Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 98

Thread: Libertarian Presidential Candidates Champion 'Open Borders'

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Libertarian Presidential Candidates Champion 'Open Borders'

    https://reason.com/2020/02/26/libertarian-presidential-candidates-champion-open-borders/

    Donald Trump, the most anti-immigrant president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is running against a Democratic presidential field that almost unanimously favors providing government-run health insurance to illegal immigrants. Surely there is some middle ground between Stephen Miller-style family separation and a massive expansion of the welfare state to millions living outside the law?
    The Libertarian Party, still the country's number-three political grouping (however distantly), has a platform very copacetic toward immigrants, if not quite via state largesse.
    "Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful," the party's immigration plank reads. "A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas….Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."
    Bottom line: "Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible."
    To a notable degree, the L.P.'s top 2020 presidential candidates are hewing to the party's radical-for-American-politics immigration platform.
    "One of the proudest positions that we have in this party is our open-border plank," Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who won the party's non-binding presidential caucuses in Iowa and Minnesota this month, said during a California debate that I moderated Feb. 16. "I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants….Y'all know about the checkpoints. We got 'em over there. I've been stopped by the Border Patrol myself when I was in high school, 'Open up your trunk!' Warrantless searches onto our farm to bust our workers. It's a police state, and there's only one solution to it: Dismantle it all. People have a fundamental, God-given right to cross borders like human beings and not die of thirst and dehydration in the desert and on the back of 18-wheelers."
    There were five other candidates on stage that night, and each said similar things.
    Media entrepreneur and current fundraising leader Adam Kokesh, whose big campaign idea is signing an executive order on day one that dissolves the federal government, posited that "Government borders are not legitimate," and that "only private property borders" deserve respect. Kokesh then added: "And if being American means anything about standing up to unjust authority and employing civil disobedience, I would dare say most who come here illegally are more American than the average apathetic American today."
    Performance artist and serial candidate Vermin Supreme, who won the party's only other early-state contest so far (New Hampshire), quipped that "You cannot outlaw people. If you outlaw people, only people will be outlaws."
    Deep-pocketed race newcomer Mark Whitney, an ex-convict comedy enthusiast who founded THELAWNET, said of undocumented immigrants, "I not only want them to be citizens, I want them working on my campaign."

