Libertarian Party Endorses Illegal Immigration

[Swordsmyth]

In its latest attempt to perhaps court Democrat voters, the Libertarian Party announced that it does not support classifying those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally as criminals.
The Libertarian Party made its pro-illegal immigrant stance clear in a new statement posted to Facebook, in which it claimed those who illegally enter the country through improper methods should not be considered criminals, and suggested that “all individuals have the same natural rights regardless of their citizenship.”


More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/voting-third-party-libertarian-party-endorses-illegal-immigration/

THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO COME HERE

This is the beginning of the end for the LP.

[spudea]

This is why they lose. Next they will be saying non citizens should be able to vote in our elections. Yea that'll boost their numbers!

[Stratovarious]

I can't think of a more appropriate term that morons.
The last thing you're going to see a 'typical' liberal do , is wake
up one day and think, hmmm , Libertarians, gee they don't
classify illegals as illegals, I'm going to give up my Marxist socialism today
and vote libertarian, yea!!!

[PAF]

“all individuals have the same natural rights regardless of their citizenship.”

Libertarian Party believes the government’s only legitimate purpose is to protect the “natural rights of individuals from the initiation of force or fraud


I am certain the LP does not endorse fraud, theft or otherwise. The article does not come out and directly accuse the LP of that, but the way that it is written would elude a reader to make those assumptions.

Natural Rights apply to all people. Isn’t that what RPF forum advocates? Or has that changed?

[Swordsmyth]

I can't think of a more appropriate term that morons.
The last thing you're going to see a 'typical' liberal do , is wake
up one day and think, hmmm , Libertarians, gee they don't
classify illegals as illegals, I'm going to give up my Marxist socialism today
and vote libertarian, yea!!!
The thing you will see just before that (just as never) is millions of communist immigrants convert to libertarianism faster than they flood in because the LP offered to open the gates for them.

[Swordsmyth]

I am certain the LP does not endorse fraud, theft or otherwise. The article does not come out and directly accuse the LP of that, but the way that it is written would elude a reader to make those assumptions.

Natural Rights apply to all people. Isn’t that what RPF forum advocates? Or has that changed?
Entering our territory isn't a natural right and the LP is pretending that it is.

[PAF]

Entering our territory isn't a natural right and the LP is pretending that it is.

So we throw principles out the window to make everything better.

You’re a statist Republican, I know just the place: TPF, they HATE RP worse than Hitlery.

[Stratovarious]

The thing you will see just before that (just as never) is millions of communists immigrants convert to libertarianism faster than they flood in because the LP offered to open the gates for them.
Right, I agree, and this new 'gimmic' is going to do nothing but alienate true
libertarians and constitutionalists.
This new gimmick again, is what Gary Johnson was to our party, a phony .

[Swordsmyth]

So we throw principles out the window to make everything better.

You’re a statist Republican, I know just the place: TPF, they HATE RP worse than Hitlery.
It isn't throwing out principles, it is a principled stand for the American people to have the right to control who enters our territory and joins us.

[Stratovarious]

So we throw principles out the window to make everything better.

You’re a statist Republican, I know just the place: TPF, they HATE RP worse than Hitlery.
Principles, how is not calling a spade a spade, that would just be lying , so
how is a party that adopts the Catholic Church principal of going wherever the money and
votes are a party of principals.
This is rhetorical , cause I know for a fact you have no clue.

[PAF]

I advocate End/All incentives. That is what Libertarians AND Republicans should be fully advocating, but all I hear is crickets.



https://youtu.be/-fIBpTp5UKE

[Swordsmyth]

I advocate End/All incentives. That is what Libertarians AND Republicans should be fully advocating, but all I hear is crickets.



https://youtu.be/-fIBpTp5UKE
I want to end all government incentives too but the biggest incentive is our economy and they will still come in the millions because ending the incentives will improve our economy.

A free people have a right to limit the number of foreigners who come from cultures that aren't based in liberty who are allowed to come and join the electorate.

[Stratovarious]

I am certain the LP does not endorse fraud, theft or otherwise. The article does not come out and directly accuse the LP of that, but the way that it is written would elude a reader to make those assumptions.

Natural Rights apply to all people. Isn’t that what RPF forum advocates? Or has that changed?
Natural rights does not mean that people are allowed where they are not invited.

[Stratovarious]

I advocate End/All incentives. That is what Libertarians AND Republicans should be fully advocating, but all I hear is crickets.

...

Speaking of rp forum members that would be complete bs, but speaking of
prominent politicians, I'd tend to agree, they don't get far enough into what
it will really take to end the problem , a wall alone is not the answer, and
cutting all incentives isn't either. We need both and probably some other
ideas mixed in the pot.
I've always said , lets help Mexico become great, can't say again , but great.

[PAF]

Natural rights does not mean that people are allowed where they are not invited.

You guys want the perfect solution. Ok, I’ll give you one. It abides by the NAP, protects Private Proprty Rights, and takes care of immigrants walking across land.

Trump, the billionaire real-estate magnate that he is, as well as being a “Patriot” who cares about MAGA, should homestead the land at the border that isn’t already owned. There, he can put his own private fence up with his own money and problem solved. He can even stick a few tourism resorts there if he wants.

[Brian4Liberty]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?

[Swordsmyth]

You guys want the perfect solution. Ok, I’ll give you one. It abides by the NAP, protects Private Proprty Rights, and takes care of immigrants walking across land.

Trump, the billionaire real-estate magnate that he is, as well as being a “Patriot” who cares about MAGA, should homestead the land at the border that isn’t already owned. There, he can put his own private fence up with his own money and problem solved. He can even stick a few tourism resorts there if he wants.
We have a right to use the government charged with defending us against hostile foreigners to keep the foreigners out in spite of what individual landowners at the border want.

A wall may not be the best way to do that but you are once more trying to tell us that we can't do anything.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Hoppeanism that treats the state as an owner is the only brand of libertarianism that will survive into the middle of this century.

[PAF]

We have a right to use the government charged with defending us against hostile foreigners to keep the foreigners out in spite of what individual landowners at the border want.

A wall may not be the best way to do that but you are once more trying to tell us that we can't do anything.

What do you mean can’t do anything? There you go twisting shit again.

As some have already repeated. End incentives, if the government feels they are such a threat, or a wall that will take years to build.

[Swordsmyth]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?
They need to endorse positions that are outside of the mainstream, like legalizing machine guns, freezing immigration, bringing all the troops home from everywhere, etc.
Their only chance is if they offer things that people care about that the other two parties aren't offering.

[Swordsmyth]

What do you mean can’t do anything? There you go twisting $#@! again.

As some have already repeated. End incentives, if the government feels they are such a threat, or a wall that will take years to build.
I mean just what I said, ending incentives doesn't keep the foreigners out, all it does is slightly reduce the incentive for them to come.

You didn't suggest that we massively increase patrols on the border, you suggested that the best we could do is build a private wall on any land we could obtain.

[Swordsmyth]

Hoppeanism that treats the state as an owner is the only brand of libertarianism that will survive into the middle of this century.
I'm not overly familiar with Hoppeanism but the state IS the representative of those who own the land at a territorial level.

[kahless]

You guys want the perfect solution. Ok, I’ll give you one. It abides by the NAP, protects Private Proprty Rights, and takes care of immigrants walking across land.

Trump, the billionaire real-estate magnate that he is, as well as being a “Patriot” who cares about MAGA, should homestead the land at the border that isn’t already owned. There, he can put his own private fence up with his own money and problem solved. He can even stick a few tourism resorts there if he wants.

Historically immigration has yielded immigrants that overwhelming vote Democrat and with pathway to citizenship being offered the days of being secure in our private property rights are numbered.

The far left Presidential candidates are already talking about confiscation of wealth. How long before they are promoting confiscation of private property since they claim you have too much or are not a good enough steward over your land.

[PAF]

The far left Presidential candidates are already talking about confiscation of wealth. How long before they are promoting confiscation of private property since they claim you have too much or are not a good enough steward over your land.

Confiscation of wealth: Dems, personal welfare. Repubs, corp welfare.

Confiscation of property. Bush/Obama land grab (2 largest in history). Trump, eminent domain past couple of decades, and now 2,000 miles.

I don’t see the distinction between the two. Can you help me out?

[Stratovarious]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?

The end does not justify the means imv.
I can appreciate the fact that the Libertarian Party
deserves a much higher profile, and influence, however
I don't see us as a party of opportunism , rather a party
of truth, liberty , transparency.
'The goal' , just for sake of acheiving the goal
would require a mercinary stance, a Liberal Stance , a Catholic Church Stance.
One that goes where the money/votes are, regardless of roots and ethics.
I like the Libertarian party as a party of principles, one that sticks
to its core issues/mission statement.
Your comment is excellent , and deserves a dedicated thread;
''What can we do to attract new members'' or something to that effect.

[Ender]

I want to end all government incentives too but the biggest incentive is our economy and they will still come in the millions because ending the incentives will improve our economy.

A free people have a right to limit the number of foreigners who come from cultures that aren't based in liberty who are allowed to come and join the electorate.

NOT. TRUE.

Ending incentives will indeed improve the economy & people will come here to WORK.

And a truly free people understand that liberty is the base for all people- it isn't dem foreigners that have stolen our freedom- it's ignorant Americans giving in to TPTB.

[kahless]

Confiscation of wealth: Dems, personal welfare. Repubs, corp welfare.

Confiscation of property. Bush/Obama land grab (2 largest in history). Trump, eminent domain past couple of decades, and now 2,000 miles.

I don’t see the distinction between the two. Can you help me out?

Both are bad but look at what is waiting on the horizon from the new Democratic party. Unprecedented scary shit. We are entering new territory.

[Stratovarious]

Confiscation of wealth: Dems, personal welfare. Repubs, corp welfare.

Confiscation of property. Bush/Obama land grab (2 largest in history). Trump, eminent domain past couple of decades, and now 2,000 miles.

I don’t see the distinction between the two. Can you help me out?
I believe I can PAF.
Obama Grabbed over a million acres, for a useless monument, later to likely be leased to China
or Russia for mining endeavors , yes our govt is corrupt.
Trump on the other had is doing what our govt is supposed to do;
Protect us from invasion, sure beats the hell out of killing millions
of people around the globe, right....?.......

[PAF]

Both are bad but look at what is waiting on the horizon from the new Democratic party. Unprecedented scary $#@!. We are entering new territory.

Let it all collapse. I’m done puckering up.

As the Joker said: “The whole world needs an enema.” The only outstanding issue is, when Iran, NK and Cuba are battered before they join the ranks.

[Swordsmyth]

NOT. TRUE.

Ending incentives will indeed improve the economy & people will come here to WORK.
And they will still vote for socialism because they don't understand that liberty is responsible for the wealth and opportunity that drew them here, history proves that to be true, a desire to work has no effect on whether or not someone believes in socialism.


And a truly free people understand that liberty is the base for all people-
They are entitled to liberty IN THEIR OWN LANDS, if they don't give it to eachother at home they will deprive us of it here.
When the rest of the world is as free or more than the US we can consider open borders.



it isn't dem foreigners that have stolen our freedom- it's ignorant Americans giving in to TPTB.
The foreigners have tipped the balance of our politics and made everything worse.

[Swordsmyth]

Let it all collapse. I’m done puckering up.

As the Joker said: “The whole world needs an enema.” The only outstanding issue is, when Iran, NK and Cuba are battered before they join the ranks.
If you let in millions of communist before the collapse they will erect a communist dictatorship on the ashes.

[devil21]

As usual, Shillsmyth doesn't understand the basics and kneejerk reacts.

Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders because the "legal" system (that creates "illegal" people) is an instrument of control against people who would otherwise be completely free to make their own decisions about how to live. The legal reality is that an "illegal immigrant" is a free man or free woman. A "legal citizen" is a captive resource and treated accordingly.

[Ender]

Let it all collapse. I’m done puckering up.

As the Joker said: “The whole world needs an enema.” The only outstanding issue is, when Iran, NK and Cuba are battered before they join the ranks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vxu2VNWneg

[Swordsmyth]

Confiscation of wealth: Dems, personal welfare. Repubs, corp welfare.

