are not irrelevant at all to the topic of this thread. They are right over the target.

[LibertyEagle]

She did call anyone who agreed with Paul's position with Trump; "Paulbots".

:rolleyes:

As I said back then, it was to remind those who were using denigrating names for Trump supporters, that the same tactic was used against us. We didn't like it, so why would we stoop to the same.

I have told you this before.

[Wilf]

:rolleyes:

As I said back then, it was to remind those who were using denigrating names for Trump supporters, that the same tactic was used against us. We didn't like it, so why would we stoop to the same.

I have told you this before.

Thats not the point?

[LibertyEagle]

Thats not the point?

This is off-topic to the thread, but if you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to. Just send me a PM.

[presence]

If you strip

voting right,
ALL welfare benefits; housing, education, stamps, healthcare reimbursement, etc.
and entitlement to birthright citizenship

from immigrants that do not go through the "legalized 'citizenship' to US inc." process,
I fail to see how allowing free movement of labor in a free market is a bad thing.


I don't necessarily support more .gov to oversee a NAU passport, but I see no reason to arrest and unleash the brutal power of the State upon peaceful people for migrating across fictitious borders because a fictitious .gov declares them not "legal citizens".





Thread: Cold Showers: Migrants Flee Germany Due to Lack of Free Cheese (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491103-Cold-Showers-Migrants-Flee-Germany-Due-to-Lack-of-Free-Cheese)

[erowe1]

The title of the thread is about Soros pushing a NA Passport. In your post, you comment in support of it and then go on to say...


Really? Again, go back and show me where the words I actually use in any way misrepresent Ron Paul. Notice how you have to edit them to make your point. What you quote from me isn't even a whole sentence.

You're the one misrepresenting him and me by pretending that opposing the NAU equates to agreeing with you about protectionism.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't necessarily support more .gov to oversee a NAU passport, but I see no reason to arrest and unleash the brutal power of the State upon peaceful people for migrating across fictitious borders because a fictitious .gov declares them not "legal citizens".

This is really the crux, isn't it? Without borders, there is no national sovereignty. There is going to be government. I guess it depends on whether you prefer government closer to you or farther away. Our Founders wanted the little government that we did have, very close to us; state and local. But, the people allowed it to slowly be centralized in the federal government; which is contrary to the very Constitution that they all swear an oath to uphold. Regional government or world government would be even worse. If you think it is difficult to exact change now, moving government even farther away, would make it even harder.

[LibertyEagle]

Really? Again, go back and show me where the words I actually use in any way misrepresent Ron Paul. Notice how you have to edit them to make your point. What you quote from me isn't even a whole sentence.

You're the one misrepresenting him and me by pretending that opposing the NAU equates to agreeing with you about protectionism.

We have already been through this exercise. As I proved to you yesterday, he doesn't agree with you on immigration either.

[erowe1]

We have already been through this exercise. As I proved to you yesterday, he doesn't agree with you on immigration either.

Say what you want. Anyone can see that you cut off the beginning of my sentence because it obviously didn't say what you wanted to pretend it said.

What I actually said that any Ron Paul supporter would accept was a true statement, and one that Ron Paul himself obviously would agree with.

You never proved anything other than that you're a troll. It's you who oppose him.

[LibertyEagle]

Say what you want. Anyone can see that you cut off the beginning of my sentence because it obviously didn't say what you wanted to pretend it said.

What I actually said that any Ron Paul supporter would accept was a true statement, and one that Ron Paul himself obviously would agree with.

You never proved anything other than that you're a troll. It's you who oppose him.

Nope

Nada

No he would not.

You should study up.

[erowe1]

Nope

Nada

No he would not.

Here are my exact words: "But having everyone in North America be able to travel without restrictions everywhere else on the continent, including working in all other countries, is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose."

Show me where I'm wrong. Nothing you've posted in this thread so far does that. You just keep repeating baseless assertions because you know Ron Paul isn't a protectionist and you wish he were so you twist his words to make it sound like it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Preferably, we should be able to do all that without any passport. But having everyone in North America be able to travel without restrictions everywhere else on the continent, including working in all other countries, is definitely a good thing that no Ron Paul supporter should oppose.

Sorry, you don't get to dictate what Ron Paul voters should oppose or support.

[erowe1]

Sorry, you don't get to dictate what Ron Paul voters should oppose or support.

I didn't dictate anything to anyone. I stated a declarative fact. And it was the kind of statement that gets made here all the time.

[presence]

This is really the crux, isn't it? Without borders, there is no national sovereignty. There is going to be government. I guess it depends on whether you prefer government closer to you or farther away. Our Founders wanted the little government that we did have, very close to us; state and local. But, the people allowed it to slowly be centralized in the federal government; which is contrary to the very Constitution that they all swear an oath to uphold. Regional government or world government would be even worse. If you think it is difficult to exact change now, moving government even farther away, would make it even harder.



You fail to see the notion of individual sovereignty as the baseline of liberty and voluntarism as the only legitimacy in government.

[LibertyEagle]

You fail to see the notion of individual sovereignty as the baseline of liberty and voluntarism as the only legitimacy in government.

Oh, I think individual sovereignty is the basis and that is where all real power must reside. Of course I do. But until the nature of man changes and everyone agrees to the NAP, there is a need for a very small limited government.

[Brian4Liberty]

If you strip

voting right,
ALL welfare benefits; housing, education, stamps, healthcare reimbursement, etc.
and entitlement to birthright citizenship


Experience tells us that it would eventually include all of those "rights", entitlements and hand-outs.

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't dictate anything to anyone. I stated a declarative fact. And it was the kind of statement that gets made here all the time.

Here's another one for you.

The only people who should support a Soros NA Passport are those who want a North American Union.

