Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 83

Thread: Unrestricted Immigration

  1. #1

    Default Unrestricted Immigration - VIDEO

    Lew Rockwell did a presentation yesterday and set the record straight during Mises Circle in Phoenix. Libertarian position is not compatible with unrestricted immigration. The video of Lew Rockwell speaking should be coming up on mises youtube channel soon.

    Tube added:
    ---------

    [Mod Edit: Text of Speech]

    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal

    By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - November 10, 2015

    This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Phoenix, AZ, on November 7, 2015.

    Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly. This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

    I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

    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.

    If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. amd Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

    “Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

    Hans continues:

    By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

    It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

    In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

    Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

    But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

    (This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

    In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

    Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

    Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

    Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

    Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naďveté of an especially preposterous kind.

    Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

    Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.

    These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

    Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

    To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

    The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The 20th century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

    No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 – coincided with periods of mass immigration.

    Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

    In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

    The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

    It is impossible to believe that the U.S. or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.
    ...
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/...vate-property/
    Last edited by timosman; 11-21-2015 at 02:05 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Well, you ask for a mile and I'll give you two. This then leads to the question, is the libertarian position on immigration correct? I'd rather go phone bank for Hillary at this point then listen to Lew, so please update with his thesis.

  4. #3

    Default

    I have no idea what he said, but I would imagine it is the usual. People have the right to travel on unowned (ie. government owned) land, but do not have the right trespass on private property.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Lew Rockwell did a presentation yesterday and set the record straight during Mises Circle in Phoenix. Libertarian position is not compatible with unrestricted immigration. The video of Lew Rockwell speaking should be coming up on mises youtube channel soon.
    Good, we need to end the importation of leftist voters via mass immigration, they think the savages of the 3rd world will just be transformed via the "Magical dirt " theory?

    Time to stop giving away our nation, culture, and future in the name of lies, myths and avoiding upsetting fools that are always upset.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I have no idea what he said, but I would imagine it is the usual. People have the right to travel on unowned (ie. government owned) land, but do not have the right trespass on private property.
    If you do not own it, or have consent, it is still trespassing.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Good, we need to end the importation of leftist voters via mass immigration, they think the savages of the 3rd world will just be transformed via the "Magical dirt " theory?

    Time to stop giving away our nation, culture, and future in the name of lies, myths and avoiding upsetting fools that are always upset.
    If Americunts had not already given away that which cannot be given away, and thus, not by law, but by their own volition, enslaved themselves then there would be no problem.
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    If Americunts had not already given away that which cannot be given away, and thus, not by law, but by their own volition, enslaved themselves then there would be no problem.
    So, you've thrown in the towel, Phill?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  9. #8

    Default

    The OP isn't clear at all..

    In a libertarian society, unrestricted immigration is compatible with libertarianism.

    In a non-libertarian society where property owners have their stuff taken by force and given to others, unrestricted immigration is not really compatible with libertarianism.

    It's pretty simple.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The OP isn't clear at all..

    In a libertarian society, unrestricted immigration is compatible with libertarianism.

    In a non-libertarian society where property owners have their stuff taken by force and given to others, unrestricted immigration is not really compatible with libertarianism.

    It's pretty simple.
    Neither is compatible with a sovereign nation.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Neither is compatible with a sovereign nation.
    Libertarianism is focused on individual sovereignty of self and property.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Libertarianism is focused on individual sovereignty of self and property.
    Which you have no chance of getting without a sovereign nation.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Which you have no chance of getting without a sovereign nation.
    This argument ends the discussion ^^^^^^^^^^^^ +rep
    Only the brain dead can continue.

    Last edited by timosman; 11-09-2015 at 10:43 AM.

  14. #13

    Default

    Yeah. We can't have a free society without giving up freedom. The terrorists hate us for our freedom. The Muslims hate us for our freedom. The immigrants hate us for our freedom. So...let's give up our freedom. Mind you every attempt to "solve" the immigration "problem" involves giving up freedom. As Ron Paul himself said, the wall being proposed to keep them out could be used to keep us in. Already there is a 100 mile "constitution free zone" in the country at the border. Florida is completely engulfed in the "constitution free zone." What happens to you in the constitution free zone even if you are a natural born citizen? Watch.

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah. We can't have a free society without giving up freedom. The terrorists hate us for our freedom. The Muslims hate us for our freedom. The immigrants hate us for our freedom. So...let's give up our freedom. Mind you every attempt to "solve" the immigration "problem" involves giving up freedom. As Ron Paul himself said, the wall being proposed to keep them out could be used to keep us in. Already there is a 100 mile "constitution free zone" in the country at the border. Florida is completely engulfed in the "constitution free zone." What happens to you in the constitution free zone even if you are a natural born citizen? Watch.
    You too? Seriously guys?

    You have already forgotten Ron talking about how ending the freebies and birthright citizenship would all but end illegal immigration?

    Do tell how that would curtail YOUR freedom.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  16. #15

    Default

    So does this mean unrestricted immigration should be allowed into Palestine too?
    Last edited by Dr.3D; 11-09-2015 at 10:38 AM.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I have no idea what he said...
    That won't stop anyone from giving commentary.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  18. #17

    Default

    What policies did Lew support?

