Libertarians and Illegal Immigration...

[mr.v.]

So I'm somewhat confused. At least according to the official Libertarian website, the official position of the Libertarian party is to have pretty much open borders that are secured to the extent that each person entering is verified as being a non-criminal/terrorist/ebola carrier. Is this not correct?
And wouldn't this policy also mean, any of the people entering who wanted to switch citizenship to the U.S. would be free to do so as soon as possible?

I also remember hearing someone from the Cato institute (who I admire greatly for their opposition to gun-control and the DC lawsuit) argue points very similar to the ones I stated above.

However, a local "libertarian" talk show host in LA completely disagrees with this and is on an anti-illegal immigration campaign. Also, of more note to people here, Ron Paul also appears to be against the idea of free open borders and says he agrees that times have changed and we shouldn't let anyone in just because they want in...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

I realize that Ron Paul is a "republican" but for most intents and purposes he is very much a libertarian. How do these things all mesh together? Are most libertarians in favor of the much more open border/open citizenship policy or are they more towards the Ron Paul/Local LA talk show-host type of libertarian who like lower taxes, free-trade, small-government, but want a much more restrictive and regulated immigration policy?

My completely unscientific survey of thehighroad and to a lesser extent here...demonstrates an over-representation of libertarians (compared to say democrats for the obvious reason of firearm-appreciation) but yet very few of the threads that end up on the subject of illegal immigration have people in support of a clear path to citizenship.

Any libertarians care to weigh in on this stance? is it very polarizing in the party?

[Firethorn]

libertarians are a pretty diverse bunch.  I consider myself a moderate libertarian.  It might sound strange, but I DO object to illegal immigrants even as I believe that it's too hard to enter the USA as a legal immigrant.

yet very few of the threads that end up on the subject of illegal immigration have people in support of a clear path to citizenship.

Well you've just heard from one who does.

I hate the idea of illegal immigration because they're a class that's already broken the law, multiple times.  As such, they're already a class that holds our legal system in contempt.  Even for the 'nicer' criminals who get a productive job, they're in much the same boat as prostitutes and drug dealers in that they can't use the criminal justice system* without substantial risk to themselves.  Sure, the police might help one they find being beaten, but then turn around and arrest him because he's illegal, ending in deportation.  This makes them unlikely to contact the police if they're robbed or otherwise attacked, creating a target for the criminal subclass, which is frequently a large portion of fellow illegals.

My strategy would be three-fold, and accomplishable mostly simultaneously.  First, fix our legal immigration system so unskilled workers can enter again.  Require a plane/bus ticket back to their home country as collateral if they can't make it. 

Second, heavily fine any business that is found to be knowingly hiring illegals; as part of this, come up with a system to determine the legality of workers, this should be quick, easy, and fairly economical.  Create a policy of actually jailing illegals caught in this fashion; not just a trip over the border only to have them pay a coyote to get them back accross in less than a week.  As part of this, prosecute and send to prison camp labor anybody caught illegaly using our social services(IE committing welfare fraud along with illegal labor).

Third, effective border security.  It won't ever be perfect, we find outright tunnels about once a month accross the border.  Still, we can do orders of magnitude better.

*Normally speaking, there are exemptions in some places like California.

[roo_ster]

mr. v:

First off, recognize that doctrinaire libertarianism is an utiopian creed.  Things like facts on the ground or present circumstances are mere details to be swept away by libertarian goodness, once folks get their head screwed on straight.

Therefore, you get guys who call themselves libertarians advocating open borders before shucking aside the current welfare statism that taxpayers fund.  Of course, letting in hordes of illiterate, unskilled, unacculturated, irredentist immigrants would bloat the welfare state and would make any true freedom/liberty-favorable changes damn near impossible.  Just details, details...to the true believer.

Heck, even Milton Friedman thought that open immigration into a welfare state was national suicide. 

[Ned Hamford]

I personally think of myself as a pragmatic minarchist.  I second the motion of jail time for illegals caught committing crimes.  In NY at least, the time from deported to back in operation is 2 weeks.  Its frankly absurd the percentage of crime these repeat offenders are responsible for.  But when instead of 30 years in jail your risking a couple of weeks in comfy custody and then a trip back... I think the 'criminal underclass' is largely responsible for some major corruptions in the system.  Due to their effect on the crime rate, several crimes are thought to be more widespread across society than they really are, which leads to tougher laws.  US citizen busted for one of these crimes gets the absurdly inflated jail time, to send a message.  Jose however... he knows how the system really works.