Confiscation of property. Bush/Obama land grab (2 largest in history). Trump, eminent domain past couple of decades, and now 2,000 miles.

I don’t see the distinction between the two. Can you help me out?
I see several differences.
The first is a matter of scale, the communism the Demoncrats and invaders will impose will take ALL private property.
The second is that Trump's wall may not be the best way to deal with the problem but it is using a Constitutional mechanism to perform a legitimate government function.

[PAF]

I believe I can PAF.
Obama Grabbed over a million acres, for a useless monument, later to likely be leased to China
or Russia for mining endeavors , yes our govt is corrupt.
Trump on the other had is doing what our govt is supposed to do;
Protect us from invasion, sure beats the hell out of killing millions
of people around the globe, right....?.......


You don’t build a wall to separate 2 countries while working on a North American Union. All I see is bankrupting businesses along that border while forcing an International Labor Organization between Mexico, the US and Canada. You wanna see prices sky rocket and force more out of the middle class? There’s your ticket. There is much more going on than is being recognized or discussed.

[Swordsmyth]

As usual, Shillsmyth doesn't understand the basics and kneejerk reacts.

Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders because the "legal" system (that creates "illegal" people) is an instrument of control against people who would otherwise be completely free to make their own decisions about how to live. The legal reality is that an "illegal immigrant" is a free man or free woman. A "legal citizen" is a captive resource and treated accordingly.
LOL

[devil21]

LOL

That's not a reply and my post is 100% accurate.

[Ender]

You don’t build a wall to separate 2 countries while working on a North American Union. All I see is bankrupting businesses along that border while forcing an International Labor Organization between Mexico, the US and Canada. You wanna see prices sky rocket and force more out of the middle class? There’s your ticket. There is much more going on than is being recognized or discussed.

Exactly.

This is about filling TPTB's pockets while people take no notice as they argue about who is right & who is wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

You don’t build a wall to separate 2 countries while working on a North American Union. All I see is bankrupting businesses along that border while forcing an International Labor Organization between Mexico, the US and Canada. You wanna see prices sky rocket and force more out of the middle class? There’s your ticket. There is much more going on than is being recognized or discussed.
Maybe Trump isn't working on a North American Union.

[Swordsmyth]

That's not a reply and my post is 100% accurate.
It's the only reply your drivel deserves.

[Ender]

That's not a reply and my post is 100% accurate.

Actually more like 1000% accurate.

[devil21]

It's the only reply your drivel deserves.

So...you got nothin' then.

[Ender]

So...you got nothin' then.

Nothin' but insults & innuendos.

[Stratovarious]

NOT. TRUE.

Ending incentives will indeed improve the economy & people will come here to WORK.

And a truly free people understand that liberty is the base for all people- it isn't dem foreigners that have stolen our freedom- it's ignorant Americans giving in to TPTB.
tptb and nolr and giving up freedumbs for olih and eocl is not the freedumb that
you paid for so come to work and be free. Forners dint' still your lands or the tptb an sol.

[PAF]

Maybe Trump isn't working on a North American Union.

What?! He’s the one who signed the thing at the G20! Democrats are firming it up as we speak. I got letter responses from the legislatures stating the only reason it hasn’t gone through is because labor doesn’t go far enough. Shill, you made 2 posts on that USMCA yourself.

[Stratovarious]

As usual, Shillsmyth doesn't understand the basics and kneejerk reacts.

Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders because the "legal" system (that creates "illegal" people) is an instrument of control against people who would otherwise be completely free to make their own decisions about how to live. The legal reality is that an "illegal immigrant" is a free man or free woman. A "legal citizen" is a captive resource and treated accordingly.
Ron Paul does not support Open Borders, you have him confused with George Soros.

[Stratovarious]

You don’t build a wall to separate 2 countries while working on a North American Union. All I see is bankrupting businesses along that border while forcing an International Labor Organization between Mexico, the US and Canada. You wanna see prices sky rocket and force more out of the middle class? There’s your ticket. There is much more going on than is being recognized or discussed.
You have my ear, educate us.

[Swordsmyth]

What?! He’s the one who signed the thing at the G20! Democrats are firming it up as we speak. I got letter responses from the legislatures stating the only reason it hasn’t gone through is because labor doesn’t go far enough. Shill, you made 2 posts on that USMCA yourself.
That doesn't mean he is working on an NAU.

[Swordsmyth]

So...you got nothin' then.
More than you got.

[spudea]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?

None. Because the premise is wrong. Freedom is not popular. Force is popular. Human nature includes the inclination to affect others with force, particularly when resources are limited. Libertarianism, I. E. Non interventionism, I. E. Leave people alone that are not hurting others... This is a socialogical philosophy. Not a political philosophy.

[PAF]

You have my ear, educate us.


I made 2 threads about it over in Grassroots Central.

[Ender]

Ron Paul has the perfect solution but few here will even read it.


A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall
By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute
January 31, 2017

Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end, the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will, of course, hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.
The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40-year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately, President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.

[Stratovarious]

I made 2 threads about it over in Grassroots Central.
Right, lmao , piss off ......

[PAF]

None. Because the premise is wrong. Freedom is not popular. Force is popular. Human nature includes the inclination to affect others with force, particularly when resources are limited. Libertarianism, I. E. Non interventionism, I. E. Leave people alone that are not hurting others... This is a socialogical philosophy. Not a political philosophy.

I don’t buy that. How well do you get along with your neighbors? How about going to work, or away on vacation? People are good for the most part. It’s the indoctrination, msm and schools that have people screwed up. They hear podium rhetoric and vote accordingly. Once you start asking questions that apply to their regular day to day life perspectives change.

[Stratovarious]

Ron Paul has the perfect solution but few here will even read it.
[B]
That was jan or '17 , Ron was still a bit sore.
Ron Paul realizes that the illegal immigration issue is not solved with one tool.

[oyarde]

I see nothing that the Libertarian party is going to do to be relevant .

[Swordsmyth]

Ron Paul has the perfect solution but few here will even read it.
[B]
That is an incomplete solution.

[Anti Globalist]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?
Practically nothing.

[Swordsmyth]

I don’t buy that. How well do you get along with your neighbors? How about going to work, or away on vacation? People are good for the most part. It’s the indoctrination, msm and schools that have people screwed up. They hear podium rhetoric and vote accordingly. Once you start asking questions that apply to their regular day to day life perspectives change.
Our neighbors vote to use government against me and the invaders do so at a much higher rate no matter how much we preach liberty.
You will NOT convert them to liberty faster than they arrive or even make a dent.

[CaptUSA]

Natural rights does not mean that people are allowed where they are not invited.

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?

[devil21]

More than you got.

I put forth a cogent explanation of why Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders. You still haven't refuted it in any form. Do you acknowledge that my explanation is accurate?

[Stratovarious]

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?


I'm sure you have an explanation , :popcorn:

[Stratovarious]

I put forth a cogent explanation of why Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders. You still haven't refuted it in any form. Do you acknowledge that my explanation is accurate?
Everyone supports immigration , why are you bent on mischaracterization ?
Who supports 'open Borders' ?

[kahless]

I see nothing that the Libertarian party is going to do to be relevant .

They are serving the establishment elites well in ensuring libertarian beliefs do not take any foothold in the US or pose a threat to either of the two main parties.

They propose open borders not due to their philosophy since they know damn well it negates the possibility of achieving a more libertarian like society within the US or anywhere in the future. They propose it since they are just another tool for elites to increase immigration in favor of the Democrats and the far left for future votes to usher in a new era of Socialism.

[CaptUSA]

I'm sure you have an explanation , :popcorn:

So, if you own your property and invited one of 'em ferr'ners over to stay... Maybe you put him to work and even sold him a chunk of your land to build his house... Would you say the government should stop you from inviting that guy? I mean, you're all about natural rights, eh??

[Swordsmyth]

I put forth a cogent explanation of why Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders. You still haven't refuted it in any form. Do you acknowledge that my explanation is accurate?
You put forth drivel about a theory of how the world works that is not true.

I laughed at it because it is too pathetic to deserve any better response or any more of my time.

[CaptUSA]

I laughed at it because it is too pathetic to deserve any better response or any more of my time.

SS Boromir's response anytime he can't explain sumfin. It's that government edukashun on display. He needs a safe space.

[Stratovarious]

I made 2 threads about it over in Grassroots Central.
Go to Lowes and ask for fertilizer, you need a lot more.

[Swordsmyth]

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?
They have to be invited into the territory by the owners of the territory before an individual can invite them onto his property.

[Stratovarious]

So, if you own your property and invited one of 'em ferr'ners over to stay... Maybe you put him to work and even sold him a chunk of your land to build his house... Would you say the government should stop you from inviting that guy? I mean, you're all about natural rights, eh??
Who's got rights in any country to bring in illegals and give them 'natural rights' , that ain't natural...........

[CaptUSA]

They have to be invited into the territory by the owners of the territory before an individual can invite them onto his property.

And there it is, folks. That slave mentality. You don't own your land - the collective does. What you need is the most benevolent ruler to mete out the right kind of liberty to you. You are all subservient to the State. SS Boromir says so.

[devil21]

Everyone supports immigration , why are you bent on mischaracterization ?
Who supports 'open Borders' ?

Libertarians do. Libertarians that oppose open borders aren't Libertarians. They're libertarian conservatives.

[PAF]

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?

You know, I was reading that ban thread last night. I for one wouldn’t want to ban anybody because I think even the negatives bring out needed conversations.

But since those bozos don’t understand natural rights well enough, and advocate barriers and forcing others, maybe create a forum box and stick them in it for a while to see how they like it.

I’m sure it would abide by the NAP, temporarily anyway.

[CaptUSA]

Who's got rights in any country to bring in illegals and give them 'natural rights' , that ain't natural...........

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a64548ada5fcf9be2237d66000a0b29e907550195cc160a653 b8b5469e2a7e33.jpg

[euphemia]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?

1. End the Nanny state.
2. Bring the troops home. End Nanny foreign policy, including financial and military intervention.
3. Criminal justice reform.
4. Protection of civil liberties for the individual. No more special interest pandering.
5. End lifetime support of federal employees, including Congress.

[Stratovarious]

Libertarians do. Libertarians that oppose open borders aren't Libertarians. They're libertarian conservatives.

lol, you must be thinking of Gary Johnson, he's not libertarian, he's an infiltrator.

[AuH20]

The libertarian party wants to be even more marginalized. The new 'cans will surely rush towards the forward thinking policies of the Libertarian Party.

[CaptUSA]

1. End the Nanny state.
2. Bring the troops home. End Nanny foreign policy, including financial and military intervention.
3. Criminal justice reform.
4. Protection of civil liberties for the individual. No more special interest pandering.
5. End lifetime support of federal employees, including Congress.

Sign me up!

[Ender]

1. End the Nanny state.
2. Bring the troops home. End Nanny foreign policy, including financial and military intervention.
3. Criminal justice reform.
4. Protection of civil liberties for the individual. No more special interest pandering.
5. End lifetime support of federal employees, including Congress.

6. Stop the WoD.

[CaptUSA]

6. Stop the WoD.

(you didn't really need the last letter. Stop the War on.... fill in the blank.)

[Anti Federalist]

https://www.realwarphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/W27173.22981429_std.jpg

I wonder what these guys would say about hostile immigrant invasions and nations without barriers.

[DamianTV]

It used to be that the "Liberals" meant Liberty, and they got taken over by the extremists too. There is NOTHING extreme about charging govt with the expectation of performing its responsibilities to its people, which means securing its fucking borders. Come here legally, great! Come here illegally, NO.

In regards to the article in the OP, it could very well be a Smear Campaign against the Libertarian Party, which I would not put past either of our Republicratic morons. Republicans and Democrats are just two wings of the same bird of liberty, but why is it this bird of liberty keeps shitting on the windshield of liberty?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

1. End the Nanny state.
2. Bring the troops home. End Nanny foreign policy, including financial and military intervention.
3. Criminal justice reform.
4. Protection of civil liberties for the individual. No more special interest pandering.
5. End lifetime support of federal employees, including Congress.
That will get them even fewer votes than they have now.