    Academic and 1996 L.P. vice presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen complained that, "Right now, we've got a system in which we keep everybody out, except we just let a few people in. What we need to do is flip it and just let everybody in."
    And bipartisan former Rhode Island governor and U.S. senator Lincoln Chafee stressed the political expediency of it all: "I see this as a political advantage that with our open-border policy and libertarian views on immigration, especially the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States, the Hispanics, are going to have the opportunity in 2020 to look at our platform and come to our side."
    Among the eight other presidential candidates who attended the California L.P. convention but didn't convince enough delegates to send them to the debate stage, only one, Phil Gray, even mentioned immigration during his allotted three-minute speech the night before, and that was in service to Gray's unusual idea of having undocumented workers pay down the country's $23 trillion debt.
    Among the more than two dozen candidates currently vying for the Libertarian presidential nomination, you can find the occasional balking at open borders: New Hampshire state Rep. Max Abramson ("Go after companies that replace American workers and Green Card holders with illegal immigrants and stop enticing opportunists to come into the country illegally"), business consultant and recent party-switcher Blake Ashby ("I do not believe in an open border, or an open commitment to accept refugees"), pipe welder/fitter and outdoorsman Kenneth Blevins ("I fully support legal and vetted immigration"), FedEx Hawaiian Steven Richey ("owning property and sending remittances should be reserved for citizens"), "business owner, singer, minister, lover of people" Demetra Jefferson Wysinger ("entering our nation illegally is NOT immigration it is an invasion and a crime"), and "alchemist jedi" Jedidiah Hill ("Integrate the people into society have them learn English and put them to work").
    But with the exception of Abramson, none of these candidates have made a noticeable splash during primary season, and even Abramson finished a desultory 14th in the primary balloting in his home state.
    The bigger story is the story that isn't there. Which is to say, while immigration politics tends to at least somewhat divide all political blocs, including both libertarians and Libertarians, that particular dog is just not hunting in this principle-driven L.P. presidential cycle.
    A key figure in that development is Jacob Hornberger, who is not only the most well-known libertarian intellectual running, but also has the backing of the party's growing Mises Caucus, which adheres to the Austrian school of economics and affiliates positively with members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. (LvMI Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods sits on the Mises Caucus's advisory board, and has endorsed Hornberger, as has comic Dave Smith.)
    Leadership figures in the Libertarian Party and Mises Institute have been sniping periodically at one another since 2017, in part over the perceived politically correct "identity politics" in the L.P. versus the perceived politically incorrect "blood and soil" enthusiasms at LvMI. (Read my account of their clash at the 2018 Libertarian National Convention.) Some Libertarians never tire of pointing out LvMI's hospitality toward nationalists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe; the Misesites, in turn, rarely miss an opportunity to mock L.P. National types for "virtue signaling."
    Yet both sides have stayed in the same party tent, with Woods and Smith, in particular, helping whip up new recruits on their podcasts. And in Hornberger, a longtime friend of Ron Paul, the Mises enthusiasts have someone who is both unimpeachably anti-war (the issue that, along with ending the Federal Reserve, the Austrians elevate above all) and unapologetically open borders. No blood and soil on this Texan's watch.
    At the Massachusetts state Libertarian convention last July, months before he jumped into the race, Hornberger gave a fire-and-brimstone defense of open immigration as essential to a free society.
    "One of the most glorious, honorable positions that this party has ever taken is open borders," he said. "Oh I know, Libertarians will say 'Oh my God, this is an albatross, Jacob! This is a liability! This is costing votes! We need to join up with Republicans and Democrats on this issue!' Perish the thought. There are people dying in the American Southwest in deserts from dehydration and thirst. They're dying crossing the Rio Grande, including children. They're dying in the back of 18-wheelers. They're having children taken away from their families. You have a police state all along the border in the Southwest, and in Texas. There is no way to reconcile all of this police-state action and death and suffering—and for Libertarians to ever align themselves would be a moral abomination."
    Part of what makes Hornberger's immigration message saleable to Libertarians is that he couples it with obliterating, not expanding, the welfare state.
    "We live in a society that is based on massive mandatory charity," he said in Massachusetts. "With the crown jewels of this system being Social Security and Medicare, along with a host of others. There is no way to reconcile a genuinely free society with mandatory charity. No way at all. Because people have a natural, God-given right to keep everything they earn, and decide for themselves what to do with it….And so if we are going to achieve a free society it necessarily presupposes a dismantling of infringements on liberty, and that includes Social Security and Medicare. You have to repeal, abolish, dismantle infringements on liberty in order to achieve the free society."
    The L.P. presidential race, which will be settled at the national convention in Austin, Texas, May 21-25, has so far been a battle to see who can best represent the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. As such it is striking, in this moment of major-party polarization and deep immigration-policy divides, to see a principled Libertarian immigration message emerging: Mr. Trump, tear down this wall.






  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    How could anyone think of opening borders at a current time like this?

  4. #3
    I don't understand "libertarians" who support open borders. Closed borders protects private property owners on the border from trespassing by foreigners. The constitution gives the federal government the responsibility to protect our rights. Including our property rights.

  5. #4
    Jo Jorgensen "We need to have open borders".

  6. #5
    Yeah lets have open borders when people all over the country are freaking out over a virus. Brilliant idea.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    I don't understand "libertarians" who support open borders. Closed borders protects private property owners on the border from trespassing by foreigners. The constitution gives the federal government the responsibility to protect our rights. Including our property rights.
    Anytime I go to Louisiana from here I just drive through someone's pasture. It's the only way.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  8. #7
    This was written about a month ago. Love to hear their opinion on it now with historical precedence. Think that might be relevant? Who knows.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.



    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect - Mark Twain

    Fascism Defined

  9. #8
    Again proving the LP exists to fill the spot to prevent actual libertarian beliefs and voices from becoming mainstream.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    PHEW!
    i thought it was Jacob Hornberger...

