Libertarian Issues

Ethereal said:

Of course, anyone who doesn't love illegal aliens is authoritarian.

Click to expand...

Opposition to freedom of movement on jingoistic grounds is an authoritarian political position more commonly associated with other reactionary perspectives than its converse is, yes. Even capitalist "libertarians" generally recognize that.

Ethereal said:

Of course, anyone who doesn't love illegal aliens is authoritarian.

Click to expand...

Uhh Lou Dobbs certainly is. He makes me want to puke every time I listen to him. He's probably one of the scariest people on television because he advocates the most ridiculous policies without coming across as a buffoon, unlike a Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

Kandahar said:

Uhh Lou Dobbs certainly is.

Click to expand...

I think the term for Lou Dobbs is just "idiot". I am as much or more against illegals as any one, but I don't have high blood pressure over the issue. Every time Lou Dobbs brings it up, you can see him turning red and his veins start to bulge.

Agnapostate said:

Opposition to freedom of movement on jingoistic grounds is an authoritarian political position more commonly associated with other reactionary perspectives than its converse is, yes. Even capitalist "libertarians" generally recognize that.

Click to expand...

Legitimate freedom of movement does not entail illegal actions. This country is a sovereign nation with laws. Foreigners are not exempt from these laws, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Ethereal said:

Legitimate freedom of movement does not entail illegal actions. This country is a sovereign nation with laws. Foreigners are not exempt from these laws, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Click to expand...

God damn it! You are not supposed to say stuff that I agree with like this...

Ethereal said:

Legitimate freedom of movement does not entail illegal actions. This country is a sovereign nation with laws. Foreigners are not exempt from these laws, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Click to expand...

The ethical legitimacy of freedom of movement is not determined by existing legal statutes, otherwise the Underground Railroad would have been an extension of slavery. Though I can't expect everyone to accept the more radical libertarian position against the existence of nation-states, outright jingoism simply isn't compatible with libertarianism in any form.

Ethereal said:

Legitimate freedom of movement does not entail illegal actions. This country is a sovereign nation with laws. Foreigners are not exempt from these laws, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Click to expand...

That is a tautology. What you are essentially saying is that you oppose changing the policy because it is illegal. That doesn't answer the question of WHY.

Kandahar said:

That is a tautology. What you are essentially saying is that you oppose changing the policy because it is illegal. That doesn't answer the question of WHY.

Click to expand...

As I understand his comment, he is saying that to enter the country illegally is, well, illegal. Why is not important, to enter the country illegally makes you a criminal under our laws, and as such, you should not get amnesty.

Edit: changing immigration policy is fine, but amnesty is not, since allowing criminals to become citizens is not in our best interest

Agnapostate said:

The ethical legitimacy of freedom of movement is not determined by existing legal statutes, otherwise the Underground Railroad would have been an extension of slavery. Though I can't expect everyone to accept the more radical libertarian position against the existence of nation-states, outright jingoism simply isn't compatible with libertarianism in any form.

Click to expand...

America is a country with laws and borders. Your false accusations of jingoism do not change this.

Kandahar said:

That is a tautology. What you are essentially saying is that you oppose changing the policy because it is illegal. That doesn't answer the question of WHY.

Click to expand...

Imagine two nations side-by-side, nation A and nation B.

Nation A is a democracy with open borders.

Half of nation B's population crosses the border and takes up residence in nation A, gets fake IDs and starts voting as a bloc.

Nation B's population, culture and mindset just took over Nation A without a shot fired.

Granted this is a simplistic example, but it illustrates the fundamental reason that a nation must control its borders and regulate immigration, or it can cease to be a nation.

I've cited some other issues which you choose to ignore or marginalize.

Yet another is how the issue of illegal immigration tends to lead to a loss of respect for the law in general, especially when the law is percieved as not enforcing immigration laws.

