Do you support unlimited immigration into US

[undergroundrr]

This is a bit naive. If someone is standing in an alley between you and escape with a knife in their hand and an evil glint in the eye, are you seriously going to tell me that they do not present an apparent potential as an enemy?

Should that potential aggressor have been allowed to buy and carry a knife?

[Ender]

Should that potential aggressor have been allowed to buy and carry a knife?

Not in our Minority Report world.

[Swordsmyth]

Should that potential aggressor have been allowed to buy and carry a knife?

Sure, but should you invite him home?

[Swordsmyth]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

[undergroundrr]

Sure, but should you invite him home?

Government property isn't your home. Should socialists and potential aggressors be allowed to carry knives on government property?

[Swordsmyth]

Government property isn't your home. Should socialists and potential aggressors be allowed to carry knives on government property?

Not if they are illegal aliens.

[RJB]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

I am sure the Palestinians feel culturally enriched, happier, and certainly freer ever since 1948.

[Ender]

A question for all the Palestinian loving Israel haters here: How did uncontrolled illegal immigration work out over there?

That was never uncontrolled illegal immigration; that was the West conquering and taking land that was not theirs and giving it to their elite bosses.

[Swordsmyth]

That was never uncontrolled illegal immigration; that was the West conquering and taking land that was not theirs and giving it to their elite bosses.

So the Jews didn't sneak across the border or land in ships intent on taking up residence against the wishes of the then current occupants?

What makes you think that those who come here won't do the same to us?

[Ender]

So the Jews didn't sneak across the border or land in ships intent on taking up residence against the wishes of the then current occupants?

What makes you think that those who come here won't do the same to us?

Some history:

Sykes–Picot Agreement

Sykes Picot Agreement Map, an enclosure in Paul Cambon's letter to Sir Edward Grey, 9 May 1916
Created November 1915 – March 1916
Presented 23 November 1917 by the Russian Bolshevik government
Ratified 16 May 1916
Author(s)
 Mark Sykes
 François Georges-Picot
Signatories
 Edward Grey
 Paul Cambon
Purpose Defining proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire

Mark Sykes

François Georges-Picot

Paul Cambon signed the Agreement for the French

The Sykes–Picot Agreement /ˈsaɪks piˈkoʊ/, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret 1916 agreement between the United Kingdom and France,[1] to which the Russian Empire assented. The agreement defined their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between November 1915 and March 1916 [2] and it was signed 16 May 1916.[3] The deal, exposed to the public in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917 and in the British Guardian on November 26, 1917,[4][5] is still mentioned when considering the region and its present-day conflicts.[6][7]

The agreement allocated to Britain control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and an additional small area that included the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[8] France got control of southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[8] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and Armenia.[8] The controlling powers were left free to determine state boundaries within their areas.[8] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration in the "brown area" (an area including Jerusalem, similar to and smaller than Mandate Palestine), the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.[8]

The agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence,[9] and led later to the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following Ottoman defeat in 1918. The Acre-Haifa zone was intended to be a British enclave in the North to enable access to the Mediterranean.[10] The British later gained control of the brown zone and other territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946. The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks published the agreement on 23 November 1917, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted".[11]

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK's promises to Arabs[12] made for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.

[timosman]

So the Jews didn't sneak across the border or land in ships intent on taking up residence against the wishes of the then current occupants?

What makes you think that those who come here won't do the same to us?

[Swordsmyth]

Some history:

That's nice, I already knew about it.

What does it have to do with the Jews moving to the area in spite of the Brits' and Arabs' attempts to keep them out?

Even if it somehow relates then that just means that the Arabs would have been better off if the Brits' hadn't destroyed the Ottoman empire which was keeping the Jews out.

The Jews moved to "Palestine" against the wishes of the inhabitants in numbers too great to keep under control and took over control of the area, the locals have been much worse off because of it and are the perfect example of why the people of a country need to control immigration.

[Madison320]

I think you can have a libertarian country that has open or closed borders. It is separate from how the country is run internally. I think if you have a good system, setup as a republic, where you can't vote to receive stolen goods, you can have open borders. Otherwise, if you have a weak system with unlimited democracy, like we have, allowing immigration speeds up the conversion to socialism.