[Standing Wolf]

This Libertarian is all in favor of open bordersafter a.) we've completely secured the borders; b.) rounded up all the illegal aliens currently inside our nation; c.) completely shut down the entire free government money system and so-called "entitement" scams, and d.) devised a system for deciding whom we will and won't admit. Until then, we need to keep the borders closedperiod.

We have 20,000,000 invaders in our nation, as well as untold millions more who sincerely believe they're so-called "entitled" to steal money from the self-supporting. Those are problems of enormous severity; the matter of continued immigration is far, far down the list from those.

We've always been a nation of immigrants, and I sincerely hope we'll always be onebut there's a world of difference between legal immigrants and illegal alien invaders. The statist parasites have been trying to confuse the two groups for several decades now: they want their votes to further their filthy anti-American schemes.

[The Rabbi]

I often see Libertarianism as simply a synonym for narcissism.  Thus Libertarians dont want any responsibility in the form of having the gov't mandate anything at all.  They want maximum freedom to do whatever they want, when they want, as they want it.
At the same time they have no problem denying those same rights to others, especially when those others are people lacking the same educational skills and social values.
So its "freedom for me, but not for thee."  A classic.

Meanwhile, the true conservative stance calls for free movement of labor and capital.  If people want to come work, make that as easy as possible while retaining some kind of process to screen out criminals.  Hand in hand with that is reforming the welfare system so there are disincentives to use it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

...open immigration into a welfare state was national suicide. 

This is the key.  Immigration itself isn't the problem (it wouldn't matter who else lived here if they were paying their own way).  Illegal immigration is merely one symptom of the real disease, welfare.  Let's spend out efforts curing the disease , not trying to mask the symptoms. 

Besides, if immigrants are harming our nation it's only because we stupidly built a system that can be exploited so easily.  If a bunch of half-educated, illiterate, poverty stricken yokels can cause serious harm to our nation, then we need to worry about why our nation is so easy to harm.

Say you're in a public place, perhaps a park.  There are lots of other people around.  You take your wallet out of your pocket and leave it on a park bench and put up a sign saying "Free Money, help yourself."  You  walk away for a few minutes, and when you come back you find that all your money is gone.  Do you have any right to be pissed off that your money is gone?  Who's fault is it that your money is missing, the "thief" who took what was offered, or you who was stupid enough to leave it free for the taking?

So count me among the libertarians who say that immigration is mostly OK, in and of itself.  We won't get anywhere trying to fight illegal-immigration so long as the welfare state exists, and if we get rid of the welfare state illegal-mmigration will solve itself.

[Glock Glockler]

I consider myself a libertarian but also have a serious beef with the Libertarian party.  The LP essentially envisions a utopia, which is fine, but it's also disastrous if one is trying to practically accomplish something.  In algebra there is a specific order of operations in which the equation is done in order to get the correct answer, likewise, there is a correct order of operations regarding political/economic systems.

The welfare state needs a serious cutback BEFORE opening up the floodgates.  While the welfare state is ultimately the source of our problems you can't completely ignore the symptom of immigration while you try to address the root cause.

How long did it take for the modern welfare state to be built up?  I'm sure there are plenty of different answers that can be discussed but the main point is that it wasn't overnight, or even within a decade, it took a while.  Now that it's entrenched and we have bureaucrats, politicians, and special interests who are dependant on a particular dole, how easy will it be to remove that dole?

Not easy, and we have quite a few doles that need to be done away with, so how long will it take to do that?

Now, suppose we say "immigration is just a symptom, we're going to attack the root cause" and then let in tens of millions of 3rd worlders who have no skills, don't speak English, and who are applicable for our welfare bennies, what are our chances of eliminating the welfare state then?

It won't happen, it will simply grow.

Our best chance is to take in a minimum of people who will likely be welfare recipients (poor), take in as many people who will likely be against it (better off, who probably moved here to keep more money than they would be allowed in the old country), and try to stack the deck as much in our favor as we pull the plug on the dole state. 