[AuH20]

https://www.realwarphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/W27173.22981429_std.jpg

I wonder what these guys would say about hostile immigrant invasions and nations without barriers.

They're too drunk to remember what happened. I'd drink too. Honestly.

[Swordsmyth]

And there it is, folks. That slave mentality. You don't own your land - the collective does. What you need is the most benevolent ruler to mete out the right kind of liberty to you. You are all subservient to the State. SS Boromir says so.
You do own your land but in order to protect their rights people have always joined together in groups to control territory and keep outsiders from coming and taking their rights.

That is the way the world works, always has worked and always will work.
If you let all of the invaders in they will impose that and much more on you.
Get over it.

[devil21]

lol, you must be thinking of Gary Johnson, he's not libertarian, he's an infiltrator.

Jesus, I guess I have to educate all of you newbies on the political intricacies. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party and supports open borders. A libertarian is actually a libertarian conservative and likely associates closer to the Republican Party. Putting purely electoral realities aside, Ron Paul was a Libertarian but like most people as they get older, they tend to become more conservative. Now, he is much more of a libertarian conservative than a Libertarian. Rand Paul has stated he is a libertarian conservative from the start, not a Libertarian. That's a couple of relevant examples of the difference. This thread is about the Libertarian Party and I explained clearly why the LP supports what it does.

[Swordsmyth]

Libertarians do. Libertarians that oppose open borders aren't Libertarians. They're libertarian conservatives.

No, you anarchists have stolen the label "libertarian" it was originally invented to describe people who wanted minimal government BUT WHO WERE NOT ANARCHISTS, there was no need to create the label "libertarian" for anarchists because they already had a label: ANARCHISTS.

The movement should have driven you people away as the lunatics you are when you first came around because we were closer to your position than anyone else.

[Swordsmyth]

Jesus, I guess I have to educate all of you newbies on the political intricacies. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party and supports open borders. A libertarian is actually a libertarian conservative and likely associates closer to the Republican Party. Putting purely electoral realities aside, Ron Paul was a Libertarian but like most people as they get older, they tend to become more conservative. Now, he is much more of a libertarian conservative than a Libertarian. Rand Paul has stated he is a libertarian conservative from the start, not a Libertarian. That's a couple of relevant examples of the difference. This thread is about the Libertarian Party and I explained clearly why the LP supports what it does.
You have it backwards, You anarchists infiltrated and stole the Libertarian Party and Ron id becoming softer on immigration in his old age.

[PAF]

You do own your land but in order to protect their rights people have always joined together in groups to control territory and keep outsiders from coming and taking their rights.

That is the way the world works, always has worked and always will work.
If you let all of the invaders in they will impose that and much more on you.
Get over it.


Locals and local militias helping to defend their private property is completely different than standing armies using eminent domain to transfer control over to a government.

[Swordsmyth]

You know, I was reading that ban thread last night. I for one wouldn’t want to ban anybody because I think even the negatives bring out needed conversations.

But since those bozos don’t understand natural rights well enough, and advocate barriers and forcing others, maybe create a forum box and stick them in it for a while to see how they like it.

I’m sure it would abide by the NAP, temporarily anyway.
There should have been a wall to keep you anarchists out in the first place, now you are trying to take over and drive all of the normal people out.

And that is what will happen to America if we allow the invaders to come in at will with or without the government incentives.

[Stratovarious]

Jesus, I guess I have to educate all of you newbies on the political intricacies. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party and supports open borders. A libertarian is actually a libertarian conservative and likely associates closer to the Republican Party. Putting purely electoral realities aside, Ron Paul was a Libertarian but like most people as they get older, they tend to become more conservative. Now, he is much more of a libertarian conservative than a Libertarian. Rand Paul has stated he is a libertarian conservative from the start, not a Libertarian. That's a couple of relevant examples of the difference. This thread is about the Libertarian Party and I explained clearly why the LP supports what it does.
:facepalm:
This isn't what I signed up for .
:frog: and it isn't what Ron is for.

[Swordsmyth]

Locals and local militias helping to defend their private property is completely different than standing armies using eminent domain to transfer control over to a government.
If they don't control who may move into the area they will not retain their liberty for long.

[AuH20]

Principles are great, until your enemy uses them as shovels.

[PAF]

There should have been a wall to keep you anarchists out in the first place, now you are trying to take over and drive all of the normal people out.

And that is what will happen to America if we allow the invaders to come in at will with or without the government incentives.

I see your status is “Supporting Member”.



Individuals who declare support for our Mission by selecting the user profile field "I support the Mission" will have a user title of "Supporting Member".


Also, are you here on Welfare?

[Swordsmyth]

I see your status is “Supporting Member”.
Also, are you here on Welfare?
That is too stupid to deserve a response.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Principles that contain their own unmaking need to be rethought.

[CaptUSA]

Principles are great, until your enemy uses them as shovels.

The problem isn’t that we are sticking to our principles; it’s that we haven’t stuck to them enough. This wouldn’t even be an issue if we had that intestinal fortitude.

[Swordsmyth]

The problem isn’t that we are sticking to our principles; it’s that we haven’t stuck to them enough. This wouldn’t even be an issue if we had that intestinal fortitude.
The problem is that you anarchists have the wrong "principles".

[CCTelander]

The problem is that you anarchists have the wrong "principles".


I know, right?

How dare we demand to be left the fuck alone to live our lives in peace and, shudder, return the courtesy by extending it to everyone else. We should be shoving guns in people's faces, or having proxies in govt doing it for us, to get what we want like you consustently insist on doing. Nobody can be trusted with "freedom" unless someone else is holding a gun to their head. Amirite?

Putz.

[Swordsmyth]

I know, right?

How dare we demand to be left the $#@! alone to live our lives in peace and, shudder, return the courtesy by extending it to everyone else. We should be shoving guns in people's faces, or having proxies in govt doing it for us, to get what we want like you consustently insist on doing. Nobody can be trusted with "freedom" unless someone else is holding a gun to their head. Amirite?

Putz.
How dare you try to prevent people from defending their rights against foreign invaders?

Putz.

[CCTelander]

How dare you try to prevent people from defending their rights against foreign invaders?

Putz.


I haven't attempted to prevent you from defending anything. I've merely demanded that whatever you do you respect my rights in the process. You, predictably, have refused to do so.

[UWDude]

I haven't attempted to prevent you from defending anything. I've merely demanded that whatever you do you respect my rights in the process. You, predictably, have refused to do so.

It is swordsmyth's fault your life sucks.

[Swordsmyth]

I haven't attempted to prevent you from defending anything. I've merely demanded that whatever you do you respect my rights in the process. You, predictably, have refused to do so.
You anarchists insist that we must allow anyone to come here who wants to, that would prevent us from defending our rights against foreign invaders.

[kahless]

Principles that contain their own unmaking need to be rethought.

That is so obvious I am not buying some of these folks are genuine in their beliefs.

[CCTelander]

You anarchists insist that we must allow anyone to come here who wants to, that would prevent us from defending our rights against foreign invaders.


I have not insisted that at all. I've merely insisted that whatever you do to address the problems you perceive NOT INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS. It's very simple really. And extremely reasonable.

[Swordsmyth]

I have not insisted that at all. I've merely insisted that whatever you do to address the problems you perceive NOT INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS. It's very simple really.
If there is something you would agree that we can do to limit who may come here then you are not part of the group I was addressing.
If you are trying to be cute and claim that you would agree to allow us to limit who may come here but then call any way of doing that an infringement of your rights then don't bother.

[Swordsmyth]

That is so obvious I am not buying some of these folks are genuine in their beliefs.
Some of them absolutely are not, others may be blinded by their anarchist religion or by their worship of the money they think they can make by using illegal alien labor etc.

[PAF]

Some of them absolutely are not, others may be blinded by their anarchist religion or by their worship of the money they think they can make by using illegal alien labor etc.

Got it. So now you are against Contract Rights between 2 consenting adults.

[Swordsmyth]

Got it. So now you are against Contract Rights between 2 consenting adults.
If that contract involves one of them entering our territory illegally.
I also am against contracts to kill people.

[PAF]

If that contract involves one of them entering our territory illegally.
I also am against contracts to kill people.

That would violate the NAP. Keeping in mind that self defense is built in to the NAP.

[Swordsmyth]

That would violate the NAP. Keeping in mind that self defense is built in to the NAP.
Entering our territory without our permission also violates the NAP.

[Brian4Liberty]

I advocate End/All incentives. That is what Libertarians AND Republicans should be fully advocating, but all I hear is crickets.



Speaking of rp forum members that would be complete bs, but speaking of
prominent politicians, I'd tend to agree, they don't get far enough into what
it will really take to end the problem , a wall alone is not the answer, and
cutting all incentives isn't either. We need both and probably some other
ideas mixed in the pot.
I've always said , lets help Mexico become great, can't say again , but great.

Yeah, on this forum, eliminating welfare state incentives probably would have 90% support.

There used to be a libertarian saying that said eliminate the welfare state first and then we'll talk about opening the borders, but we can't have both open borders and a welfare state. Ron Paul has said some variation of this many times himself.

The change in tactics by some has been to put eliminating the welfare state incentives on the back burner, and they are simply calling for elimination of borders first. That is a contradiction to the original statement and poses problems for some libertarians.

[PAF]

Entering our territory without our permission also violates the NAP.

I did not buy or homestead whatever you are referring to when you say “our” so therefore your statement is invalid. Time to say nighty night so that I can be a productive worker in the am.

[Swordsmyth]

I did not buy or homestead whatever you are referring to when you say “our” so therefore your statement is invalid. Time to say nighty night so that I can be a productive worker in the am.
:rolleyes:

[PAF]

Yeah, on this forum, eliminating welfare state incentives probably would have 90% support.

There used to be a libertarian saying that said eliminate the welfare state first and then we'll talk about opening the borders, but we can't have both open borders and a welfare state. Ron Paul has said some variation of this many times himself.

The change in tactics by some has been to put eliminating the welfare state incentives on the back burner, and they are simply calling for elimination of borders first. That is a contradiction to the original statement and poses problems for some libertarians.

It’s government. They want to force eminent domain on a 2,000 mile stretch down at the border, and now 1,500 give/take along the entire west coast. They won’t even mutter the words end anything, all they want to do is force more out of private property and shrink the middle class. Something’s a brewing and folks better wake up.

[Ender]

https://www.realwarphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/W27173.22981429_std.jpg

I wonder what these guys would say about hostile immigrant invasions and nations without barriers.

The problem with that pic is that it seems to insinuate that the "culture" that some want to keep pure were the hostile invading immigrants of US history, who ravaged this continent , declared Manifest Destiny, broke all their promises to the natives, and continue to wage war all over the world to "spread democracy".

Maybe it's time for us to clean our own house instead of trying to sack everyone else's.

[Swordsmyth]

The problem with that pic is that it seems to insinuate that the "culture" that some want to keep pure were the hostile invading immigrants of US history, who ravaged this continent , declared Manifest Destiny, broke all their promises to the natives, and continue to wage war all over the world to "spread democracy".

Maybe it's time for us to clean our own house instead of trying to sack everyone else's.

They lost because they didn't keep us out, we should not repeat their error and allow others to do to us what was done to them.

Is that simple enough for you?

Or are you trying to say that we have hereditary guilt and should allow ourselves to be conquered and eliminated to atone for the sins of our ancestors?

[Ender]

They lost because they didn't keep us out, we should not repeat their error and allow others to do to us what was done to them.

Is that simple enough for you?

Or are you trying to say that we have hereditary guilt and should allow ourselves to be conquered and eliminated to atone for the sins of our ancestors?

But, but, we're so much better!

You sure love to make shit up don't you? That last sentence is bull- but you just keep lying about everyone on this FREEDOM FORUM so people can eventually see where you really stand.

[Swordsmyth]

But, but, we're so much better!
What does that have to do with anything?
We have a right to preserve ourselves and we should.



You sure love to make $#@! up don't you? That last sentence is bull- but you just keep lying about everyone on this FREEDOM FORUM so people can eventually see where you really stand.
It is a question, if that isn't what you are trying to say then just answer it with a "no".
It sure sounds like that is what you are trying to say especially since you keep trying to emphasize how "evil" we are supposed to be.

