Closed Border Libertarians

Before everyone starts screaming at me, let me be clear: I generally believe in open borders, philosophically at least. However, I just posted an argument from the left side of the libertarian movement and think it only fair to post one from the right side. As with the healthcare issue, immigration issues are significant within the context of contemporary U.S. politics — and there is a major split within the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party on this issue. I’d not be surprised to see a change in the LP platform position at the 2006 Libertarian National Convention this July pertaining to immigration.

Despite the views of my friends on both sides of this inflammatory and controversial issue, it seems that both sides seem to miss some realities of the situation or turn it into sound-byted fearmongering — as opposed to using rational arguments. I think most people ultimately hope for open borders in a libertopian society, but many don’t see how this can work within the framework of a welfare state (in addition to obvious social programs, I’m including minimum wage laws in this category). Others seem to suggest that terrorists are going to flood across the southern border to blow up every skyscraper from southern California to Texas. It’s time for some reasoned debate within the libertarian movement, and Congressman Ron Paul may have just started the ball rolling:

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans — including immigrants — want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume — especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Most of us agree on the long term solutions. I’ll make it clear that I disagree with many of Dr. Paul’s statements. However, if Ron Paul is taking this hard a position on immigration, I’d suggest that we all sit back and take a closer look at the issue and the shorter term solutions for the problems. I doubt we can reach any sort of consensus, but perhaps we can try.

57 Comments
  1. Dr. Paul: “We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better.”

    Dr. King: “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. … Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. … One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.'”

    Dr. King wins.

  2. “Doctor” King was also a marxist/socialist, as well as a hyporcite.

    I’ve been debating the immigration issue for a long time. I think that the problem is that there is a paralell between well meaning libertarians who don’t believe in government borders and one world government socialists/authoritarians or globalists, both groups are pushing for “open borders” but each group has a different intention. The libertarians want no government in the world and the globalists want one world government. The globalists are the ones behind the illegal alien movement and the illegal aliens and their sympathizers (with the exception of their libertarian sympathizers) are either communists or they are “useful idiots” that are being used as dupes by communist one world government types.

    I think that it needs to be mentioned that even under anarcho-capitalism borders would still exsist, they’d just be controlled by private property owners or groups of private property owners.

  3. The end goal for libertarians is anarcho-capitalism. Whether or not we’ll ever make it there I don’t know, but the fact remains that if we do make the end goal there will still be borders even though there is no government.

    In the mean time we DO have a government and this government is far from being “bound down by the chains of the Constitution” as it was supposed to have been. Much of the land in this country is held by government or by government connected corporations. The American people are the rightful owners of this land. Most of the American people (80% or more) do not want this country to be flooded with illegal aliens.

  4. “Doctor” King was also a marxist/socialist, as well as a hyporcite.

    Regardless whether or not this is true, his statement was correct.

    The globalists are the ones behind the illegal alien movement

    People wanting a better life are behind their own movements. Sometimes, those movements are across illegitimate property lines called regime borders.

    and the illegal aliens and their sympathizers (with the exception of their libertarian sympathizers) are either communists or they are “useful idiots” that are being used as dupes by communist one world government types.

    You mean someone who wants a better life for their family has to be a communist or an idiot? I would think not.

  5. I think that it needs to be mentioned that even under anarcho-capitalism borders would still exsist, they’d just be controlled by private property owners or groups of private property owners.

    The term capitalism in “anarcho-capitalism” leads to misunderstandings. See

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/left-and-right.html

    Yes, property lines would exist. However, the regime has no legitimate property and thus these are not the equivalent of “borders”.

    Who owns my (theoretical) property: me or the government? If the government tells me who I can or can’t invite there, it is claiming at least partial ownership.

    If the regime is partial owner of all the property in the country, including every private property parcel, all its other transgressions logically follow, from eminent domain abuse to taxes to the drug war; they are just managing their “property”. This is anathema to libertarianism.