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  12. #10
    I wholeheartedly am for open borders. There is not enough talk about ending the welfare state.

    Closed borders results in the following:

    1. Identification, paper and/or biometrics, to distinguish you from me.

    2. Provides the state, Fed, a database of information that is none of their MF business.

    3. The state, Fed, utilizes Eminent Domain, taking rightful property from those who own it.

    4. Elimination of private contract rights, registering with the government, forced to pay taxes and Grow the Fed, and also requires employers to pay mandated government minimum wage.

    5. Requires enforcement by Government Employees.

    6. Once signed up with Fed.gov, 5 years later they are eligible to vote, including standing in line at the Welfare office.

    7. Stymies a $1 Billion Per Day economy, disrupting/closing farms and companies, pushing more, including Americans, onto government assist.

    People learn nothing. Every time any time folks want the government to fix a problem that they created, it comes back to me and the money I earn!

    MORE talk about the freedom to travel freely and the elimination of welfare/handouts needs to start now, lest you be biometrically identified, your private property seized for the “greater good” and contract rights between you and employee be taken away. Which has gone on long enough. Including PAYING for a wall, more government offices, government employees, and laws/bureaucratic red tape.

    KEEP them “illegal”. As such they are not entitled to anything without ID!
    Last edited by PAF; 03-19-2020 at 11:24 AM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    I wholeheartedly am for open borders. There is not enough talk about ending the welfare state.

    Closed borders results in the following:

    1. Identification, paper and/or biometrics, to distinguish you from me.

    2. Provides the state, Fed, a database of information that is none of their MF business.

    3. The state, Fed, utilizes Eminent Domain, taking rightful property from those who own it.

    4. Elimination of private contract rights, registering with the government, forced to pay taxes and Grow the Fed, and also requires employers to pay mandated government minimum wage.

    5. Requires enforcement by Government Employees.

    6. Once signed up with Fed.gov, 5 years later they are eligible to vote, including standing in line at the Welfare office.

    7. Stymies a $1 Billion Per Day economy, disrupting/closing farms and companies, pushing more, including Americans, onto government assist.

    People learn nothing. Every time any time folks want the government to fix a problem that they created, it comes back to me and the money I earn!

    MORE talk about the freedom to travel freely and the elimination of welfare/handouts needs to start now, lest you be biometrically identified, your private property seized for the “greater good” and contract rights between you and employee be taken away. Which has gone on long enough. Including PAYING for a wall, more government offices, government employees, and laws/bureaucratic red tape.

    KEEP them “illegal”. As such they are not entitled to anything without ID!
    1) Only if you're attempting to cross the border.
    2) Again, it's none of their business if you're not crossing the border.
    3) Utilizing eminent domain is part of the constitution. If you don't like it, talk to the Founders, or try amending the Constitution.
    4) Border security has existed long before the Federal Reserve or the 16th amendment was ever established. Private contracts don't need to be eliminated to provide border security.
    5) Private security can also be utilized by private property owners in addition to border patrol.
    6) I don't understand this statement.
    7) Again, I don't see what this has to do with border security.

    Border security isn't a fix. It's a responsibility assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, and it keeps private property owners protected from trespassing by foreigners.

  14. #12
    "Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful,"
    And what if they are not?

    This invasion we are suffering under is not "organic".

    It is a well orchestrated and well funded act of war, for the purpose of demographic control of territory by displacing and overwhelming the existing population.

    Why don't you ask these guys how unlimited immigration, into a borderless world, of people hostile to them and their traditions and cultures and heritage...ask them how it worked out.


  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    1) Only if you're attempting to cross the border.
    2) Again, it's none of their business if you're not crossing the border.
    3) Utilizing eminent domain is part of the constitution. If you don't like it, talk to the Founders, or try amending the Constitution.
    4) Border security has existed long before the Federal Reserve or the 16th amendment was ever established. Private contracts don't need to be eliminated to provide border security.
    5) Private security can also be utilized by private property owners in addition to border patrol.
    6) I don't understand this statement.
    7) Again, I don't see what this has to do with border security.