THIS is exactly what the Democrats are doing right now, and it's a very intelligent strategy, we should do it right back to them.   

[doczinn]

I often see Libertarianism as simply a synonym for narcissism.  Thus Libertarians dont want any responsibility in the form of having the gov't mandate anything at all.  They want maximum freedom to do whatever they want, when they want, as they want it.
At the same time they have no problem denying those same rights to others, especially when those others are people lacking the same educational skills and social values.
So its "freedom for me, but not for thee."  A classic.

Meanwhile, the true conservative stance calls for free movement of labor and capital.  If people want to come work, make that as easy as possible while retaining some kind of process to screen out criminals.  Hand in hand with that is reforming the welfare system so there are disincentives to use it.

Rabbi, you obviously have gotten a completely skewed idea of what libertarianism is. Conservatism, as well.

"Free movement of labor and capital" is one of the central tenets of libertarianism. And as for "denying those same rights to others," anyone espousing this is most certainly not a libertarian. Consider that libertarians subscribe to the "non-aggression principle," meaning no initiation of force. You can't deny someone their rights that way.

[The Rabbi]

I often see Libertarianism as simply a synonym for narcissism.  Thus Libertarians dont want any responsibility in the form of having the gov't mandate anything at all.  They want maximum freedom to do whatever they want, when they want, as they want it.
At the same time they have no problem denying those same rights to others, especially when those others are people lacking the same educational skills and social values.
So its "freedom for me, but not for thee."  A classic.

Meanwhile, the true conservative stance calls for free movement of labor and capital.  If people want to come work, make that as easy as possible while retaining some kind of process to screen out criminals.  Hand in hand with that is reforming the welfare system so there are disincentives to use it.

Rabbi, you obviously have gotten a completely skewed idea of what libertarianism is. Conservatism, as well.

"Free movement of labor and capital" is one of the central tenets of libertarianism. And as for "denying those same rights to others," anyone espousing this is most certainly not a libertarian. Consider that libertarians subscribe to the "non-aggression principle," meaning no initiation of force. You can't deny someone their rights that way.

Then I am at a loss to explain the sentiments of self-proclaimed Libertarians on this board who are all for shooting illegals.

[Gewehr98]

I'm curious about the libertarian definition of "welfare state", too.

(As the VA bumps up my disability rating to 60% in the next few weeks...)

[doczinn]

I am at a loss to explain the sentiments of self-proclaimed Libertarians on this board who are all for shooting illegals.

Simple - they're not libertarians.

I'm curious about the libertarian definition of "welfare state", too.

(As the VA bumps up my disability rating to 60% in the next few weeks...)

That's nothing but a facet of a retirement plan, for a job you held. Now, there's a lot of fraud and waste in that system, and it could be streamlined a lot, but it's not welfare.

[The Rabbi]

I am at a loss to explain the sentiments of self-proclaimed Libertarians on this board who are all for shooting illegals.

Simple - they're not libertarians.

So anyone hewing the Libertarian line should have supported the President's plan for temporary visas over the current "restrictionist" line as at least being an improvement, right?

[Glock Glockler]

So anyone hewing the Libertarian line should have supported the President's plan for temporary visas over the current "restrictionist" line as at least being an improvement, right?

Was there not the slightest thing in the bill which was bad and therefore a completely legitimate reason not to pass it?

[The Rabbi]

So anyone hewing the Libertarian line should have supported the President's plan for temporary visas over the current "restrictionist" line as at least being an improvement, right?

Was there not the slightest thing in the bill which was bad and therefore a completely legitimate reason not to pass it?

How did you get that, or anything like that, out of my post?  Note the term "improvement" which suggests that while not perfect it would certainly be better than what we have right now.
One of the negatives imo was that it did not grant enough visas to skilled workers, the quote of which gets filled earlier and earlier every year.  The requirement that current illegals move back home was equally poorly thought out and designed to guarantee non-compliance.

[Glock Glockler]

I don't think it would be an overall improvement, all the nonsense in the bill easily outweighs any potential good within it.

[doczinn]

So anyone hewing the Libertarian line should have supported the President's plan for temporary visas over the current "restrictionist" line as at least being an improvement, right?

If you mean the party line, I'd guess you're right. The problem is the Party seems not to understand that you have to end the handouts first, and then let people in.