Redress said:

As I understand his comment, he is saying that to enter the country illegally is, well, illegal. Why is not important, to enter the country illegally makes you a criminal under our laws, and as such, you should not get amnesty.

Edit: changing immigration policy is fine, but amnesty is not, since allowing criminals to become citizens is not in our best interest

Click to expand...

But amnesty is, by definition, the forgiveness for a crime. So that still doesn't answer the question of why it's bad, or why we need to harass illegal immigrants.

Redress said:

As I understand his comment, he is saying that to enter the country illegally is, well, illegal. Why is not important, to enter the country illegally makes you a criminal under our laws, and as such, you should not get amnesty.

Edit: changing immigration policy is fine, but amnesty is not, since allowing criminals to become citizens is not in our best interest

Click to expand...

Ethereal said:

America is a country with laws and borders. Your false accusations of jingoism do not change this.

Click to expand...

Here we have examples of statements rather than claims. Actual logical argument or evidence as to the ethical nature of immigration prohibitions or their elimination is not advanced; instead, known facts about existing immigration law are repeated. "Illegal immigration is wrong because it's illegal."

:rofl :shrug:

Kandahar said:

That is a tautology. What you are essentially saying is that you oppose changing the policy because it is illegal. That doesn't answer the question of WHY.

Click to expand...

I believe a sovereign nation has the right to maintain the integrity of its borders. I also believe immigrants should culturally assimilate before becoming citizens.

Kandahar said:

But amnesty is, by definition, the forgiveness for a crime. So that still doesn't answer the question of why it's bad, or why we need to harass illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

Forgiveness of a crime is something that we can, occasionally, offer to our citizens. We should not turn a blind eye to the crimes of prospective citizens. To put it another way, there should be definite requirements for a foreign person to become a citizen, and a not unreasonable one is to not have committed crimes in this country.

Goshin said:

Imagine two nations side-by-side, nation A and nation B.

Nation A is a democracy with open borders.

Half of nation B's population crosses the border and takes up residence in nation A, gets fake IDs and starts voting as a bloc.

Click to expand...

Latinos don't vote as a bloc. Approximately 40% of them voted for George Bush in 2004. 32% of them voted for John McCain in 2008.

And in neither election were there any border states where the election was close enough to sway the outcome. Except for maybe New Mexico in 2004...but since Bush won that state, one would expect him to win by an even larger margin if there was an epidemic of illegal aliens voting.

Goshin said:

Nation B's population, culture and mindset just took over Nation A without a shot fired.

Granted this is a simplistic example, but it illustrates the fundamental reason that a nation must control its borders and regulate immigration, or it can cease to be a nation.

Click to expand...

Demographics are constantly changing. The United States has always been a mixing of cultures. Each wave of immigrants has adapted to American culture, while adding their unique input. What is wrong with that?

Goshin said:

I've cited some other issues which you choose to ignore or marginalize.

Click to expand...

Uhh it looks to me like post #18 was the only other post on this subject that you've made in this thread. And I responded to each and every point.

Agnapostate said:

Here we have examples of statements rather than claims. Actual logical argument or evidence as to the ethical nature of immigration prohibitions or their elimination is not advanced; instead, known facts about existing immigration law are repeated. "Illegal immigration is wrong because it's illegal."

:rofl :shrug:

Click to expand...

Illegal immigration is wrong because it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

"Laissez Faire capitalism"

While I favor far, far less government regulation and spending. I don't agree with total laissez faire capitalism. For instance, I support traffic laws, funding for local roads, unemployment insurance (in a reduced form), disaster relief, and financial assistance to the handicapped

"End drug prohibition"

This is in my opinion, the most destructive Government Program in the past 50 years in the US. End it NOW.

"avid interventionism in foreign policy"

This is where I go away from most Libertarians. I think that while the Iraqi invasion was stupid, that we should remain in Iraq until the job is done. I support the Afghan War, an active foreign policy, and a strong military.