    Border security isn't a fix. It's a responsibility assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, and it keeps private property owners protected from trespassing by foreigners.
    You have too many “if’s” for my liking, so here is one for you:

    Perhaps if people quit meddling in my own business, and quit shifting responsibility to others and the government, I would not have to work so hard to live freely and keep my own money.

    Here, this might help: http://www.kopubco.com/pdf/An_Agoris...er_by_SEK3.pdf
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  16. #14
    Yeah, sure libertarians; start with the most pie-in-the-sky issue and see how many converts you make.

    Many libertarians have no marketing or business sense. Focusing, or even addressing, this issue is a sure fire way for newcomers to instantly reject freedom.

    There are plenty of other issues to address. Focus on something else.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  17. #15
    @PAF
    Do you believe in National sovereignty? Most New Immigrants support gun control,bigger government & higher Taxes that's anti Libertarian.
    I really like you but you are wrong on this issue!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    @PAF
    Do you believe in National sovereignty? Most New Immigrants support gun control,bigger government & higher Taxes that's anti Libertarian.
    I really like you but you are wrong on this issue!
    The feeling is mutual Sammy. I can only go by my own experience, living where I live and traveling abroad. It was immigrants and the like who helped me the most during RP’s run in 2012. Abroad, they can’t stand the U.S. meddling into their affairs and consider us the invaders.

    Many of my friends and acquaintances in my area who are immigrants own businesses and work hard, and cannot stand the tax rates and other mandates the state/fed impose on them. It is the white multi-generational Americans who are in Section 8, having kid after kid by 3-4 guys, who become irate when I mention to them that there are businesses hiring just down the road.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    The feeling is mutual Sammy. I can only go by my own experience, living where I live and traveling abroad. It was immigrants and the like who helped me the most during RP’s run in 2012. Abroad, they can’t stand the U.S. meddling into their affairs and consider us the invaders.

    Many of my friends and acquaintances in my area who are immigrants own businesses and work hard, and cannot stand the tax rates and other mandates the state/fed impose on them. It is the white multi-generational Americans who are in Section 8, having kid after kid by 3-4 guys, who become irate when I mention to them that there are businesses hiring just down the road.
    That's fine you want to draw off personal experiences, and perfectly legitimate. My question: Have you ever lived in States that have taken in refugees? In Northern Virginia, we've got a big pocket of El Salvadorians. I went to a high school that's 30% white, perfectly multi-cultural. Except a lot of my friends parents never bothered to learn to speak English. There are mechanics, bakeries, a whole swath of businesses that operate on a Spanish-only basis. How is that not going to cause problems, when people come here, and create their own totally separate communities where we can't even speak in the same language to each other? And they do. My friends parents have done it for 15 years. And they certainly aren't doing it all by themselves.

    So: I've actually done some numbers in another thread: State Electorates Rapidly Changed by Mass Immigration, I'll give you that 25% are "good" guys, but we're seeing 60% of them "bad guys". Great - Virginia gets 75,000 rear-busting, honest to God, great people. That's awesome. How does that help when we get 186,000 bad ones?

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 106459 View Post
    That's fine you want to draw off personal experiences, and perfectly legitimate. My question: Have you ever lived in States that have taken in refugees? In Northern Virginia, we've got a big pocket of El Salvadorians. I went to a high school that's 30% white, perfectly multi-cultural. Except a lot of my friends parents never bothered to learn to speak English. There are mechanics, bakeries, a whole swath of businesses that operate on a Spanish-only basis. How is that not going to cause problems, when people come here, and create their own totally separate communities where we can't even speak in the same language to each other? And they do. My friends parents have done it for 15 years. And they certainly aren't doing it all by themselves.

    So: I've actually done some numbers in another thread: State Electorates Rapidly Changed by Mass Immigration, I'll give you that 25% are "good" guys, but we're seeing 60% of them "bad guys". Great - Virginia gets 75,000 rear-busting, honest to God, great people. That's awesome. How does that help when we get 186,000 bad ones?
    All I can say is trump, bush, elected politicians, school boards, etc are filled with white Americans (I am too btw), and they refuse to even talk about the indoctrination camps which are our public school system, and the FedDeptEd. If you think immigrants, undocumented even, have any control over the White House and their quest for power, think again. Keep them all out, restrict my freedom to travel freely, pay for that wall while taking private property that does not belong to you and me, sign up for that eVerify and pump all that data up to the Feds, and see if they change their tune and eliminate the camps.