  6. The American people are the rightful owners of this land. Most of the American people (80% or more) do not want this country to be flooded with illegal aliens.

    The “American people” are a legal fiction, and not the rightful owners of anything. By what right do they own it? Furthermore, the closed borders argument goes further than that; they are also claiming who even those owners who do want so-called illegal immigrants on their land may or may not have on their own property.

    If 80% can dictate to the other 20%, can 80% also expropriate the property of the wealthiest 20%? Can 80% dictate what drugs 20% may or may not take? These logically follow from the 80% fallacy.

  7. Andy and I previously debated immigration here

    /2006/02/15/libertarian-party-campaign-sites-update/#comments

    especially near the end of the comment thread.

    See also

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/04/05/resistance_is

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/03/31/libertarians_against

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/03/27/the_conservative

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2004/03/22/freedom_is

    And one more for good measure

    http://reason.com/9510/GARVINfeat.shtml

    I’ve often thought that one good way for the LP to expand would be to advertise our pro-open border stance, in Spanish, especially in the border states. (Put Spanish language ads on that we are THE Open Border Party). Any media which includes visuals could show a pencil
    erasing the border.

    Recent immigrants may be less likely to have a US political party or a firm attachment to one. Also, maybe it would help start or expand a Libertarian Party in the northern states of Mexico. Anyone know if there is one?

  8. Here’s a job for Dr. Phil: Daddy says, “let them do what they want, they’re not hurting anything,” and Mommy says, “you don’t have to clean up after them 24/7.”

    Furthermore, Mommy and Daddy are fighting in front of the kids. The kids are confused and don’t know where the boundaries are. How’s that workin’ for ya?

    The fact is, there are laws and there are unwritten laws, and there are civil rights and there are “Creator-given” or inalienable human birthrights, and anyone crossing the border “illegally” isn’t breaking all of them, just the ones they can get away with.

    Surely no one is arguing that the “government” is just the elected officials and bureaucrats who passed the laws. The People are welcoming “illegals” and the People are the government, too.

    We need to negotiate a deal amongst ourselves and present a united front. When we’ve done that, we can go forward. There is no point in holding those who are already here to a “standard” that wasn’t and isn’t.

  9. I’m not for “open boarders” in the grand sense of the idea, but by the same token, I can’t see the upside of trying to forcebly deport 12 million people.

    On a theoretical level, and a practical level I welcome anyone who wants to come here and make a better life for themselves, but I also believe they must do their part.

    Some sort of worker program, or amnesty or what ever has to be put into place for those that are here and obeying the law. But I stll believe in securing our boarders and that is something that must and can also be done.

    Frank

  10. I am the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Allen County. We have about 40 dues paying members and another 70 people who are somewhat involved. We are located in and around Fort Wayne, Indiana.

    We are split right down the middle on immigration.

    I think we need to build a big wall and get control of our borders at once. We need to remove illegal immigrants. We need to impose sanctions on Mexico if they will not help us secure our border.

    Then, and only then, we need to triple LEGAL immigration.

    Mike Sylvester

  11. “But I stll believe in securing our boarders”

    Really? The government (regime) is a partial owner of all the property in the country, including yours? Why? By what right?

    “I think we need to build a big wall and get control of our borders at once.”

    1) What makes them your borders? If I own a piece of land on near the imaginary “border” the regime gang has drawn in the sand, what makes “you” a partial owner of my property?

    2) Who is going to pay for this wall? If I don’t want to chip in, is it OK? If I own a piece of land there, do I get a choice whether I get this wall on my land or not?

    3) What makes you think it will be more effective than the Great Wall of China or the Berlin Wall? I can see it now “Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!”

    4) Suppose you have the damned thing built. Any chance it won’t be used to keep Americans in rather than Mexicans out?

    “We need to remove illegal immigrants.”

    Why? By what right? Do you have a final solution?