"End foreign aid"

Free trade will do far more good. Most aid does little more than enrich dictators. However, I'm not opposed to direct relief for things like natural disasters.

"End gun bans"

Yes, the government should not have a monopoly on military force

"Deregulate healthcare"

Hell yes, I've stated my plans on healthcare many, many times here

"Semi-amnesty for illegal aliens(work for amnesty)"

Make immigration restrictions far, far more lax. Don't keep the illegals underground, poor, and leeching our entitlements and welfare systems

"End welfare"

Mostly yes. It should be reduced over time and limited unemployment insurance and help for the handicapped should remain. However, I consider the War on Poverty an abject failure that, along with the War on Drugs and our objectionally deplorable public school system, has lead to significant urban decay

"Allow opting out of Social Security"

Privatize the Ponzi Scheme.

Ethereal said:

I believe a sovereign nation has the right to maintain the integrity of its borders.

Click to expand...

"Having the right" is not at all the same thing as whether or not it's a good idea to do so, in this particular case.

Ethereal said:

I also believe immigrants should culturally assimilate before becoming citizens.

Click to expand...

This has never happened and probably never will. The second generation is always better assimilated than the first, but the first can contribute its own unique perspective.

Thanks DrunkenAsparagus, I was hoping for more like your post, and less battling over illegals(though I am right in that battle myself, which I guess makes me a hypocrite).

Kandahar said:

Latinos don't vote as a bloc. Approximately 40% of them voted for George Bush in 2004. 32% of them voted for John McCain in 2008.

And in neither election were there any border states where the election was close enough to sway the outcome. Except for maybe New Mexico in 2004...but since Bush won that state, one would expect him to win by an even larger margin if there was an epidemic of illegal aliens voting.

Click to expand...

I was referring to a potential situation, not necessarily to the Mexican issue itself, as a basis for a nation controlling its borders and immigration.

Demographics are constantly changing. The United States has always been a mixing of cultures. Each wave of immigrants has adapted to American culture, while adding their unique input. What is wrong with that?

Click to expand...

For the most part, these changes have been gradual. Illegal immigration has been massive for some years now...make it legal and watch it become a flood. Any given society can only withstand a certain amount of change coming so fast before the ties that bind that society break.

Uhh it looks to me like post #18 was the only other post on this subject that you've made in this thread. And I responded to each and every point.

Click to expand...

Ignore was a poorly chosen word. I meant you marginalized and shrugged off issues that I know to be significant.

Redress said:

Forgiveness of a crime is something that we can, occasionally, offer to our citizens. We should not turn a blind eye to the crimes of prospective citizens. To put it another way, there should be definite requirements for a foreign person to become a citizen, and a not unreasonable one is to not have committed crimes in this country.

Click to expand...

Sure, if they've committed real crimes where there is actually a victim, by all means deport them. Illegal immigration does not fall into that category.

Ethereal said:

Illegal immigration is wrong because it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Entrenched national divisions are mechanisms utilized by the ruling class to delude sections of the native working class and prevent their victories in class conflict; the opposition of U.S.-born laborers to immigration is sustained because they've been fed propaganda about immigrants despite the flimsy or nonexistent empirical basis of it. Accordingly, there's no actual substance in this comment; no specific ethical or economic dilemma posed by illegal immigration is mentioned.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about libertarian issues in a more general sense, not a whole freaking thread about illegal immigration... so let's talk about some other libertarian issue then.

Ethereal said:

Illegal immigration is wrong because it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

Click to expand...

This is just a variation on "It's wrong because it's illegal." What aspect of our sovereignty is being violated besides, of course, immigration law?

Kandahar said:

Sure, if they've committed real crimes where there is actually a victim, by all means deport them. Illegal immigration does not fall into that category.

Click to expand...

We are not going to see eye to eye on this, but I think we at least see where we draw the line. To me, the fact that they chose, willingly, to violate our laws means they should not be allowed to stay here as a citizen or on a work visa or whatever.