    It is a ruse. They will use any tactic to get you to buy into their scheme, having you believe that if we keep foreigners out they will magically turn pure and return schools back to local. Obama started building that wall, requiring Mexicans to “sign up” with the government, only back then Republicans stood up and fought for their private property and contract rights. In comes trump the real estate magnate that he is, republicans give him a pass and make a hard turn left.

    Read my signature ;-)
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  22. #19
    Immigration =/= citizenship
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    All I can say is trump, bush, elected politicians, school boards, etc are filled with white Americans (I am too btw), and they refuse to even talk about the indoctrination camps which are our public school system, and the FedDeptEd. If you think immigrants, undocumented even, have any control over the White House and their quest for power, think again.
    Well, voting immigrants who are aligned with big government certainly make big government's job easier. In VA, it looks like they accounted for half the winning votes (and we're still importing them, that was back in 2017). I can't agree that making our job, getting back to limited government, twice as hard, is a good idea.
    -Sure, there are the powerful white Americans who benefit from Globalism and their gated communities. There are a ton that don't.
    -The point is, is that surveys have been taken, and they've found that immigrants are decidedly less American than Americans (sounds believable to me).

    So that's awesome that you have had good experiences with immigrants. That's great on personal levels that you are able to control. In a nation of 300 million, we can't base this policy off anecdotal experiences. The numbers show immigrants are making America less small government. If we want to change the game, ensure our immigration policy leads us back to smaller government voting, then yeah, I'd jump on that immigration train. But that isn't happening.


    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Keep them all out, restrict my freedom to travel freely, pay for that wall while taking private property that does not belong to you and me, sign up for that eVerify and pump all that data up to the Feds, and see if they change their tune and eliminate the camps.
    Yeah, the majority of control can be done at the US border, which the vast majority of Americans won't interact with. A small percent will; that's unfortunate. The world's never been perfect. Better than the alternative of immigrants giving the Democratic party a 100% monopoly in 20 years time when we're ballot stuffed out of the equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    It is a ruse. They will use any tactic to get you to buy into their scheme, having you believe that if we keep foreigners out they will magically turn pure and return schools back to local. Obama started building that wall, requiring Mexicans to “sign up” with the government, only back then Republicans stood up and fought for their private property and contract rights. In comes trump the real estate magnate that he is, republicans give him a pass and make a hard turn left.

    Read my signature ;-)
    No, I don't believe that keeping foreigners out is the panacea for all of our problems. But when you have wounds, I believe some of the first medical advice is to stop the bleeding, no? Let's stop, what we know to be, importing opposed ideology by a 62:25 margin. That's not helping.

    As others have posted, the Libertarian party is infuriating when they show absolutely 0 political acumen. They are 1000% putting the cart in front of the horse in this scenario. They talk about how great immigration could be. And it could be. But absolutely not in this environment where it is weaponized to import refugees that support Democrat big government. They are giving away everything, letting the D's import as many as they want, without getting anything in return. Because no one, in this environment, is going to stop the welfare system. That comes first. Absolutely. Until then, stop the bleeding.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    I don't understand "libertarians" who support open borders. Closed borders protects private property owners on the border from trespassing by foreigners.
    Jose walking from his property in Mexico to Joe's property in the US, with Joe's permission but without the USG's permission, isn't trespassing. The idea that governmental approval is required to enter the US implies that the government owns all the land in the US, i.e. communism of land. Border controls violate private property rights by prohibiting landowners from opening their land to whomever they want. The same applies to the effects of border controls in the interior of the country: e.g. companies being prohibited from entering into employment contracts with whomever they please. This isn't to say that border controls are never justified. Like other property rights violations (e.g. taxes) they can be justified to prevent even larger property rights violations, as circumstances require.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Immigration =/= citizenship
    That's a fair point, immigration does not equal citizenship (green cards/legal resident, etc). Except for when it does; in the future. Reagan, supposed to be one of the great conservative beacons, was one who just gave amnesty and then made all those immigrants == citizens. Am I expected to believe that these illegal immigrants aren't going to become citizens? No one's going to kick them out. It's not gonna happen. Didn't happen in Reagan's time; certainly won't happen today. Let me know if there was more to be understood.