    A wall?

    A national ID?

    Restrictions on employment?

    Anything funded by involuntary taxation?

    If the answer is no to all 4, then regardless how much of an immigration hawk he tried to sound like, Lew is still effectively for unlimited immigration.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    What policies did Lew support?

    A wall?

    A national ID?

    Restrictions on employment?

    Anything funded by involuntary taxation?

    If the answer is no to all 4, then regardless how much of an immigration hawk he tried to sound like, Lew is still effectively for unlimited immigration.
    How about enforcing the existing laws?

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    How about enforcing the existing laws?
    There is no possible way that Lew Rockwell supports the existing laws. Neither do either Ron or Rand Paul by a long shot.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    There is no possible way that Lew Rockwell supports the existing laws. Neither do either Ron or Rand Paul by a long shot.
    And here's erowe1 in an immigration thread. Imagine that. Do you get paid per post?

    And as usual, you are attempting to put words into Ron and Rand's mouth. Is this type of deception perfectly acceptable in your religious sect? Sounds like a sin. What is the punishment?

    Just last week, Rand said that he supports enforcing fines on employers who employ illegal migrants. That is existing law.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  22. #21

    Default

    It is pretty obvious to any true libertarian that unrestricted immigration into the US means more people that demand big government and will move the goal to live in a libertarian society or region unattainable.

    So I think the open border libertarians are a combination of those that have their blinders on that just following the beliefs of prominent fraudulent libertarians and libertarians that broadcast themselves as libertarians but are actually something else. Perhaps Progressives or New World order types that simply promote themselves as libertarians to herd people accordingly.

    Since the case can be made for Rand and Ron on both sides of this issue I really have no idea where they actually stand. I think that is big part of why Rand's numbers are so low and how typically someone like Trump or any candidate that is vocal on immigration ends up leading in the polls.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    ...libertarians that broadcast themselves as libertarians but are actually something else. Perhaps Progressives or New World order types that simply promote themselves as libertarians to herd people accordingly.
    The list of hidden agendas behind open immigration is long indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Since the case can be made for Rand and Ron on both sides of this issue I really have no idea where they actually stand. I think that is big part of why Rand's numbers are so low and how typically someone like Trump or any candidate that is vocal on immigration ends up leading in the polls.
    Their positions are definitely nuanced, and not black and white.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Neither is compatible with a sovereign nation.
    Who cares?

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    And here's erowe1 in an immigration thread. Imagine that. Do you get paid per post?

    And as usual, you are attempting to put words into Ron and Rand's mouth. Is this type of deception perfectly acceptable in your religious sect? Sounds like a sin. What is the punishment?

    Just last week, Rand said that he supports enforcing fines on employers who employ illegal migrants. That is existing law.
    You know full well that everything I said is true. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I don't know why you're here or why someone with your views is allowed to be a mod.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This argument ends the discussion ^^^^^^^^^^^^ +rep
    Only the brain dead can continue.
    Well then I guess all those historical examples where people owned property without a state there to tax it will have to be examined by those less enlightened than you and LE and everyone else who doesn't respond to facts.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    You know full well that everything I said is true. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I don't know why you're here or why someone with your views is allowed to be a mod.
    Rand said he supports fining employers who hire illegally. That is existing law.

    You ask why I am here. How about you? This is not the theonomist forum. And it is by no means the destroy the US and replace with a global Christian anarchy forum.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Who cares?
    Dude, if we don't have a sovereign nation, how are we going to find the money to go bomb brown people?
    How do you expect parents to have their children ripped out of their arms and beaten up by foster parents without sovereignty of the state?
    Everything the sovereign state does is good! Or, wait, rather, it's that it's not good, but it's the damned furrner's fault that it does not good stuff! They're screwing it all up by not letting the sovereign state be white enough!
    Or something like that.... I know it has nothing to do with the sovereign state in and of itself. Look elsewhere, or I'll call you a retard!
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  29. #28

    Default

    I don't know what is so confusing about the view that people have the absolute right to travel on unowned land, including inside an arbitrary U.S. border. That doesn't give them the right to vote, or the right to health care, or the right to eat. If you are worried about the filthy Mexicans getting freebies, then take it up with the people stealing from you and giving out the freebies. If you are worried about them taking the backbreaking, $#@! shoveling jobs, then go make sure they consider you for the position first. If you just don't like brown people near you at all, then I don't know how to help you.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Rand said he supports fining employers who hire illegally. That is existing law.

    You ask why I am here. How about you? This is not the theonomist forum. And it is by no means the destroy the US and replace with a global Christian anarchy forum.
    I'm not a theonomist or anything close to it. I'm a Christian, like the site's namesake is. If you have a problem with that then it further highlights how counterproductive it is to let you serve as someone who could be viewed as representative of the site's mission.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    And as usual, you are attempting to put words into Ron and Rand's mouth.
    Well I've never done that. I've always said that there is no constitutional defense for federal immigration law unless you apply a living document interpretation to the US Constitution.
    Otherwise it's a 10th Amendment issue.

    Immigration statists lose on libertarian grounds, they lose on constitutional grounds, and they lose on moral grounds. I'm not afraid to say Ron Paul is wrong on this issue.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •