Libertarian Party Endorses Illegal Immigration

[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-...e-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":

[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.

[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?