    More importantly, the study I explicitly linked to, was specifically about voting immigrants ("Virginia’s foreign-born voting population has ballooned to about 550,000"). Running the math that we have available on that, we should be able to reliably account for 50% of the D's winning votes in VA 2017 was due to voting immigrants. Is that good?

  26. #23
    @106459

    Trump, republican, won the presidency, a democrat did not. He was voted in by republicans. He passed the largest Omnibus in the entire history of this nation, something obama could only have wet dreams about. He never utters a word about FedDeptEd/Common Core, or private property and contract rights to the American people.

    What’s up with that? Do you think keeping immigrants out will change his mind? Democrats did not win the presidency this ‘round.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  27. #24
    Regarding Latinos....(have no idea about other nationalities). 2/3rds vote D and 1/3rd R. The major issue for the 2/3rds is immigration. The 1/3rd that vote R still have the same immigration views but pro-life is their no 1 issue. I say there's got to be a middle road where immigration for work and such is easier, but citizenship is difficult (ex end birthright citizenship).

    This would even up the Latino vote imo.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Nice in theory, but not so much in practice...

    "One of the proudest positions that we have in this party is our open-border plank," Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who won the party's non-binding presidential caucuses in Iowa and Minnesota this month, said during a California debate that I moderated Feb. 16. "I grew up on a farm on the Rio Grande. We hired illegal immigrants….Y'all know about the checkpoints. We got 'em over there. I've been stopped by the Border Patrol myself when I was in high school, 'Open up your trunk!' Warrantless searches onto our farm to bust our workers. It's a police state, and there's only one solution to it: Dismantle it all. People have a fundamental, God-given right to cross borders like human beings and not die of thirst and dehydration in the desert and on the back of 18-wheelers."
    Well, that happened when I was in High School too. They were looking for alcohol. Will that stop if the borders are opened? Will the “DUI” checkpoints go away, where they arrest 2 people for DUI, and 20 people for outstanding warrants? Will welfare end if the borders open? Will regulations and crony corporatism end? What will this buy us?

    Proudest position? To virtue signal? Sorry, got news for you. All of those insane SJWs that you are trying to appeal to find libertarians and Libertarians to be their biggest enemies, because libertarians don’t support their socialism and communism. And all of the cheap labor crony corporatists laugh at libertarians, but they may pay you to write articles supporting cheap labor immigration for them.
    "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-Internet-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
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


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

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Regarding Latinos....(have no idea about other nationalities). 2/3rds vote D and 1/3rd R. The major issue for the 2/3rds is immigration. The 1/3rd that vote R still have the same immigration views but pro-life is their no 1 issue. I say there's got to be a middle road where immigration for work and such is easier, but citizenship is difficult (ex end birthright citizenship).

    This would even up the Latino vote imo.
    I know plenty of Latinos that do not support more immigration of any kind. But yes, they are probably outnumbered by the La Raza segment, that wants immigration from south of the border, but not from Asia.
    "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-Internet-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
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


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

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I know plenty of Latinos that do not support more immigration of any kind. But yes, they are probably outnumbered by the La Raza segment, that wants immigration from south of the border, but not from Asia.
    I was being very broad/general but yes on many exceptions
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    @106459

    Trump, republican, won the presidency, a democrat did not. He was voted in by republicans. He passed the largest Omnibus in the entire history of this nation, something obama could only have wet dreams about. He never utters a word about FedDeptEd/Common Core, or private property and contract rights to the American people.