[LibertyEagle]

You guys want the perfect solution. Ok, I’ll give you one. It abides by the NAP, protects Private Proprty Rights, and takes care of immigrants walking across land.

Trump, the billionaire real-estate magnate that he is, as well as being a “Patriot” who cares about MAGA, should homestead the land at the border that isn’t already owned. There, he can put his own private fence up with his own money and problem solved. He can even stick a few tourism resorts there if he wants.


Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

November 10, 2015

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z ‘s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?
And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

Read the rest...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

[LibertyEagle]

The problem with that pic is that it seems to insinuate that the "culture" that some want to keep pure were the hostile invading immigrants of US history, who ravaged this continent , declared Manifest Destiny, broke all their promises to the natives, and continue to wage war all over the world to "spread democracy".


Give it a rest, Ender. Ours is one of the few countries who did not enslave the people they conquered or feed them to lions for entertainment. Instead, they were allowed to become part of society.

You act as if all Indians were peaceful and you and I both know that is not true at all. In addition to attacking the settlers, they attacked and savagely murdered other Indian tribes. Oh how history has been rewritten, but sorry, I'm old enough to know better.

[Ender]

Give it a rest, Ender. Ours is one of the few countries who did not enslave the people they conquered or feed them to lions for entertainment. Instead, they were allowed to become part of society.

You act as if all Indians were peaceful and you and I both know that is not true at all. In addition to attacking the settlers, they attacked and savagely murdered other Indian tribes. Oh how history has been rewritten, but sorry, I'm old enough to know better.


I never said all Indians were peaceful- but please realize that many times Indians were also attacked by the settlers for no reason other than land. The only white men they learned to trust, after so much war, were the Scots because a) they wore skirts & b) they didn't lie.

And if you know real history you should also know that it was the Brits who were the scalpers; they were famous for it in Europe. They paid $20 each for scalps of Indian men, women, & children. Most Indian tribes only used scalping for certain ceremonies & it was very rare until the Brits set them off.

The Indians were also lied to many times. The Mexican American war is just one example, as part of the Treaty was to allow Indians living in the conquered Mexican territories, citizenship- this never happened.

[Swordsmyth]

I never said all Indians were peaceful- but please realize that many times Indians were also attacked by the settlers for no reason other than land. The only white men they learned to trust, after so much war, were the Scots because a) they wore skirts & b) they didn't lie.

And if you know real history you should also know that it was the Brits who were the scalpers; they were famous for it in Europe. They paid $20 each for scalps of Indian men, women, & children. Most Indian tribes only used scalping for certain ceremonies & it was very rare until the Brits set them off.

The Indians were also lied to many times. The Mexican American war is just one example, as part of the Treaty was to allow Indians living in the conquered Mexican territories, citizenship- this never happened.
That's all nice but it leaves out all the horrible things the Injuns did to eachother before the white man came including taking land and most importantly it has absolutely nothing to do with why you seem to think that we should volunteer to accept the safe fate. (unless you are pushing the collective inherited guilt idea)

[Anti Federalist]

The problem with that pic is that it seems to insinuate that the "culture" that some want to keep pure were the hostile invading immigrants of US history, who ravaged this continent , declared Manifest Destiny, broke all their promises to the natives, and continue to wage war all over the world to "spread democracy".

Maybe it's time for us to clean our own house instead of trying to sack everyone else's.

That's my point.

Hostile invading immigrants decimated the native population, enslaved, abused and carried out what could only be described as a pogram of ethnic cleansing, all the while promising peace and prosperity through "free trade" and treaties, leaving these once mighty and proud people second class citizens and wards of the state in a society that hated them, because the native population would not, could not, effectively organize, erect barriers to the invasion and protect themselves.

The current invaders have made it clear that is their plan for me and my family.

Maybe you could call it karma then, and I should just retreat to Europe.

But I can say this, after extensive research, my family never used African chattel slaves, and the native lands they settled on in the 17th century here, were paid for, fair and square.

[Stratovarious]

Yeah, on this forum, eliminating welfare state incentives probably would have 90% support.

There used to be a libertarian saying that said eliminate the welfare state first and then we'll talk about opening the borders, but we can't have both open borders and a welfare state. Ron Paul has said some variation of this many times himself.

The change in tactics by some has been to put eliminating the welfare state incentives on the back burner, and they are simply calling for elimination of borders first. That is a contradiction to the original statement and poses problems for some libertarians.

I'm sure the original organizers of the libertarian party were smarter than I, but my
guess is they either didn't foresee;

Consequences of open borders
Didn't realize that Globalists promote open borders
Had no idea that sanctuary cities would emerge
Welfare to illegals would emerge
America would continue to create enemies abroad
MS 13
Ebola Virus
Unfettered influx of 'new' diseases
Terrorists
Muslims vow to see us genocided' , believe like
Judaism, that they are the chosen and destined
to rule over all of this planet.

Influx from every 3 world shthl will totally overwhelm and obliterate everything
our forefathers built for us.
-
As I've written thousands of times; Cut all Incentives.
It wasn't till a few short months back that I finally realize that
we need a comprehensive plan there isn't one little simple fix.
If the libertarian policy today is truly 'Open Borders' , heaven
help us all, should we ever get in power.

[Anti Federalist]

The Scramble for America

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-scramble-for-america/

by Steve Sailer

January 30, 2019

The Scramble for Africa became possible when Europeans began to use quinine to lessen the ferocious toll that malaria took upon whites. Before the later 19th century, Europeans had barely penetrated into the interior of tropical Africa. But as indigenous diseases became less lethal, a great enthusiasm arose in Europe to colonize Africa. The fraction of Africa ruled by Europeans grew from 10 percent in 1870 to 90 percent in 1914. (By 1977, the percentage was zero. A century of experience with Africa left whites with rather little interest in it.)

Similarly, the 21st century is witnessing the Scramble for America and Europe as technological innovations boost the population of the Third World and also make migration easier. In particular, the recent spread of the smartphone has emboldened the young men of the Global South to set forth on the adventure of a lifetime crossing the Mediterranean, with the payoff in mind of the most famously beautiful women in the world awaiting them on the northern shore.

The United Nations forecast in 2017 that the population of sub-Saharan Africa would octuple between 1990 and 2100, reaching 4 billion by the end of the century.

In recent months, a few brave VIPs such as Bill Gates and John Kerry have begun to warn that a more moderate African fertility rate would be good for Africa (not to mention—cough, cough—the rest of the world).

Of course, if African fertility control doesn’t happen, and soon, much of this vast population will, if allowed, leave Africa. The disruptions caused to Northern cities such as Detroit in the second half of the 20th century by the Great Migration of 7 million rural Southern African-Americans offers an eye-opening preview of the effects of what promises to be a Greater Migration two orders of magnitude larger.

Likewise, Pakistan, whose grandsons have done so much for the civic weal of Rotherham, is expected to grow from 197 million in 2017 to 307 million in 2050.

Curiously, however, unlike in the 1880s, the lands being colonized in this new Scramble are richer, technologically superior, and militarily stronger than those doing the colonizing. In other words, there isn’t anything inevitable about the Scramble for America. It’s well within our capabilities to defend our homeland.

As evidence, a few self-confident countries, such as Israel and Hungary, have virtually eliminated illegal immigration through simple expedients such as border barriers. Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu, for instance, routinely tweets out photographs of the ferocious fences and walls Israel has quickly erected in recent years.

But much of the rest of the First World is paralyzed by the widespread assumption that its peoples don’t deserve to protect themselves from being colonized. For example, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently proclaimed, “The fact is, a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.”

Who we are, evidently, are the people who aren’t here yet.

Elites like Pelosi tend to be motivated by self-interest (that’s how they got to be elites): The Scramble for America has turned Pelosi’s California into a one-party state and might do something similar for the rest of the country. Her descendants, of course, will do fine for the foreseeable future.

Obviously, Pelosi’s rhetoric isn’t intended to persuade anyone rationally: Like much of elite reasoning in recent years it’s fundamentally childish, based on an appeal to simplistic assumptions about who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys. The dominant dichotomy about punching up versus punching down, for example, makes sense to a 6-year-old boy: We know that the good guys punch up at the bad guys. Why? Because they are good.

Consider the Covington fiasco in which much of the media leaped to the conclusion that the boy who stood stoically while being harassed by the alcoholic drifter had to be the bad guy because…well, because we hate his white male face, so that must mean he is the Face of Hate.

Unfortunately for the press, the kid not only didn’t do anything to apologize for, he didn’t apologize anyway.

Many pundits took away the message that their only mistake was using Twitter to immediately express their hatred for Core Americans rather than writing it up for a slower-moving outlet from which they could have pulled their piece before it was published. For example, New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo explained:

I will confess that when I first saw the video of a smirking teenager staring down a drumming elder, I, too, was stirred to outrage. My politics lean against the kids’, and something about their smugness and certainty—they seemed to be doing tomahawk chops and were wearing hats supporting a racist president—confirmed all my priors about the ugliness of our Trumpian times.

You might think that Manjoo would go on from there to do some public soul-searching about why he is so bigoted against Core Americans that he let his racist prejudices cloud his judgment. But instead, he merely took away the lesson “Never Tweet.”

Of course, the problem with Twitter for journalists is that it allows them to instantly expose their hate-driven bias without an editor suggesting that they more artfully disguise their intolerance.

A related bizarre aspect of the Scramble for America is the ever growing demand in American media for commentators to do the Job Americans Just Won’t Do: dreaming up ever sillier microaggressions for Core Americans to apologize for—what I call “immigriping.” I’ve read numberless op-eds by interns with unpronounceable names lambasting white Americans because at some point in the past there was one American white who couldn’t pronounce her name. (And then another asked to touch her hair.)

For example, Rachel Hatzipanagos of The Washington Post tweeted this week:

Are you a POC who has been confused for a colleague at work? Want to talk about how that made you feel? Contact me for an upcoming story for The Post’s race and identity newsletter. rachel.hatzipanagos@washpost.com or leave your info here

The implicit or explicit solution for whatever our new immigrant overlords shamelessly complain about is that America should let in more of their extended family. For example, Manjoo wrote in the NYT:

There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.

In other words, you stupid Americans let my nuclear family in, and now I’m going to bully you until you let my entire extended family in. And then they are going to badger you until you let their extended families in. You naive Americans don’t understand how important our clans are to us, so, too bad, you are doomed.

The Scramble for America is on, and Americans are ideologically ill-equipped to survive it.

[Anti Federalist]

And another thing, just to address the OP's thread title:

I'm glad I never identified as a "L" libertarian.

I'm actually closer to an anarchist, at least as an ideal, a goal to shoot for, after another ten thousand years of human evolution perhaps.

However, current events, and the utter and total rejection by the AmeriKunt people of limited government liberty as envisioned by Ron Paul, have forced me to re-assume my identity as a "paleo-conservative" in the manner of Pat Buchanan, of whom I supported all through the late 80s and 90s.

And I'm comfortable with that.

[euphemia]

I put forth a cogent explanation of why Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders. You still haven't refuted it in any form. Do you acknowledge that my explanation is accurate?

I acknowledge that you have put forth what you believe and you interpret what some Libertarians believe. In a non-nanny state it would be worthwhile to consider.

However, Libertarians have not addressed the most important issues that make for a free society. Open borders means that the government oppresses more people because we invite people in to be oppressed. Take it one thing at a time and make it stick.

[CaptUSA]

And another thing, just to address the OP's thread title:

I'm glad I never identified as a "L" libertarian.

I'm actually closer to an anarchist, at least as an ideal, a goal to shoot for, after another ten thousand years of human evolution perhaps.

However, current events, and the utter and total rejection by the AmeriKunt people of limited government liberty as envisioned by Ron Paul, have forced me to re-assume my identity as a "paleo-conservative" in the manner of Pat Buchanan, of whom I supported all through the late 80s and 90s.

And I'm comfortable with that.

It's funny to me that the statists in this thread keep calling me an anarchist. lol. It's as if anyone who doesn't want to grow government power in their favor must want absolute anarchy.