  12. Pauls position does not surprise me. It’s right down the line of the Rockwellians who have a long list of people they don’t want in the country. These people have consistently catered to racists, bigots, antiSemites and would be Confederates. They left the libertarian movement long ago and good riddance to bad rubbish.

  13. Anyone who says that an 80% support rate trumps an individual’s autonomy is a majoritarian (collectivist)not a libertarian.

    Individual, private property lines are not “borders”. “Border” has a contemporary definition; we never refer to our neighbor’s property line as “the border”.

    When you say that “we” need to build a big wall and get control of “our” borders at once, which individuals, exactly are you referring to as the pluralist “we”, and which individuals, precisely, are you referring to when you speak in the collective as “our”?

  14. The root causes of immigration:

    1. Economic conditions
    2. Personal desires

    In a free market, gov’t has little control over demand for labor. And gov’t has even less control over economic conditions in other countries. Most people want to improve their lot in life, and will move to better surroundings if other factors do not take priority.

    How do you regulate a person’s desire to be with family/friends, etc.? Or to escape ethnic persecution?

    IMO, there is no perfect solution to in respect to immigration. Human migration is natural. You’d have more success trying to control the weather. However, like the weather, immigration should be monitored. If a hurricane is going to hit your area, you might want to do some things to protect your property and interests.

    We should be preventing people with histories of serious crime and other issues from coming here. And given our socialist gov’t, we need to prevent welfare cases from showing up here for a handout.

  15. If you want to invite immigrants on to your property, that’s fine, fly them in if you have to, just make sure they don’t go on other people’s property where they aren’t wanted, also make sure they don’t steal other people’s property by recieving government “benifits.”

    The state not being legitimate is not relevant to the discussion because as I’ve stated time and time again, even if there was no government individual property owners or groups of property owners would set their own immigration policies. We can all sit around and fantasize that we have no government but this is not the reality of the situation that we are living under. The government exsists and it is not going to go away anytime soon.

  16. Oh yes, I’m so “conservative” that I’m for legalizing all dugs, prostitution, and gambling. I’m anti-war. I never attend church. I’m anti-censorship. I don’t give a damn if gays get married. Yeah, these are really conservative positions. BAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  17. ‘Immigration Protest’ Cover For Racist Ethnic Cleansing Movement

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infowarsnews/message/817

    Notice the waving of MEXICAN FLAGS. Worshipping a foreign state… Gee, I thought that real freedom loving anarchists didn’t wave flags, but then again freedom loving anarchists don’t accept government welfare either. Some of them did wave American flags but that was only because in a past protest the marchers took a lot of crap for not having American flags.

  18. We should be preventing people with histories of serious crime and other issues from coming here.

    I agree, you have every right to find out and decide who’s on your property. Oops, that’s not what you meant, is it?
    Whose property is it and why?

    And given our socialist gov’t, we need to prevent welfare cases from showing up here for a handout.

    I would agree that the regime should not be using force to provide charity. But it does not justify using discriminatory criteria, such as who crossed the regime’s phony line in the sand borders “legally” and who didn’t, to decide who participates in the proceeds of the plunder. You may as well use hair color as a criterion.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. To say we can’t have freedom of movement (with the legitimate property owner’s permission) until we end regime “charity” is like saying we can’t stop victim disarmament until we have an end of drug prohibition.

  19. If you want to invite immigrants on to your property, that’s fine, fly them in if you have to, just make sure they don’t go on other people’s property where they aren’t wanted

    It’s not up to me to make sure of that, it’s up to those people who don’t want them on their property to provide their own security. As long as they don’t use stolen money for that purpose or try to fence off more than what they actually own, they are in the right.

    For example, if I live in an apartment building and have visitors, it is OK for you to say they can’t come in your apartment but it’s up to you to make sure they don’t, not up to me.