"The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether." -- Ron Paul

[presence]

Experience tells us that it would eventually include all of those "rights", entitlements and hand-outs.

too much state therefore moar state!

[MelissaWV]

The U.S. Passport Card can be used to enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda at land border crossings or sea ports-of-entry and is more convenient and less expensive than a passport book.

You may proceed to freak out.

[presence]

Oh, I think individual sovereignty is the basis and that is where all real power must reside. Of course I do. But until the nature of man changes and everyone agrees to the NAP, there is a need for a very small limited government.

I propose the notion of sealing the border between the US and mexico to all but "legal" crossing is incompatible with the notion of "limited".

the immigration war is the same as the drug war
one is contraband product the other is contraband labor
neither is an act of aggression, neither is a crime except in "legal" per se terms.

the war on immigration will end the same as the war on alcohol

[LibertyEagle]

I propose the notion of sealing the border between the US and mexico to all but "legal" crossing is incompatible with the notion of "limited".
What do you have against LEGAL immigration?


the immigration war is the same as the drug war
one is contraband product the other is contraband labor
neither is an act of aggression, neither is a crime except in "legal" per se terms.

the war on immigration will end the same as the war on alcohol

Possibly, but not until all freebies to illegal aliens are curtailed. To do otherwise, is suicide.

Or, we may just skip that step and be taken to world government. I don't think you'll like it.

[Chomp]

Yes, they will likely try to rush us into world government or at the very least, regional government like a North American Union or worse.

Ron Paul is most certainly against this. Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are about to abolish their currency in favor of one currency of EEU which the formed.

[donnay]

What do you have against LEGAL immigration?



Possibly, but not until all freebies to illegal aliens are curtailed. To do otherwise, is suicide.

Or, we may just skip that step and be taken to world government. I don't think you'll like it.


Then no one will be free to travel where ever they want.

Flashback:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4XuFFSarg

[Zippyjuan]

Used to be able to go anywhere with just your driver's license in North America. It was for all practical purposes an international passport for North America. Canadians could freely come here with their license too. Nobody needed a passport. Mexicans did have restrictions. After 9/11 that was changed.

In terms of free travel, we have become less integrated.

[presence]

What do you have against LEGAL immigration?


The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simply malum prohibitum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum), a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.

https://mises.org/library/immigration-and-misplaced-blame

As with any truly laissez-faire proposal, the ultimate goal is complete privatization of immigration policy. That is, the ability of immigrants to relocate to a community would be dependent on the dispersed and individual decisions of employers and other property owners who can decide on their own to employ or house migrants in the community. This is, of course, the democracy of the marketplace (https://mises.org/blog/difference-between-democracy-market-and-democracy-politics) described by Mises in which individual persons — by making decisions about whom to employ or sell property to — collectively determine who is a member of each community. Any employer who wished to fully staff his operation with so-called illegal immigrants would be legally free to do so, and his decision would be subject to approval or veto by his customers, not by arbitrary government fiat.

https://mises.org/library/immigration-policy-must-be-decentralized


The only issue is: do emigration, migration, and immigration con-
stitute, per se, a physical trespass against person and property or
a threat thereof? If so, then libertarians must oppose them total-
ly; if not, they must oppose any and all limits to them.
[]
The legality of migration is an all-or-none matter: either mi-
gration is per se legitimate, in which case it would be improper to
interfere with it in any way, or it is per se invasive, in which
case it should be prohibited, totally and comprehensively, just as
in the case of murder and rape.
[]
As long as the immigrant moves to a piece of private proper-
ty whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee), there
can be nothing untoward about such a transaction. This, along
with all other capitalist acts between consenting adults, must be
considered valid in the libertarian world. Note that there is no
freedom of movement of the person per se. This is always subject
to the willingness of property owners in the host nation to accept
the immigrant onto their land.
[]
It would also be wrongheaded to attack the case for free
immigration by pointing out that because of the existence
of a welfare state, immigration has become, to a signifi-
cant extent, the immigration of welfare bums, who, even
if the United States is below the optimal population
point, do not increase but rather decrease average living
standards. For this is not an argument against immigra-
tion but rather against the welfare state. To be sure, the
welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch.
However, the problems of immigration and welfare are
analytically distinct, and they must be treated accord-
ingly. 29
https://mises.org/library/libertarian-case-free-immigration


If we ban immigrants from entering the country we are really banning these jobs from being performed. We will also have to import the fruits of these jobs if we don’t import the lower-cost labor to perform them. There is evidence in the U.S. that strengthening American immigration laws has resulted in the exportation of agricultural jobs to Mexico. If the workers cannot come here we will send the work to them.
https://mises.org/library/free-immigrants-free-capital-free-markets


And why? Socialist ideology plays a role here, and another authoritarian antimarket ideology, protectionism. But if you look closely enough at this enforcement, you will find the hand of Obama-affiliated big labor unions at work behind the scenes. It's not that they are against immigrants. The unions hate any employee who works for the going market wage. As their power and influence continues to fall (although not in DC), they are resorting to ever more desperate tactics to shore up their slipping cartel.
You can see, then, that this crackdown has nothing to do with nationalism or racialism or securing the borders or anything else. It is all about bolstering the power of the state and its unions over the American economy, and making the rest of us poorer.


https://mises.org/library/tragedy-immigration-enforcement





Possibly, but not until all freebies to illegal aliens are curtailed. To do otherwise, is suicide.


I agree lets focus on what is REALLY wrong with the situation.
We're dumping corn on our doorstep.
Demanding rodent extermination doesn't seem to strike at the root of the issue.


In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

Claude Frédéric Bastiat (https://mises.org/profile/claude-fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-bastiat)