One thing that I am sure of, though, is that I don't succumb to fears - especially when they're government-created. That's a tool governments use to gain more power. Something about growing up being educated in government skools makes it extremely difficult for people to shake those fears. Even when their cognitive minds would tell them differently, those fears of outsiders trying to get them are buried deep in their psyches. And their effect of their policies give much evidence to support those fears.

But for some reason, instead of turning their ire towards the government that caused the problems, these people will still turn their ire towards the outsiders. It seems crazy to anyone that hasn't gone through the indoctrination of the state. Unfortunately, there aren't many of us left.

Just know this from a former "anarchist":

http://www.quotemaster.org/images/03/0392b08816d623e7309240b526d19b8f.jpg

[PAF]

However, Libertarians have not addressed the most important issues that make for a free society. Open borders means that the government oppresses more people because we invite people in to be oppressed. Take it one thing at a time and make it stick.


I do not subscribe to or acknowledge "illegal". That is a political term to force people to be "documented" by which the state can extract extortion money (tax), and also provide a means to obtain incentives and welfare.

If the idea is to work within the system, even temporarily, government will see to it that there are no freedoms left.

[euphemia]

Then you do not support Dr. Ron Paul's commitment to the Constitution.

[PAF]

Then you do not support Dr. Ron Paul's commitment to the Constitution.

Dr. Paul's commitment is to educate the people that we have strayed so far off course. Parts of the Constitution were intended to keep the chains on government, however those are completely ignored by both the People and the WH.

As an individual thinker who values liberty, I come to my own conclusions about what it means to be truly free and independent. Liberty comes from within. Once felt, there is no turning back.

[Stratovarious]

Are we talking about Indians again, well don't forget, all of you are 100% as
indigenous as they.
They just got here before us, they did not appear out of a rock as
many would have you believe.
Indians weren't the first to arrive either, and they didn't invent
horses.
No telling who they may have killed off when they first arrived.
Point is if there is one;
I think most of us get along
really well with them (I know I do) and they us, we're all humans with
faults and assets.

[Stratovarious]

I do not subscribe to or acknowledge "illegal". That is a political term to force people to be "documented" by which the state can extract extortion money (tax), and also provide a means to obtain incentives and welfare.

If the idea is to work within the system, even temporarily, government will see to it that there are no freedoms left.
Do you prefer; 'wetback' ?

[Superfluous Man]

The way the source of this selectively quotes only part of a sentence from the Facebook post he's talking about makes it hard to tell if the way he characterizes what it said really supports his conclusions about it.

It may be that they were saying that they wanted to legalize immigration that is currently illegal, so that it would by definition not be illegal immigration any more.

If so, then this would be the exact opposite of endorsing illegal immigration. In fact, doing this would more effectively put an end to illegal immigration than any policy immigration restrictionists could come up with.

I encounter immigration restrictionists all the time who try to fall back on some variation of the line, "I'm not against immigration, just illegal immigration." But if they don't endorse legalizing it, then yes, they are against immigration.

[euphemia]

What I would suggest is that the Constitution is nothing without a defendable border. Mexico and Canada have their own system of government and we have ours. I think that’s what the founders had in mind. They also intended limited government within the borders of the United States. This should be the focus. Get government down to Constitutional limits and the rest of it kind of takes care of itself. The problem is not my opinion or yours. It is the government.

[Superfluous Man]

I think that’s what the founders had in mind.

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

[angelatc]

Entering our territory isn't a natural right and the LP is pretending that it is.

Their current chair makes me sad. He seems like a nice guy but he always feels a need to wallow in the muck with the masses. He's a leftitarian.

[CaptUSA]

What I would suggest is that the Constitution is nothing without a defendable border. Mexico and Canada have their own system of government and we have ours. I think that’s what the founders had in mind. They also intended limited government within the borders of the United States. This should be the focus. Get government down to Constitutional limits and the rest of it kind of takes care of itself. The problem is not my opinion or yours. It is the govnment.

In Alexandria Bay New York, there are kiosks at the border so that anyone who crosses the river can self-declare. They're not manned 24/7. Besides major points of entry, most places along the northern border are like that. Seems satisfactory where there are not perverse incentives.

[euphemia]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

It would be nice if you didn’t take one sentence out of context. I don’t think the founders in any way thought the people would stand for the out-of-control transfers of wealth and micromanaging of individual behavior. I also don’t think they foresaw soecial interests bring given rights that don’t go to everyone else.

And I feel positive the founders did not intend to protect a free press for the purpose of aiding and abetting government in its criminal overreach.

[Superfluous Man]

In Alexandria Bay New York, there are kiosks at the border so that anyone who crosses the river can self-declare. They're not manned 24/7. Besides major points of entry, most places along the northern border are like that. Seems satisfactory where there are not perverse incentives.

Is this still the case today? I haven't crossed into Canada since 9/11. In the times I did prior to that, it was through manned checkpoints, but it was really easy. I knew other places like you describe existed. But the checkpoints were really easy anyway. Nobody ever had to show a passport back then. But I've heard it's gotten much stricter since 9/11 and that the only people who are allowed to cross that border without passports are children accompanied by adults who have them.

[CaptUSA]

Is this still the case today? I haven't crossed into Canada since 9/11. In the times I did prior to that, it was through manned checkpoints, but it was really easy. I knew other places like you describe existed. But the checkpoints were really easy anyway. Nobody ever had to show a passport back then. But I've heard it's gotten much stricter since 9/11 and that the only people who are allowed to cross that border without passports are children accompanied by adults who have them.

That's at the bridges and roads. Along the river it's much easier. Last time I was up there was 2013 or so. And yes. A kiosk by each pier.

[PAF]

Is this still the case today? I haven't crossed into Canada since 9/11. In the times I did prior to that, it was through manned checkpoints, but it was really easy. I knew other places like you describe existed. But the checkpoints were really easy anyway. Nobody ever had to show a passport back then. But I've heard it's gotten much stricter since 9/11 and that the only people who are allowed to cross that border without passports are children accompanied by adults who have them.

I frequent Canada often being only 3 hours away. 6 times out of 10 they strip my entire car because of a traffic violation here in the states (6 miles over the posted speed limit) several years ago.

[Brian4Liberty]

And another thing, just to address the OP's thread title:

I'm glad I never identified as a "L" libertarian.

I'm actually closer to an anarchist, at least as an ideal, a goal to shoot for, after another ten thousand years of human evolution perhaps.

However, current events, and the utter and total rejection by the AmeriKunt people of limited government liberty as envisioned by Ron Paul, have forced me to re-assume my identity as a "paleo-conservative" in the manner of Pat Buchanan, of whom I supported all through the late 80s and 90s.

And I'm comfortable with that.

Experience tends to insert reality into youthful ideals. Some say that “you will evolve into an anarcho-capitalist”. Sometimes it’s the other way around. You can evolve from a version of anarcho-capitalist into a minarchist that accepts that there is a limited role for various levels of, *gasp* government.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's funny to me that the statists in this thread keep calling me an anarchist. lol.

Hmmm.


It's as if anyone who doesn't want to grow government power in their favor must want absolute anarchy.

And anyone who wants government to do something that it isn’t already doing is a “statist”?

[Anti Federalist]

That's at the bridges and roads. Along the river it's much easier. Last time I was up there was 2013 or so. And yes. A kiosk by each pier.

You can still check in that way or by phone from the Bahamas or certain parts of the Caribbean when entering with a private vessel.

I was up snowmobiling near the border a couple weeks ago, I think they have the same system set up for the trails as well.

[CaptUSA]

You can still check in that way or by phone from the Bahamas or certain parts of the Caribbean when entering with a private vessel.

I was up snowmobiling near the border a couple weeks ago, I think they have the same system set up for the trails as well.

Works for me. Imagine if we removed the artificial incentives... All of our borders could work like that. And private property owners can still patrol their own lands. Seems like win/win/win. But the government-skooled tools will say it's a fantasy. Because that's what the government tells them and they can't conceive of any alternative.

[kahless]

Works for me. Imagine if we removed the artificial incentives... All of our borders could work like that. And private property owners can still patrol their own lands. Seems like win/win/win. But the government-skooled tools will say it's a fantasy. Because that's what the government tells them and they can't conceive of any alternative.

Ok Rambo. :rolleyes:

https://i.imgur.com/2C131Vq.jpg

[tfurrh]

I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.

[LibertyEagle]

I never said all Indians were peaceful- but please realize that many times Indians were also attacked by the settlers for no reason other than land. The only white men they learned to trust, after so much war, were the Scots because a) they wore skirts & b) they didn't lie.

And if you know real history you should also know that it was the Brits who were the scalpers; they were famous for it in Europe. They paid $20 each for scalps of Indian men, women, & children. Most Indian tribes only used scalping for certain ceremonies & it was very rare until the Brits set them off.

The Indians were also lied to many times. The Mexican American war is just one example, as part of the Treaty was to allow Indians living in the conquered Mexican territories, citizenship- this never happened.

Treaties were broken and of course I don't agree with that. Lands were conquered and lands were purchased. That is all history. You seem to believe that the present day Americans, which includes Indians, should feel guilty and because of that guilt, allow our country to be taken over by invaders.

Why is that?

[tfurrh]

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

[LibertyEagle]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

Like this quote?



In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

[LibertyEagle]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.

Really?


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

[Superfluous Man]

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012

Thank you.

Great quote.

[Superfluous Man]

Like this quote?



http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

I see absolutely nothing in any of those quotes that contradicts exactly what I said. Do you?

Notably, you didn't provide any information about the primary sources, you just copied and pasted paragraphs from that Woods article where his words are mixed with the founders he quotes. And Woods himself never once claims in that article that any of the founders he mentions believed the federal government had any constitutional authority to limit immigration.

If you actually check the source of the Jefferson quotes, you will see that, not only does he never once endorse the empowerment of the federal government to limit immigration, but in fact he explicitly disavows that position, saying that in spite of his skepticism of the benefit of mass immigration, it remains the case that "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship." This line comes right after the quotes you cherry-picked from that Woods article.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

So this is actually a great illustration of precisely what I said.

The founders (Jefferson at least) were so committed to liberty, including open borders, that they stood by that conviction even when they foresaw that it would lead to undesirable results.

They (at least Jefferson) were not people who looked out at the world and every time they saw something they didn't like, spoke sentences that started with the words, "There ought to be a law..."

[Superfluous Man]

Really?


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

Of course, I'm sure you're well aware that the founders would not have expanded the meaning of the word "invasion" to include the immigration of peaceful civilians, like you are doing.

You must either adopt a living document view of the Constitution, or else admit that it does not empower the federal government to limit immigration. Because interpreted according to its original meaning, it clearly does not.

[Superfluous Man]

On the other hand, if anyone really wants to take an honest look at what the founders thought about federal power to restrict immigration, and what the Constitution actually says about it, when interpreted according to originalist principles, you will find a treasure trove of evidence pertaining to those questions in these articles by Ilya Somin.

Unlike that Woods article, these articles actually address the specific question of how the founders understood the Constitution, and not just whether their personal opinions about immigration were to prefer more of it or not.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=5640970671030241191031230821000090 66055084000087056003103003086014072096098098117124 00705711610605200402100407601900109108710210305202 20290220030161270881220930660880780620000221260660 83086087090010124080005077080067098109125071031118 127067023113025&EXT=pdf

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.2c57ee2f1af4

[Ender]

Treaties were broken and of course I don't agree with that. Lands were conquered and lands were purchased. That is all history. You seem to believe that the present day Americans, which includes Indians, should feel guilty and because of that guilt, allow our country to be taken over by invaders.

Why is that?

Nope- I don't think we should feel guilty- I think we should WAKE UP take care of the real problems before us instead of fighting over things that are designed to take our eye off the mark.

[Ender]

That's my point.

Hostile invading immigrants decimated the native population, enslaved, abused and carried out what could only be described as a pogram of ethnic cleansing, all the while promising peace and prosperity through "free trade" and treaties, leaving these once mighty and proud people second class citizens and wards of the state in a society that hated them, because the native population would not, could not, effectively organize, erect barriers to the invasion and protect themselves.