    It’s not OK for you to barricade the lobby and say they have to come in through the fire escape. The government is not the landlord; the building’s a squat, anyway. Besides, the self-proclaimed owners of the squat are telling me I can’t have the visitors in my room either (even if I fly them in) and are stealing money from me to pay for the “service”.

  20. The state not being legitimate is not relevant to the discussion because as I’ve stated time and time again, even if there was no government individual property owners or groups of property owners would set their own immigration policies.

    Quoting from Gary’s email, “Individual, private property lines are not “borders”. “Border” has a contemporary definition; we never refer to our neighbor’s property line as “the border”.”

    It isn’t the right of property owners which is at issue, it’s the government’s de facto claim to be part owner of all property in the country by enforcinag a “border” – the stolen money used to pay for enforcing this “border” – and their self-proclaimed right to prevent property owners from having visitors they do want to invite on their property.

  21. We can all sit around and fantasize that we have no government but this is not the reality of the situation that we are living under.

    We can’t have any hope to end it while we are simultaneously agitating to give it more power.

    The government exsists and it is not going to go away anytime soon.

    How do you know how soon it will go away?

  22. Oh yes, I’m so “conservative” that I’m for legalizing all dugs, prostitution, and gambling. I’m anti-war. I never attend church. I’m anti-censorship. I don’t give a damn if gays get married. Yeah, these are really conservative positions.

    You’re not a conservative, but in this case you’ve been infected by an historically and logically anomolous conflation of libertarian and conservative thought which took place in America during the 20th century. To understand why this took place and why it is an error and a deviation, see

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/left-and-right.html

    Others, such as Boo!-rtz and Julian, suffer from the symptoms far more.

    Notice the waving of MEXICAN FLAGS. Worshipping a foreign state…

    So if some people at your (hypothetical) anti-immigration protest wave USSA regime flags, does that mean all of you (including you) worship the USSA state? If some immigrants do this or believe that why should it take away the rights of others?

  23. “Gee, I thought that real freedom loving anarchists didn’t wave flags, but then again freedom loving anarchists don’t accept government welfare either.”

    I suppose this is an argument against freedom of immigration across the regime’s self-proclaimed property line?

    Are these guys an argument that everyone who waves an American flag is a racist fascist?

    /2003/04/09/show-of-support-for-america

  24. Paulie, you must take some pretty strong drugs to think that gov’t will go away. Short of massive depopulation of the planet, if ours goes away, it will be replaced by another.

    Our gov’t has a Constitution. The Constitution we have grants Congress and the President power to regulate immigration. You may support that Constitution, flawed as it may be, or you might not. If you don’t believe the Constitution should grant power to regulate immigration, you need to get an amendment passed or overthrow the gov’t. Good luck doing either, especially in light of the numbers that would oppose you.

  25. This may not be a popular idea here, but I think it is the only way to satisfy a population that is obviously conflicted concerning immigration.

    1. Secure our borders and coasts to an extent that all persons entering and leaving the country are documented in some fashion
    2. Charge ALL visitors a security deposit that progressively increases as the rate of compliance for citizens coming from a visitor’s country of origin decreases, i.e.,

    (BASE DEPOSIT/COMPLIANCE RATE) * ((1- COMPLIANCE RATE)*100)) where

    COMPLIANCE RATE = (NATURALIZED + RETURNED)/TOTAL VISITORS

    3. Do away with immigration quotas

    Visitors that do not comply with our law would forfeit their deposit, thereby reducing or recovering costs related to securing the border, enforcement, systems, etc. Visitors that comply with our laws would receive a refund of their deposit. The deposit could be waived for asylum seekers and diplomats, but required of ALL other visitors.

  26. Paulie, you must take some pretty strong drugs to think that gov’t will go away. Short of massive depopulation of the planet, if ours goes away, it will be replaced by another.

    Not at all. We’re in the middle of an accelerated evolutionary leap, which would have been already concluded if not for the retarding effects of government. However, it will be concluded even with the interference, and forcible government will become as unacceptable and economically non-feasible as chattel slavery has become in a post-industrial revolution society.