If you want to fix the root cause you need to have a strong system where voters can't vote to steal. Otherwise it doesn't make much difference.

[Swordsmyth]

I think you can have a libertarian country that has open or closed borders. It is separate from how the country is run internally. I think if you have a good system, setup as a republic, where you can't vote to receive stolen goods, you can have open borders. Otherwise, if you have a weak system with unlimited democracy, like we have, allowing immigration speeds up the conversion to socialism.

If you want to fix the root cause you need to have a strong system where voters can't vote to steal. Otherwise it doesn't make much difference.

If you had your perfect libertarian country with open borders you would have great prosperity, that prosperity would attract people who didn't share your political philosophy, if you let too many in they would turn you into a welfare state.

[Madison320]

If you had your perfect libertarian country with open borders you would have great prosperity, that prosperity would attract people who didn't share your political philosophy, if you let too many in they would turn you into a welfare state.

Not if the welfare recipients were banned from voting. Remember that the US is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy with unlimited voting.

[Swordsmyth]

Not if the welfare recipients were banned from voting. Remember that the US is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy with unlimited voting.

Their first issue would be to change that rule.

[Madison320]

Their first issue would be to change that rule.

But they wouldn't be able to since they can't vote.

[osan]

Should that potential aggressor have been allowed to buy and carry a knife?

All else equal, yes.

[Swordsmyth]

But they wouldn't be able to since they can't vote.

Your perfect libertarian state would have welfare for them to receive?
Even if it did and those who took it were disqualified from voting there would still be plenty of them who did work for a living but who had the wrong politics to vote to end that rule, unless you had limited immigration.

[timosman]

But they wouldn't be able to since they can't vote.

[Madison320]

Your perfect libertarian state would have welfare for them to receive?
Even if it did and those who took it were disqualified from voting there would still be plenty of them who did work for a living but who had the wrong politics to vote to end that rule, unless you had limited immigration.

If there was no welfare the immigrants would be coming to work so it would make no difference.

[Swordsmyth]

If there was no welfare the immigrants would be coming to work so it would make no difference.

They would come for the prosperity and not for the politics, they would bring their old politics with them and destroy your libertarian state, they would vote to have welfare and then vote to end the rule prohibiting those who received it from voting.

[Madison320]

They would come for the prosperity and not for the politics, they would bring their old politics with them and destroy your libertarian state, they would vote to have welfare and then vote to end the rule prohibiting those who received it from voting.

I would argue that the people within my libertarian state are almost as likely to destroy it as outsiders. My belief is on average people on welfare support bigger government and people that support themselves support smaller government and it doesn't matter where they came from. If you only allow the people who support smaller government to vote, government should stay small. I'd rather have someone from Mexico that works voting than someone from the US that's on welfare.

Let's just assume there's two basic ways to achieve a libertarian state. One is to make sure everyone in it has libertarian ideals, the other is to create a system that is self-correcting so that no matter who the citizens are, the government will stay libertarian. I think it makes more sense to try to create a system that is self correcting, otherwise you have go around, try to identify the socialists and kick them out.

[undergroundrr]

Let's just assume there's two basic ways to achieve a libertarian state. One is to make sure everyone in it has libertarian ideals, the other is to create a system that is self-correcting so that no matter who the citizens are, the government will stay libertarian. I think it makes more sense to try to create a system that is self correcting, otherwise you have go around, try to identify the socialists and kick them out.

I just can't rep this enough.

[timosman]

I just can't rep this enough.

Yes, you can.

[Superfluous Man]

Let's just assume there's two basic ways to achieve a libertarian state. One is to make sure everyone in it has libertarian ideals, the other is to create a system that is self-correcting so that no matter who the citizens are, the government will stay libertarian. I think it makes more sense to try to create a system that is self correcting, otherwise you have go around, try to identify the socialists and kick them out.

I think we should put any hopes of achieving a libertarian state out of our minds. It's not going to happen.

Instead, when it comes to these questions of "ought," we should focus our attention on the basic moral directives that hold for all people in all places and times, and that don't require us to imagine some utopia, or pretend we're talking about utilitarian means of achieving what we know we'll never achieve.