The current invaders have made it clear that is their plan for me and my family.

Maybe you could call it karma then, and I should just retreat to Europe.

But I can say this, after extensive research, my family never used African chattel slaves, and the native lands they settled on in the 17th century here, were paid for, fair and square.

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.

[Ender]

I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.

Yerp!

[brushfire]

Oh, that libertarian party... They're a hoot.


https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-te03EdLq6dQ/WAanGwYr0GI/AAAAAAAAvy8/T5zPqB4z4jcaMNCfWvW2E0AC3SZvE2YUgCLcB/s1600/TongueTiedGovGaryJohnson_ani.gif

[Swordsmyth]

The founders definitely did not have in mind any restrictions of immigration enforced by the federal government. Nor did they believe that anything in the Constitution could be taken as a delegation of such a power to the federal government. This is easily proven from their own quotes and the Constitution itself.
Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

[Swordsmyth]

In Alexandria Bay New York, there are kiosks at the border so that anyone who crosses the river can self-declare. They're not manned 24/7. Besides major points of entry, most places along the northern border are like that. Seems satisfactory where there are not perverse incentives.
Canada has a standard of living very close to ours, a small population relative to its size and no land borders with impoverished overcrowded countries.

[Swordsmyth]

I'd rather read a zippyjuan thread than a swordsmyth thread.
Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.

[Swordsmyth]

Yerp!
Be my guest, put me on ignore, I'd rather not have you in my threads.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.
:rolleyes:

[Superfluous Man]

Yes they did intend for the federal government to restrict immigration:


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tfurrh http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6745725#post6745725)

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012




Thank you.

Great quote.
A biased liberal ruling.

[Stratovarious]

Um.... You don't want them even if they're invited. You have no idea what natural rights are, do you?
Thanks for the neg idiot, :frog: you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,

[Swordsmyth]

I'll need to look more into this before I can speak authoritatively about it.

But right off the bat I notice that it does not stipulate any specific means of national authorities granting permission to cross national borders. It certainly isn't saying that the Law of Nations required some kind of paperwork like a passport for crossing all national borders. That would be totally anachronistic. It may be that some nations reserved the rights to restrict immigration into them. But the US did not, at least not at the federal level. As far as the federal government was concerned, according to its constitutional authority, there was a general permission for anyone to cross the national borders of the United States. No special grant of permission for individuals on a person-by-person basis was needed at the time of the nation's founding. Whenever any common person traveled across the national borders of the USA at that time, they did so with the permission of the national authorities, and needed no passport or any similar special additional permission to do so.
Congress was given power to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations", that means they can define entry without permission and proper documentation as a crime and specify a punishment.

[Swordsmyth]

Really?


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight


You can find more in this thread:

Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

[Superfluous Man]

A biased liberal ruling.

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.

[Swordsmyth]

Like this quote?



http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't care much for the felt need some have to classify things as liberal or conservative. But as a statement of fact about the law, that quote is accurate.
No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.

[Superfluous Man]

No it isn't, remaining is not a new crime but it is a continuation of the original crime.

US law does not say that.

[Superfluous Man]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.

[Swordsmyth]

To what level of "society" is he referring, and what "territory"? That makes all the difference.

I would not be surprised if he thought that a state could exclude noncitizens. But I would be surprised if he said the federal government could through a sweeping law covering all the states.
He was talking about the union excluding the citizens of states that were threatening to secede and thus become foreigners.

[Swordsmyth]

US law does not say that.
Yes it does.
It is just like a trespasser is trespassing the entire time he is on my property not just as he crosses on to it.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree- my only issue with this post is that I don't believe "current invaders" are the prob. I think they are being used to frighten and divide us so that we aren't looking at the Big Picture.

That is sadly where our point of disagreement is.

I do. I see it as a clear and present danger, and hopefully present that fact in a calm and rational way, and not in a way indicating irrational fear.

The UniParty Marxist Super Majority government in California, directly caused by invading migrant hordes displacing and overwhelming native voters (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/orange-county-republicans-democrats-demographics.html), is evidence of this.

Texas, Arizona and Florida are next.

Once that happens, you can dismiss even lip service to limited government representation at the federal level for 100 years or more.

[CaptUSA]

Thanks for the neg idiot, :frog: you should join Hillary , that's the kind of thing she does
when her argument is week.....:facepalm:
When you can't hold a conversation, just neg em' ,,,,,,,,,

Better check again. I didn’t neg you. I reserve that for trolls. Not just general ignoramuses.

[Swordsmyth]

That is sadly where our point of disagreement is.

I do. I see it as a clear and present danger, and hopefully present that fact in a calm and rational way, and not in a way indicating irrational fear.

The UniParty Marxist Super Majority government in California, directly caused by invading migrant hordes displacing and overwhelming native voters (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/orange-county-republicans-democrats-demographics.html), is evidence of this.

Texas, Arizona and Florida are next.

Once that happens, you can dismiss even lip service to limited government representation at the federal level for 100 years or more.
Ender doesn't want to see it, it would be too uncomfortable and require him to adjust his ideals to compensate for practical reality.

Ender needs to be told this: “You want it to be one way. But it’s the other way.”

[Stratovarious]

Better check again. I didn’t neg you. I reserve that for trolls. Not just general ignoramuses.
Apologies , you're not Cap I guess, when I clicked on the 'neg' it lead here to this page,,,,:shrugs:

[Swordsmyth]

Apologies , you're not Cap I guess, when I clicked on the 'neg' it lead here to this page,,,,:shrugs:
The neg leads to the post negged when clicked on.

[Stratovarious]

A biased liberal ruling. Bingo.

[Stratovarious]

The neg leads to the post negged when clicked on.
That's what I have experienced, it was cap
that did the negg.

[Stratovarious]

"as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." AZ vs US; 2012
This is just silly nonsense, you crash the border that is a crime, you stay here, not a crime.....lmao,
then we're not here to deport you for being here, but we are going to do so because you took up
residence here illegally. So there's an empty seat on the bus.

[Stratovarious]

US law does not say that.
Us Law does not say that we won't allow immigration of Cannibals,
really , it does not say that.

[r3volution 3.0]

Natural Rights apply to all people. Isn’t that what RPF forum advocates? Or has that changed?

Per the dominant ideology of the movement formerly known as liberty, the "rights of the nation" trump the rights of the individual.

So, yes, it's changed.


Hoppeanism that treats the state as an owner is the only brand of libertarianism that will survive into the middle of this century.

Hoppe's attempt at rationalizing immigration restrictions is barely coherent, and certainly not consistent with libertarianism.

That said, you're quite right about this "brand of libertarianism" being more popular than, well, libertarianism.


As usual, Shillsmyth doesn't understand the basics and kneejerk reacts.

Libertarians historically support immigration and open borders because the "legal" system (that creates "illegal" people) is an instrument of control against people who would otherwise be completely free to make their own decisions about how to live. The legal reality is that an "illegal immigrant" is a free man or free woman. A "legal citizen" is a captive resource and treated accordingly.

He understands; he knows that free immigration is a straightforward application of basic libertarian principles.

...he just doesn't care, since he isn't a libertarian: doesn't share those values.


It's funny to me that the statists in this thread keep calling me an anarchist. lol. It's as if anyone who doesn't want to grow government power in their favor must want absolute anarchy.

All anarchists oppose immigration restrictions; not all people who oppose immigration restrictions are anarchists.

This is obvious, but...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Sinclair

[Pauls' Revere]

NOT. TRUE.

Ending incentives will indeed improve the economy & people will come here to WORK.

And a truly free people understand that liberty is the base for all people- it isn't dem foreigners that have stolen our freedom- it's ignorant Americans giving in to TPTB.

Agree.

I'm all for conditional immigration. Remove the incentives (welfare state) and do a background check to reduce criminals from entering. Also check for gnarly diseases, I don't want the Black death here or Ebola. Other than that, welcome to the USA.

[Swordsmyth]

Agree.

I'm all for conditional immigration. Remove the incentives (welfare state) and do a background check to reduce criminals from entering. Also check for gnarly diseases, I don't want the Black death here or Ebola. Other than that, welcome to the USA.
Unfortunately there is no medical test for communism which is a much more lethal and virulent disease than any of those.

[Pauls' Revere]

Unfortunately there is no medical test for communism which is a much more lethal and virulent disease than any of those.

Then its up to us (and others) to demonstrate the benefits of a free society. My line of thought had to change when I had that "aha" moment when I heard Dr. Paul.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes it does.

Please find the law that says that.

Claims like yours have been made before around here many times. Many times I have challenged those who make them to find the law. So far nobody has. If you can, you will be the first.

[devil21]

So many people have a fundamentally wrong (intentionally implanted) understanding of the situation in this country and particularly because they don't know the true history. This true history is taught to the overlords in the elite colleges, where the overlords always seem to originate from. They operate based on this history, not the spoon fed disinfo given to average folks in public schools and run-of-the-mill colleges.

REQUIRED READING
http://stopthecrime.net/docs/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf

Once you read that and digest it, a lot more things will start to make a lot more sense. I had a conversation with an experienced police officer and when the question of "which constitution are you talking about?" came up, he was shocked that I actually knew the answer! Most is not what it seems.

[Swordsmyth]

Then its up to us (and others) to demonstrate the benefits of a free society. My line of thought had to change when I had that "aha" moment when I heard Dr. Paul.
We can't convert them faster than they come, that means they will take away our liberty and we have a right to limit them in order to prevent that.
We have a hard enough time trying to convert any of the natives who have at least been raised with lip service towards liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Please find the law that says that.

Claims like yours have been made before around here many times. Many times I have challenged those who make them to find the law. So far nobody has. If you can, you will be the first.
I already told you and you cut that part off, there is a law against entering illegally and they are in violation of it as long as they are here just as a trespasser is a trespasser the entire time he is on my property.

[Pauls' Revere]

We can't convert them faster than they come, that means they will take away our liberty and we have a right to limit them in order to prevent that.
We have a hard enough time trying to convert any of the natives who have at least been raised with lip service towards liberty.

We can't restrict people depending on conversion rate nor decide how they should think.

[Swordsmyth]

We can't restrict people depending on conversion rate nor decide how they should think.
Yes we can, this country is for people who respect eachother's rights and we have a right to keep people out who will violate our rights.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes we can, this country is for people who respect eachother's rights and we have a right to keep people out who will violate our rights.

How would you determine that?

[LibertyEagle]

Of course, I'm sure you're well aware that the founders would not have expanded the meaning of the word "invasion" to include the immigration of peaceful civilians, like you are doing.

You must either adopt a living document view of the Constitution, or else admit that it does not empower the federal government to limit immigration. Because interpreted according to its original meaning, it clearly does not.

BULLSHIT. Illegal aliens are killing U.S. citizens. If you don't think they would have stopped that and the caravan invasions, you are naive.



Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

[Swordsmyth]

How would you determine that?
You look at the government and culture of the country they come from and you err on the side of letting fewer people in.
If you don't let many people in from cultures that have less of a belief in liberty then you will not likely let in enough to take power and violate the natives' rights.

[LibertyEagle]

Per the dominant ideology of the movement formerly known as liberty, the "rights of the nation" trump the rights of the individual.

So, yes, it's changed.



Hoppe's attempt at rationalizing immigration restrictions is barely coherent, and certainly not consistent with libertarianism.

That said, you're quite right about this "brand of libertarianism" being more popular than, well, libertarianism.



He understands; he knows that free immigration is a straightforward application of basic libertarian principles.

...he just doesn't care, since he isn't a libertarian: doesn't share those values.



All anarchists oppose immigration restrictions; not all people who oppose immigration restrictions are anarchists.

This is obvious, but...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Sinclair

And some Communists, who have been trying very hard to shift people's views to world government, understand that open borders and flooding one's country with people who do not share the principals upon which this country was founded, will make it so very much easier to send what's left of this country over the edge.