    If you don’t believe the Constitution should grant power to regulate immigration, you need to get an amendment passed or overthrow the gov’t. Good luck doing either, especially in light of the numbers that would oppose you.

    The “constitution” and majority has no right to violate fundamental individual and human rights. There are alternatives to political or violent change.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/left-and-right.html

  27. Eponym, examine the fundamentals a bit more deeply. What makes them “your” borders? No constitution can give you property rights to other people’s property.

    “2. Charge ALL visitors a security deposit that progressively increases as the rate of compliance for citizens coming from a visitor’s country of origin decreases,”

    Do you believe in collective guilt and collective punishment?

    Also, if we were to grant your flawed premise – which I would do ONLY for the sake of argument –

    “The Constitution we have grants Congress and the President power to regulate immigration.”

    Where does it do that?

  28. Re 2nd quote in #31, I’ll quote from Long (linked above):

    “Perhaps more importantly, however, the assumption that the only alternatives to traditional politics are violent revolution on the one hand and resignation on the other is valid only for non-libertarian political programs. If the realization of your agenda requires the command of state power, then the only alternatives to working within the system are seizing control of government in a coup d’état, and giving up on your political goals entirely. But for a libertarian, political success is less of matter of directing the state toward certain favored ends and more a matter of blocking it from wreaking more evil. Hence while withdrawal from engagement with the state would count as defeatism for statist ideologies, it need not be so for libertarians. Hence Rothbard’s enthusiasm for the sorts of strategy he saw himself as sharing with the New Left: education, building alternative institutions, and “mass civil disobedience.”

  29. Paulie, you’re obviously an absolute anarchist and I’m not going to argue with you. You are a minority that will always lose, even if I support your position. If you really want all your rights, you’ll need to find another planet. I’ll stay on this one and do what I can to promote less gov’t, and no gov’t to the extent possible. I’ll work within the Constitution we have in doing so.

    Article I, Section 9 grants Congress power to regulate immigration. The first immigration law was passed in 1795…I’m guesssing some of the Constitution’s authors were still around then.

    In respect to the collective guilt and punishment comment, the person is only penalized in breaking the law. Do you feel punished when you’re landlord asks for a security?

  30. From the same article:

    “But first, once the Rothbardian position is correctly distinguished from all-or-nothing perfectionism, it’s no longer clear that Rothbardians can’t be involved in ordinary politics — voting, running for office, and so forth. Such activities might be regarded as giving impermissible sanction to the state; but if you infiltrate the Death Star in order to blow it up, does that really count as falling to the dark side?”

    “The point is not to scribble libertarian amendments into the Constitution but to make un-libertarian laws unenforceable, to make civil society ungovernable.”

  31. Paulie, you’re obviously an absolute anarchist

    Correct

    and I’m not going to argue with you.

    After stating this, Eponym proceeds to argue with me.

    You are a minority that will always lose

    Do you have a crystal ball? Some people used the same sort of argument against abolitionists.

    If you really want all your rights, you’ll need to find another planet.

    What’s wrong with this one? I don’t acknowledge the self-proclaimed ownership rights to it of gangster states, nor do I accept that they can’t be defeated. In fact, I believe they are bound to fall, and sooner than most people think possible.

    do what I can to promote less gov’t, and no gov’t to the extent possible. I’ll work within the Constitution we have in doing so.

    Then you’re doomed to fail, since the Constitution no more limits government than cutting out part of the cancer limits its growth, or taking part of a course of antibiotics arrests infection.

  32. Article I, Section 9 grants Congress power to regulate immigration.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

    Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

    Paul) This section applies to the importation of slaves.
    Or do you mean some other part of section 9? If so, what are you alluding to?

    The first immigration law was passed in 1795…I’m guesssing some of the Constitution’s authors were still around then.