    What’s up with that? Do you think keeping immigrants out will change his mind? Democrats did not win the presidency this ‘round.
    Yep, Trump is a Republican who got voted in, 2016. Give our current immigration policy 20 years, looks like 459,000 a year, another 9 million people.
    2.6 million votes R
    6.5 million votes D

    How does that help? Democrats aren't even going to have to pay lip service to moderates at that point. We'll be full-blown reparations required mode.

    If you'd like to make a point about the "largest Omnibus", I'll listen. As it stands, the US currency is inflated away year after year, the economy is listed as growing, no one is interested in shrinking the overall size of government, so it would only be a logical deduction that the 2019 Omnibus is larger than the 2018 Omnibus.

    Yeah - there are a ton of things Trump has been quiet or silent on. I'm pleased that my taxes were cut, regulations rolled back, MSM is being called out as fake news. Then there have been all of the debates of "he is more of the same" - right. There was no option to make any of that better. It is a non-argument when you are presenting a non-choice. I'm glad we have Trump's judges (the option), over Hilary's judges (the other option).

    So, in regards to Education? I'm not happy he hasn't trashed Common Core. I am happy that he appointed Betsy Davos, a "Charter School advocate". Of the two options: either keep growing DoE, or put someone in office who will work to remove the dirty-word stigma of "Charter School", I'll take the 2nd option I can get.
    -What's sad is I tried to go up and read some articles .. and I like how the spin is at it again. I'm being told Davos is "anti-charter school" ... when it looks like the reality is this:
    "The Trump administration proposed a major reduction in federal education spending Monday that would eliminate nearly 30 standalone programs, including ones that support homeless students, rural students, English learners, and magnet schools.

    Perhaps most surprisingly, the proposal would effectively axe a long-standing federal program that has catalyzed charter school growth across the country.

    The department packaged this move as part of a bigger effort to give states more decision-making power."
    ...So, who knows. I never said Trump was a great President. He's the greatest in my lifetime. Looks like he wants to shrink federal government spending on education. Probably increase Charter Schools as an option. Cutting my taxes was great. The alternative is not great. Very bad, actually.

    So, "Do you think keeping immigrants out will change his mind", is just a complete straw-man and misrepresentation of anything I said. I said to keep immigrants out, to stop the bleeding, because the current policy (the only policy that will be allowed), is to make the Democrat's job twice as easy. To get bigger government.

    Until your plan has a 100%, stop the welfare, import immigrants that we know will reliably be 50:50 instead of 62:25, I'm not receptive at all to the concept of open borders and more immigration.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Jose walking from his property in Mexico to Joe's property in the US, with Joe's permission but without the USG's permission, isn't trespassing. The idea that governmental approval is required to enter the US implies that the government owns all the land in the US, i.e. communism of land. Border controls violate private property rights by prohibiting landowners from opening their land to whomever they want. The same applies to the effects of border controls in the interior of the country: e.g. companies being prohibited from entering into employment contracts with whomever they please. This isn't to say that border controls are never justified. Like other property rights violations (e.g. taxes) they can be justified to prevent even larger property rights violations, as circumstances require.
    That's how national sovereignty works. Calling it "communism" is a mischaracterization. The government doesn't own the land. They just control the borders with other countries.

    If you want to end national sovereignty and have the only borders be property borders, then you might as well end national sovereignty altogether.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by revgen View Post
    That's how national sovereignty works. Calling it "communism" is a mischaracterization. The government doesn't own the land. They just control the borders with other countries.

    If you want to end national sovereignty and have the only borders be property borders, then you might as well end national sovereignty altogether.
    Yes indeed, that is how national sovereignty works, which demonstrates the contradiction between national sovereignty and individual liberty.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Libertarian arguement for open borders
    By Pauls' Revere in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-16-2018, 03:05 AM
  2. Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal
    By Jesse James in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 08-17-2017, 02:56 AM
  3. Am I a libertarian if I don't believe in mulitculturalism or open borders?
    By Ron Paul in 2008 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 08-01-2016, 02:13 PM
  4. Libertarian Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practice
    By William R in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-17-2016, 05:09 PM
  5. Open Borders Are Anti-Libertarian -- They violate private property.
    By Ronin Truth in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 04-23-2016, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

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