[Stratovarious]

Don't forget that Weakening our resolve with hundreds of millions of 3rd world,
low iq, welfare loving, middle easterners , will make Genocide so much easier ,
the Globalist's plan is to reduce world population
by 80%.
If we let George Soros's 'OPEN SOCIETY' implement their plan, in 10
years there will be 700mil new 3rd world immigrants, 250-300mil native born,
the genocide with the help of NATO troops will begin, there will be
no Europeans left, you have no one left that believes in Freedom and sovereignty.
NWO is completely entrenched and operational in America.
A dumber population that will be infinitely easier to manipulate and control.
No recovery , Game Over.

[PAF]

And some Communists, who have been trying very hard to shift people's views to world government, understand that open borders and flooding one's country with people who do not share the principals upon which this country was founded, will make it so very much easier to send what's left of this country over the edge.

Both communists and libertarians need air to survive. People supporting the government taking/controlling other people’s property “for the greater good” is exactly the view the world government is pushing for.

[Sammy]

This is why I don't support the Libertarian Party

[PAF]

This is why I don't support the Libertarian Party

The wall prevents Circular Flow.

When the Reagan and Clinton administrations drastically increased border enforcement in response to “public opinion” they stopped Circular Flow. This increased the number of undocumented immigrants overstaying to increase by 248%.

The only thing a wall stops is actual solutions.

That is what Ron Paul meant when he said the wall won’t keep people out, it will keep people in.

Every time the government gets involved problems get worse.

The conversation should be to end any/all incentives and protecting Private Property Rights, both of which used to be the Republican platform.

Free Market solutions always work but neither party wants to talk about that. All they want is more government, more spending, and less freedom.

Anybody who supports that wall is a government owned slave, ie: statist.

[Sammy]

The wall prevents Circular Flow.

When the Reagan and Clinton administrations drastically increased border enforcement in response to “public opinion” they stopped Circular Flow. This increased the number of undocumented immigrants overstaying to increase by 248%.

The only thing a wall stops is actual solutions.

That is what Ron Paul meant when he said the wall won’t keep people out, it will keep people in.

Every time the government gets involved problems get worse.

The conversation should be to end any/all incentives and protecting Private Property Rights, both of which used to be the Republican platform.

Free Market solutions always work but neither party wants to talk about that. All they want is more government, more spending, and less freedom.

Anybody who supports that wall is a government owned slave, ie: statist.

Both Reagan & Clinton were weak on illegal immigration...I support Trump's wall but that isn't enough...Trump needs to deport all illegal immigrants & he needs to reduce
legal immigration...
I'm a statist? I'm a Small Government Paleo-Libertarian...Ron Paul opposes illegal immigration & birthright citizenship...
You Mainstream Libertarians are just laughable on Immigration...No wonder 1/3 of Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Trump...
You Guys are not losing because you are anti-war & anti welfare...You are losing because of the immigration issue...

[PAF]

Both Reagan & Clinton were weak on illegal immigration...I support Trump's wall but that isn't enough...Trump needs to deport all illegal immigrants & he needs to reduce
legal immigration...
I'm a statist? I'm a Small Government Paleo-Libertarian...Ron Paul opposes illegal immigration & birthright citizenship...
You Mainstream Libertarians are just laughable on Immigration...No wonder 1/3 of Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Trump...
You Guys are not losing because you are anti-war & anti welfare...You are losing because of the immigration issue...

This crisis (republican)... that crisis (democrat)... always a “crisis”. Never addressing the root cause or advocating Free Market solutions.

Carry on.

[kahless]

Both Reagan & Clinton were weak on illegal immigration...I support Trump's wall but that isn't enough...Trump needs to deport all illegal immigrants & he needs to reduce
legal immigration...
I'm a statist? I'm a Small Government Paleo-Libertarian...Ron Paul opposes illegal immigration & birthright citizenship...
You Mainstream Libertarians are just laughable on Immigration...No wonder 1/3 of Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Trump...
You Guys are not losing because you are anti-war & anti welfare...You are losing because of the immigration issue...

Probably by design. It has been pretty obvious letting in immigrants that have no concept of freedom ensures the death of freedom. Even long ago the founding fathers warned exactly of that problem.

The people that truly believe in achieving a more libertarian society in the US need to take over the LP. Otherwise it is just another tool of the globalist establishment to promote open borders to deny us a more libertarian like society in the US.

[PAF]

Probably by design. It has been pretty obvious letting in immigrants that have no concept of freedom ensures the death of freedom. Even long ago the founding fathers warned exactly of that problem.

The people that truly believe in achieving a more libertarian society in the US need to take over the LP. Otherwise it is just another tool of the globalist establishment to promote open borders to deny us a more libertarian like society in the US.

Historically people have migrated seeking work and freedom, trying to escape the clutches of government and oppressors.

Poor or working people don’t travel thousands of miles to just conquer or take over another country.

It is this government that forces “solutions”... taxation, centralized government and education, redistribution of wealth, encroachment of private property.

It is the goal of the establishment to have us rewrite and abandon our principles.

[Ender]

Historically people have migrated seeking work and freedom, trying to escape the clutches of government and oppressors.

Poor or working people don’t travel thousands of miles to just conquer or take over another country.

It is this government that forces “solutions”... taxation, centralized government and education, redistribution of wealth, encroachment of private property.

It is the goal of the establishment to have us rewrite and abandon our principles.

Yep.

The whole immigration thing is a ruse to keep everyone arguing and their eye off of the real things that are destroying freedom.

[kahless]

Historically people have migrated seeking work and freedom, trying to escape the clutches of government and oppressors.

Poor or working people don’t travel thousands of miles to just conquer or take over another country.

It is this government that forces “solutions”... taxation, centralized government and education, redistribution of wealth, encroachment of private property.

It is the goal of the establishment to have us rewrite and abandon our principles.

Either you are unable to think outside textbook or college professor conditioning or are part of the scam to ensure such a society never comes to fruition in the US. I am thinking the later since no where did I say these people came here to conquer. I clearly said it was the goal of globalist establishment to eradicate any potential of a more libertarian like society in the US.

Evidently you chose to assist them in that role by supporting open borders policies which clearly deny our ability to live and grow such a society here.

[Pauls' Revere]

You look at the government and culture of the country they come from and you err on the side of letting fewer people in.
If you don't let many people in from cultures that have less of a belief in liberty then you will not likely let in enough to take power and violate the natives' rights.

Like a Muslim travel ban?

[Swordsmyth]

Like a Muslim travel ban?
That is a reasonable idea.

[Swordsmyth]

Historically people have migrated seeking work and freedom, trying to escape the clutches of government and oppressors.

Poor or working people don’t travel thousands of miles to just conquer or take over another country.

It is this government that forces “solutions”... taxation, centralized government and education, redistribution of wealth, encroachment of private property.

It is the goal of the establishment to have us rewrite and abandon our principles.


Yep.

The whole immigration thing is a ruse to keep everyone arguing and their eye off of the real things that are destroying freedom.
Historically people have migrated seeking wealth and they bring their ideology with them, in modern times that ideology is overwhelmingly one that seeks to use the government to take the wealth they seek from those who created it, they do not understand or care how the wealth was created through liberty and only seek to consume.

[AuH20]

Probably by design. It has been pretty obvious letting in immigrants that have no concept of freedom ensures the death of freedom. Even long ago the founding fathers warned exactly of that problem.

The people that truly believe in achieving a more libertarian society in the US need to take over the LP. Otherwise it is just another tool of the globalist establishment to promote open borders to deny us a more libertarian like society in the US.

Their bizarre interpretation of 'freedom' likely includes the banning of all firearms, cradle to grave government provided medical care, regulated climate restrictions, government income assistance as well as government paid tuition. These are predominately low educated socialists desperate for a better life at someone else's expense. Not exactly a deviation from your average human. But you have to be an idiot or dyed in the wool ideologue to fall for this refugee ploy.

[Stratovarious]

Like a Muslim travel ban?

Does that bother you?

[devil21]

Dunno if true but I just read a thread elsewhere that Judge Jeanine floated the trial balloon that biometric IDs and human chipping start with immigrants, instead of a wall. The real agenda always comes out eventually.

If anyone has that video do post it.

[Brian4Liberty]

In the realm of things that a libertarian party could support that would gain them money and votes, what would those things be?


They need to endorse positions that are outside of the mainstream, like legalizing machine guns, freezing immigration, bringing all the troops home from everywhere, etc.

Their only chance is if they offer things that people care about that the other two parties aren't offering.

If the ideas are outside of the “mainstream”, would these positions bring in any new voters or money?

Guns would fit in with principles, but the NRA sucks that niche pretty dry. Pro-2A might be a good position to bring in conservatives, and immigration/borders might bring in even more. The rub would be many conservatives have a blinding love of the MIC and intervention. That alone means they will not join libertarians, unless their minds on intervention and the MIC can be changed. “No more policing the world” caught a lot of traction, but the neocons have subverted that again.


None. Because the premise is wrong. Freedom is not popular. Force is popular. Human nature includes the inclination to affect others with force, particularly when resources are limited. Libertarianism, I. E. Non interventionism, I. E. Leave people alone that are not hurting others... This is a socialogical philosophy. Not a political philosophy.

Seems that immigration and open borders is pretty popular with a lot of people, including a good portion of libertarians. It will bring in (corporatist) money, which is why most beltway libertarian groups support more immigration. Once again, it is the Democrats niche right now, and they throw in free stuff. That free stuff is a killer, and socialists despise libertarians for opposing it on principle. The LP will not bring over Democrat voters based on immigration and border policy without the free stuff. Thus the only reason for the LP to stand on this issue is either principle or money. When it comes to an organization, I’d wager it’s about the money.


Practically nothing.

Isn’t that the essence of what libertarianism offers, and why the socialists and statists hate them so much? ;)


1. End the Nanny state.
2. Bring the troops home. End Nanny foreign policy, including financial and military intervention.
3. Criminal justice reform.
4. Protection of civil liberties for the individual. No more special interest pandering.
5. End lifetime support of federal employees, including Congress.

They all sound good, but for exactly those reasons, the vested interests with political donor money to spare hate libertarians.


Historically immigration has yielded immigrants that overwhelming vote Democrat and with pathway to citizenship being offered the days of being secure in our private property rights are numbered.

The far left Presidential candidates are already talking about confiscation of wealth. How long before they are promoting confiscation of private property since they claim you have too much or are not a good enough steward over your land.

It is a fact that immigration in order to increase support and power has been the strategy of the Democrat Party for decades. The same way that giving away free stuff was before that. It is a conscience and intentional deception by the Democrat elite. It is working, and it can not be denied.

——

Follow the money, and follow the hidden agendas. That’s the key to understanding why positions are taken.


...there is always an agenda, often hidden. Everyone has a vested interest in their position. They believe it will benefit them in some way. Even those who want a moratorium on immigration want that because they believe it is in their best interest, although they tend to be the most open and honest about their agenda.

Businesses (and GOP) want cheap and pliable labor. Democrats want voters and new people who will depend upon them and government for support. Many people want to bring over more of their family or what they think of as “their people”. Others with vested interests consider themselves global in nature. Religious and political groups are the biggest in that category. Religions don’t want borders that will hinder the expansion of their religion. They believe that new immigrants are ripe for conversion, especially if they are aided in their immigration. Political ideologies, like religious ones, also want to convert, and being global in nature, they often want to convert foreign lands to their ideology, often by force.

Look to the hidden agenda...

[Swordsmyth]

If the ideas are outside of the “mainstream”, would these positions bring in any new voters or money?

Guns would fit in with principles, but the NRA sucks that niche pretty dry. Pro-2A might be a good position to bring in conservatives, and immigration/borders might bring in even more. The rub would be many conservatives have a blinding love of the MIC and intervention. That alone means they will not join libertarians, unless their minds on intervention and the MIC can be changed. “No more policing the world” caught a lot of traction, but the neocons have subverted that again.
My suggestion assumes that there is still a "Silent Majority Plurality Significant Fraction" that doesn't have a party that represents their beliefs and that many of them come out to support Trump and if the LP adopted the positions that nobody else will they could get their support. (especially if they made the kind of alliance with Trump that Rand has)

[pcosmar]

I suggest and support Legalizing Immigration to eliminate illegal immigration.

problem solved as simple as that..