The actions the state must engage in to enforce its restrictions of immigration violate the Creator's moral laws. So on the question of whether or not we ought to support them, the answer is no, we ought not. It's really as simple as that.

[Madison320]

I think we should put any hopes of achieving a libertarian state out of our minds. It's not going to happen.

Instead, when it comes to these questions of "ought," we should focus our attention on the basic moral directives that hold for all people in all places and times, and that don't require us to imagine some eutopia, or pretend we're talking about utilitarian means of achieving what we know we'll never achieve.

The actions the state must engage in to enforce its restrictions of immigration violate the Creator's moral laws. So on the question of whether or not we ought to support them, the answer is no, we ought not. It's really as simple as that.

I used to be more of an idealist but now I'm happy with just coming up with a way to keep government from growing. Creeping socialism. As Jefferson wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." That's why he wanted a republic not a democracy. I believe the root cause is unlimited voting privileges. If receiving stolen good is immoral then it follows that voting to receive stolen goods is also immoral. I think you should be given a choice, if you want to vote you can't receive stolen goods. It's basic morality. Theft is wrong. Voting for theft is wrong.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, because it only holds territorial rights not ordinary property rights that confer greater powers over the land in question

Once again, just because you express the powers of your proposed state in the language of property rights does not make yours a liberal theory. A communist could just as well say that the communist state is justified in doing what it does because it owns everything; or an Islamist say that the Islamist state is justified in beheading infidels because it has a corresponding property right in their body; etc. Anyone of any ideological persuasion can express his views in terms of property rights; that does not make him a liberal. What defines liberalism is a set of specific rules for how property rights come into being. Your theory of how the state acquired its alleged property rights violates those rules. Ergo, it is not a liberal theory, no more than the communist's or the Islamist's, or any other, regardless of whether it might be clothed in the language of property rights.

nobodies rights are violated

Only if we accept that the state has these property rights you claim it does, which, on the liberal view, it does not.

in your system it is then the exclusive right of the monarch to decide whether to grow his herd through immigration or not)

There's a fundamental difference between how I justify the state and how you justify the state.

My justification is consequentialist; the state has a right to do what is necessary to minimize aggression, and nothing else.

Your justification is deontological: the state has a right to do certain things, period, regardless of whether they serve to minimize aggression

Mine is a pragmatic liberal argument; yours is not a liberal argument at all.

[Swordsmyth]

Once again, just because you express the powers of your proposed state in the language of property rights does not make yours a liberal theory. A communist could just as well say that the communist state is justified in doing what it does because it owns everything; or an Islamist say that the Islamist state is justified in beheading infidels because it has a corresponding property right in their body; etc. Anyone of any ideological persuasion can express his views in terms of property rights; that does not make him a liberal. What defines liberalism is a set of specific rules for how property rights come into being. Your theory of how the state acquired its alleged property rights violates those rules. Ergo, it is not a liberal theory, no more than the communist's or the Islamist's, or any other, regardless of whether it might be clothed in the language of property rights.

The state gains ownership of it's territory the same way the original owner of any property does by claiming it and adding value to it.

There's a fundamental difference between how I justify the state and how you justify the state.

My justification is consequentialist; the state has a right to do what is necessary to minimize aggression, and nothing else.

Your justification is deontological: the state has a right to do certain things, period, regardless of whether they serve to minimize aggression

Mine is a pragmatic liberal argument; yours is not a liberal argument at all.

I justify the existence of the state the same way you do, once it exists it owns territory as part of it's purpose and once it owns territory it has property rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

The state gains ownership of it's territory the same way the original owner of any property does by claiming it and adding value to it.

1. Land which is already owned cannot be homesteaded.

2. A homesteading-by-the-state theory logically concludes with justifying anything that any state does, not only your ideal state's actions.

I justify the existence of the state the same way you do, once it exists it owns territory as part of it's purpose and once it owns territory it has property rights.

No, you don't, for reasons just explained.

You think that the state has an absolute right to do certain things, regardless of their consequences.

I, and every other liberal, disagree.