    Are you referring to the Alien and Sedition Acts?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

  33. Under the Sedition Act, anyone “opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States” could be imprisoned for up to two years.

    Was the Sedition Act “constitutional”? Most libertarians would probably say no. Yet it was passed in 1798, while the f(l)ounders were alive and “around”. The fact that they would violate their own constitution is just further proof that it is not an effective means to limit government.

    In respect to the collective guilt and punishment comment, the person is only penalized in breaking the law.

    You propose they be charged a depoist (temporary tax), the amount of which is based on what OTHER people do – and that is determined by which regime claims them as subjects.

    Do you feel punished when you’re landlord asks for a security?

    No, but then I don’t comsider the government my landlord unless I live in HUD housing.

  34. “to make civil society ungovernable”

    Whether formalized in gov’t, or not, people want and need rules to govern their interactions with others. Usually, those rules are established in some form of agreement. This is the very thing that makes a civil society. Basically, by attempting to destroy gov’t, you’re saying you agree with no one. How ridiculous can one be? Good luck getting anywhere with that attitude.

  35. “to make civil society ungovernable”

    The quote refers to means of opposition to unjust government. It’s not a general call to make civil society ungovernable under all circumstances. It’s apparent you have not read it in context. I realize the article is long, but it is worthwhile. If you prefer, you can listen:

    http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/asc2006/asc06-Long.mp3

    or watch it:

    http://mises.org/multimedia/video/asc2006/asc06-Long.wmv

    Whether formalized in gov’t, or not, people want and need rules to govern their interactions with others. Usually, those rules are established in some form of agreement. This is the very thing that makes a civil society. Basically, by attempting to destroy gov’t, you’re saying you agree with no one. How ridiculous can one be? Good luck getting anywhere with that attitude.

  36. Article 9 included all people, not just slaves. Read what it says…migration OR importation.

    But I can see you’re not only any absolute anarchist…you’re a nutjob. I’m done.

  37. Whether formalized in gov’t, or not, people want and need rules to govern their interactions with others.

    Agreed. I favor this. I oppose those rules constituting an initiation of force.

    Usually, those rules are established in some form of agreement.

    An agreement means I agreed to it, but I did not agree to forcible government, by definition.

    Basically, by attempting to destroy gov’t, you’re saying you agree with no one.

    Absolutely incorrect. I’m just saying I don’t agree with tyranny.

  38. Article 9 included all people, not just slaves. Read what it says…migration OR importation.

    http://law.wustl.edu/Organizations/SBA/upperlevel/Immigration%20Law/Legomsky11.htm

    (2) Migration or Importation Clause: Art. I, §9, cl. 1, implication that Congress may prohibit migration or importation after 1808, but historical context suggested this was meant to deal with slave trade

    paul) I guess the professor of this course can’t read, and is a nutjob according to Eponym?

    I’m done.

    Well done, I’d say.

    This is Eponym’s second proclamation of shunning. We’ll see if it sticks this time.

  39. “So if some people at your (hypothetical) anti-immigration protest wave USSA regime flags, does that mean all of you (including you) worship the USSA state? If some immigrants do this or believe that why should it take away the rights of others?”

    I’ve never been to an anti-immigration protest. Some of the people there probably do worship the state, just as some of the immigrant protestors worship the state. My arguement is not really based on the state but rather property rights and the issue of whether or not the people entering are peaceful.

  40. “The state not being legitimate is not relevant to the discussion because as I’ve stated time and time again, even if there was no government individual property owners or groups of property owners would set their own immigration policies.

    Quoting from Gary’s email, “Individual, private property lines are not “borders”. “Border” has a contemporary definition; we never refer to our neighbor’s property line as “the border”.”

    It isn’t the right of property owners which is at issue, it’s the government’s de facto claim to be part owner of all property in the country by enforcinag a “border” – the stolen money used to pay for enforcing this “border” – and their self-proclaimed right to prevent property owners from having visitors they do want to invite on their property.”

    I’ve heard people use the word “border” to indicate their property line. Regaurdless, we live in a mixed society of government and private property so the government’s borders – whether we like it or not..

  41. effect the borders of individual property owners.

    “I’ve often thought that one good way for the LP to expand would be to advertise our pro-open border stance, in Spanish, especially in the border states. (Put Spanish language ads on that we are THE Open Border Party). Any media which includes visuals could show a pencil
    erasing the border.”

    To make this image more accurate, at the same time a pencil is erasing the US border you should have another pencil drawing private property borders.

  42. “So if some people at your (hypothetical) anti-immigration protest wave USSA regime flags, does that mean all of you (including you) worship the USSA state? If some immigrants do this or believe that why should it take away the rights of others?”

    I’ve never been to an anti-immigration protest.

    Hence the word hypothetical.

  43. To make this image more accurate, at the same time a pencil is erasing the US border you should have another pencil drawing private property borders.

    That would not be accurate at all.

  44. Andy: “Much of the land in this country is held by government or by government connected corporations. The American people are the rightful owners of this land. Most of the American people (80% or more) do not want this country to be flooded with illegal aliens.”

    Just what has this got to do with the debate over actually existing immigration policy? The government doesn’t just claim the authority to exclude or remove undocumented immigrants from government roads or schools. They claim the authority to exclude or remove them from anywhere in the United States, including private property, with or without the consent of the owner, and even to conscript employers to serve as immigration cops with their new hires. Whatever you think about the rightful ownership of government-controlled thoroughfares (and, frankly, I think that key aspects of the theory you suggest are frightfully silly), the government is currently reaching far over the boundaries that even your theory would allow for.

  45. To make this image more accurate, at the same time a pencil is erasing the US border you should have another pencil drawing private property borders.

    “That would not be accurate at all.”

    How would this not be accurate? If there were no government there would still be private property borders. Individual land owners or groups of land owners would set their own immigration policies. It seems to me that this solution would put this issue to rest.

  46. Andy: “Much of the land in this country is held by government or by government connected corporations. The American people are the rightful owners of this land. Most of the American people (80% or more) do not want this country to be flooded with illegal aliens.”

    “Just what has this got to do with the debate over actually existing immigration policy?”

    My point here is that much of the land in this country is communally owned – whether we like it or not. At least 80% of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. If all of the land in this country were in the pocession of individual land owners or groups of land owners who joined together voluntarily everyone would be able to set their own policies as to who can migrate on to their land. Some people may inact very open policies and others would have policies with various restrictions.

  47. “Just what has this got to do with the debate over actually existing immigration policy? The government doesn’t just claim the authority to exclude or remove undocumented immigrants from government roads or schools. They claim the authority to exclude or remove them from anywhere in the United States, including private property, with or without the consent of the owner, and even to conscript employers to serve as immigration cops with their new hires. Whatever you think about the rightful ownership of government-controlled thoroughfares (and, frankly, I think that key aspects of the theory you suggest are frightfully silly), the government is currently reaching far over the boundaries that even your theory would allow for.”

    I have never said that I’m opposed to immigration, nor do I agree with current government policies. I am opposed to people who are not peaceful entering the country but I doubt that we will be able to look to government to solve this problem.

  48. How would this not be accurate?

    Because the regime’s border is not a legitimate property line. Also, it’s the regime’s borders which interfere with people’s property rights, in those cases where they do in fact want people defined by the regime as “illegal” on their land.

    Erasing this illegitimate impediment to free use of individual property is obviously not the equivalent of erasing individual property.

  49. Ron Paul is absolutely wrong on the Immigration issue. We need to increase immigration not decrease it. Too bad the 14th CD Libertarian Party members failed to nominate a candidate to oppose Dr. Paul this year. Immigration would have been the main issue.