[Swordsmyth]

I suggest and support Legalizing Immigration to eliminate illegal immigration.

problem solved as simple as that..
And a new problem immediately created...........................A communist dictatorship with an incentive to kill anyone perceived as a white male.

[PAF]

Dunno if true but I just read a thread elsewhere that Judge Jeanine floated the trial balloon that biometric IDs and human chipping start with immigrants, instead of a wall. The real agenda always comes out eventually.

If anyone has that video do post it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfV8OOh7Fk

[PAF]

I suggest and support Legalizing Immigration to eliminate illegal immigration.

problem solved as simple as that..

I agree, and it is as simple as that, for one half of the Free Market equation. The challenging part is to convince the "let's-pretend-we-are-republicans" and half of the so-called "liberty" folks who have lost their way to ground swell shout and demand End Any/All Incentives.

It seems that the Wall is an ever so popular idea to transfer Private Property over to the Fed - 2,000 miles of Texan land. Trump excels in this area as he has been an unwavering and devout proponent of Eminent Domain most of his business life.

It truly does baffle me how gullible people are, especially after the repeal the 4th Amendment Act (Patriot Act) that Bush shoved down our throats.

Now there is discussion of 1,100 miles of Property along the entire West Coast. Not to mention USMCA which contains "sustainable development".

The globalist can't snicker enough at stupid people.

Read my sig.

[pcosmar]

And a new problem immediately created...........................A communist dictatorship with an incentive to kill anyone perceived as a white male.

Only in your Fear Filled Mind. it is a robust though ugly fantasy. But that is all it is.

[Anti Federalist]

Only in your Fear Filled Mind. it is a robust though ugly fantasy. But that is all it is.

Go tell that to the people who are saying it, teaching, writing about it and speaking about it.

Get them to shut up first, then I'll be inclined to ignore it.

[devil21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfV8OOh7Fk

Yep, that narrative has been slowly and carefully laid. There was also a vid of Trump saying that "everyone shows a card to buy groceries" or similar. Uh no, no one does that.

Softening up the sheep on the right, who should be brutally opposed to such measures, under the guise of controlling the illegal immigrant problem.

[pcosmar]

Go tell that to the people who are saying it, teaching, writing about it and speaking about it.

Get them to shut up first, then I'll be inclined to ignore it.

AF,, the people who have brought and instilled Socialism in this country are long dead,, and it is firmly established..

They were not "Foreigners" but established Businessmen,, and Bankers and the "Intelligentsia" of High Society.

This fantasy that Mexicans are taking over the country is delusional at best.

I simply refuse to play along with the deception.

[Anti Federalist]

AF,, the people who have brought and instilled Socialism in this country are long dead,, and it is firmly established..

They were not "Foreigners" but established Businessmen,, and Bankers and the "Intelligentsia" of High Society.

This fantasy that Mexicans are taking over the country is delusional at best.

I simply refuse to play along with the deception.

You have a point, when I read or hear or watch the loudest proponents of white displacement/disenfranchisement/dispossession it's usually a lily white, loud mouthed Marxist.

That said, importing millions of people that are ambivalent at best, sympathetic at worst, of that cause does not bode well for limited government, property rights and liberty for the future of my posterity.

End all immigration for at least ten years and give all of some breathing room to sort this out.

Or separate, which at this point is probably the best solution.

[Working Poor]

Probably by design. It has been pretty obvious letting in immigrants that have no concept of freedom ensures the death of freedom. Even long ago the founding fathers warned exactly of that problem.

The people that truly believe in achieving a more libertarian society in the US need to take over the LP. Otherwise it is just another tool of the globalist establishment to promote open borders to deny us a more libertarian like society in the US.

^^^This

[Stratovarious]

I suggest and support Legalizing Immigration to eliminate illegal immigration.

problem solved as simple as that..
Immigration has always been legal.

[TheTexan]

The people that truly believe in achieving a more libertarian society in the US need to take over the LP.

This is a great idea. If only there were a truly libertarian candidate running for President, then surely everyone would vote for him!

Fool-proof plan!

Why have we never thought of this before?

[TheTexan]

Or separate, which at this point is probably the best solution.

Just be sure to get all the proper permissions at the federal level before doing so.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Ender]

AF,, the people who have brought and instilled Socialism in this country are long dead,, and it is firmly established..

They were not "Foreigners" but established Businessmen,, and Bankers and the "Intelligentsia" of High Society.

This fantasy that Mexicans are taking over the country is delusional at best.

I simply refuse to play along with the deception.

My POV as well.

[kahless]

This is a great idea. If only there were a truly libertarian candidate running for President, then surely everyone would vote for him!

Fool-proof plan!

Why have we never thought of this before?

If it was not for Fox News shutting out Ron Paul in the first NH debate in 2008 he may have gone on to win the nomination. McCain was broke and polling low and should have never been in that debate. But do you remember part of the reason why Ron led in fund raising and straw polls in 2007? It was his strong stance on illegal immigration and his language/policies was to the right of Trump.

We all remember what happened to Ron when he tried to run again in 2012 but that time backing away from his policies on illegal immigration.

[AuH20]

AF,, the people who have brought and instilled Socialism in this country are long dead,, and it is firmly established..

They were not "Foreigners" but established Businessmen,, and Bankers and the "Intelligentsia" of High Society.

This fantasy that Mexicans are taking over the country is delusional at best.

I simply refuse to play along with the deception.

All true. But the foreigners will be the closers for the fulfillment of the said experiment. Closing the door on us PERMANENTLY. There will be no pockets of resistance or regional fight. That is what these people will be used for. To permanently tip the scales in such a dramatic fashion, so we can never see secession or some type of reckoning with our oppressors.

Demographic subterfuge because ((THEY)) know closing down on us permanently with conventional means will prove VERY COSTLY. Yes, we live in a Communist country at moment, but 40% of the population still poses a major thorn in the side for the TPTB. Society is hanging by a thread, especially when you see how fragile the resource and delivery systems are.

[TheTexan]

If it was not for Fox News shutting out Ron Paul in the first NH debate in 2008 he may have gone on to win the nomination.

Good point. Why did Fox News exclude Ron Paul given his super strong 5th place performance in one of his strongest states (Iowa) ??

We may never know.

[TheTexan]

To permanently tip the scales in such a dramatic fashion, so we can never see secession or some type of reckoning with our oppressors.

Good point. We should focus our immediate current efforts on limiting immigration, so that at a later date many many years in the future it may be possible to do some kind of secession maybe.

Because we have our priorities totally in order :cool:

[AuH20]

Good point. We should focus our immediate current efforts on limiting immigration, so that at a later date many many years in the future it may be possible to do some kind of secession maybe.

Because we have our priorities totally in order :cool:

The federal government as we know it is on borrowed time. At some point, states will cut the cord because it will be too expensive to conduct business as usual. Eventually, the battered spouse leaves, especially when the benefits become liabilities.

[TheTexan]

The federal government is on borrowed time. At some point, states will cut the cord because it will be too expensive to conduct business as usual.

Well then, let's just make sure that wall gets built before that happens.

It would be such a tragedy if Texas has to pay for the wall out of state coffers instead of federal ones.

[AuH20]

Well then, let's just make sure that wall gets built before that happens.

It would be such a tragedy if Texas has to pay for the wall out of state coffers instead of federal ones.

Yes. The wall needs to get built, especially since the Mexicans & OTMs can't read history books. 1865 may as well be a rare tequila to them.
They have no concept of what is transpiring or perhaps never will.

Actual dumber, less intellectually curious people than Boobus. That's saying something. LaReconquistaed by a bunch of fools. Put that on our tombstone if we are this gullible. Given the demographic trends, I bet book reading will be outlawed in 25 years.

[TheTexan]

Yes. The wall needs to get built, especially since the Mexicans & OTMs can't read history books. 1865 may as well be a rare tequila to them.
They have no concept of what is transpiring or perhaps never will.

Actual dumber, less intellectually curious people than Boobus. That's saying something. LaReconquistaed by a bunch of fools. Put that on our tombstone if we are this gullible. Given the demographic trends, I bet book reading will be outlawed in 25 years.

Yes, I think we can all agree that Mexicans are a lesser people.

And before anyone calls me a racist, I have a Mexican friend. (he mows my lawn)

[Swordsmyth]

Go tell that to the people who are saying it, teaching, writing about it and speaking about it.

Get them to shut up first, then I'll be inclined to ignore it.
^^^THIS^^^
+Rep

[Swordsmyth]

AF,, the people who have brought and instilled Socialism in this country are long dead,, and it is firmly established..

They were not "Foreigners" but established Businessmen,, and Bankers and the "Intelligentsia" of High Society.

This fantasy that Mexicans are taking over the country is delusional at best.

I simply refuse to play along with the deception.
They did it with the help of foreigners and the foreigners are being brought in to finish the job.

[Swordsmyth]

Good point. We should focus our immediate current efforts on limiting immigration, so that at a later date many many years in the future it may be possible to do some kind of secession maybe.

Because we have our priorities totally in order :cool:
We have a popular movement we can latch on to with limiting immigration and it is something that will need to be done anyway.
If you can find state or federal candidates who will endorse secession or expulsion please let me know.

[Brian4Liberty]

I suggest and support Legalizing Immigration to eliminate illegal immigration.

problem solved as simple as that..


And a new problem immediately created...........................A communist dictatorship with an incentive to kill anyone perceived as a white male.



That said, importing millions of people that are ambivalent at best, sympathetic at worst, of that cause does not bode well for limited government, property rights and liberty for the future of my posterity.

End all immigration for at least ten years and give all of some breathing room to sort this out.

Or separate, which at this point is probably the best solution.

What would happen if migration was thrown open to the world is that ~billion people would come to the US almost overnight.

Homelessness? Housing shortages? Water? Food? Traffic? Energy? Pollution? Carbon footprints? LOL. The utter disaster would unmatched in human history. Maybe that’s what we need...

[Swordsmyth]

What would happen if migration was thrown open to the world is that ~billion people would come to the US almost overnight.

Homelessness? Housing shortages? Water? Food? Traffic? Energy? Pollution? Carbon footprints? LOL. The utter disaster would unmatched in human history.
You were making good sense right up to here.



Maybe that’s what we need...
No it isn't, liberty would be extinguished entirely, not even the embers would remain.

It would take hundreds if not thousands of years for the concepts required to come back and be reassembled.

[TheTexan]

We have a popular movement we can latch on to with limiting immigration and it is something that will need to be done anyway.
If you can find state or federal candidates who will endorse secession or expulsion please let me know.

Larry Kilgore did OK a few years back. Got 200,000+ votes in a senator race. Most of his positions are pretty solid:

- Pro Texas Secession
- Close public schools
- Do away with social security
- Punish abortion as felony murder
- Hang/execute gays and other LGBT

Which is almost perfect except for the one fact that he doesn't support a wall. I think if we ran a similar candidate, but supported a wall, he would do pretty good.

[Swordsmyth]

Larry Kilgore did OK a few years back. Got 200,000+ votes in a senator race. Most of his positions are pretty solid:

- Pro Texas Secession
:check: (although I would prefer to expel the liberal states and keep the union with the conservative states)



- Close public schools
:check:


- Do away with social security
:check: (it would be best if we can do this through means testing and attrition)



- Punish abortion as felony murder
:check:



- Hang/execute gays and other LGBT
This is problematic, libertarians will reject you entirely as will liberals, Christians will debate whether such harsh penalties went away with the coming of Christ and even if you decide it is correct it is the kind of policy that you should keep under your hat until the overton window has been shifted farther.
This probably doomed his run.


Which is almost perfect except for the one fact that he doesn't support a wall. I think if we ran a similar candidate, but supported a wall, he would do pretty good.
A wall perhaps but it would be better to have massive military patrols instead.

If you know of any candidates in the future who support secession or expulsion let us know.

[TheTexan]

A Great Texan


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmqtNiy4lgc

[TheTexan]

If you know of any candidates in the future who support secession or expulsion let us know.

He ran for Governor just recently, but there were no threads about him here. Lot of threads about walls though.

I'll try to do my part to keep everyone posted on these candidates... but at the end of the day getting a wall is more important :cool: