Libertarian Party ACTUAL position on Immigration. .

[flacaltenn]

Lots of confusion about Libertarians being totally "open border" people,. In the IDEAL -- one of us will leap to statements that rightfully concern people. But 2 things stand out..

1) While the Lib Party supports generous immigration policies --- at the SAME time -- we are adamantly AGAINST providing govt incentives that ENCOURAGE mass migration. Like no guarantees of subsidized Health Care, Welfare, Fast track citizenship for minors, Reduced College fees, etc for non-citizens. That's an important point often left out. Since the INCENTIVES to cross the border have astronomically increased since the last "amnesty".

2) Similar to that important missed point is the fact that we respect ALL of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- not the parts we like. So in our platform -- when immigration is discussed -- we INCLUDE the appropriate Constitutional duties of the Fed Govt..

Platform

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

At no time during his 8 years as a border state governor -- did Gary Johnson go out of his way to make illegal immigrants "comfortable and secure" with the funds of his state. No sanctuary doctrines. No attempts to "open the border".

The majority of tactical libertarian thought on amnesty/deportation is not that far from a moderate from either DEM/REP sides.

Immigration

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

In any party -- you will have the purists that only approve of the "end goal ideals".. (especially in the Bernie camp). So you will hear a lot of ideals coming from Libertarians. But the party is prepared to govern as a moderate instrument of change without dogmatically trying to instantly make-over everything in the "ideal". These purists will probably show up angry about this thread.

Do not let "ideals" scare you...

More BETTER Lib Party info as the shit approaches the fan in November.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Wall Street and corporate power will never allow this party to represent the unsubstantial people anymore than they will either of the "other" two parties.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wall Street and corporate power will never allow this party to represent the unsubstantial people anymore than they will either of the "other" two parties.

Let the Trumph and Hildebeast claw at each in a gutter debate and that will probably be true. Include some 3rd party and Independents in that debate and you'll hear actual policy discussion. Whether you PREFER the mud wrestling will be up to YOU --- not Wall Street.

Turumph will be yammering about his wall, Hilldi will utter some nonesense and the Libertarian candidate will give a guarantee of where he stands and mean it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Wall Street and corporate power will never allow this party to represent the unsubstantial people anymore than they will either of the "other" two parties.

Let the Trumph and Hildebeast claw at each in a gutter debate and that will probably be true. Include some 3rd party and Independents in that debate and you'll hear actual policy discussion. Whether you PREFER the mud wrestling will be up to YOU --- not Wall Street.

Turumph will be yammering about his wall, Hilldi will utter some nonesense and the Libertarian candidate will give a guarantee of where he stands and mean it.

The power in this system no longer lies within the illusion of this political system, another party won't alter that at all. You don't really have two parties now. Another candidate means nothing, even if he or she would win. All we have is quibbling factions of a ruling aristocracy vying for favors and funding from the real centers lf wealth and power.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wall Street and corporate power will never allow this party to represent the unsubstantial people anymore than they will either of the "other" two parties.

Let the Trumph and Hildebeast claw at each in a gutter debate and that will probably be true. Include some 3rd party and Independents in that debate and you'll hear actual policy discussion. Whether you PREFER the mud wrestling will be up to YOU --- not Wall Street.

Turumph will be yammering about his wall, Hilldi will utter some nonesense and the Libertarian candidate will give a guarantee of where he stands and mean it.

The power in this system no longer lies within the illusion of this political system, another party won't alter that at all. You don't really have two parties now. Another candidate means nothing, even if he or she would win. All we have is quibbling factions of a ruling aristocracy vying for favors and funding from the real centers lf wealth and power.

Not part of this topic -- but the real center of wealth and power is the ability the Feds have stolen to dole out favors and pick market winners and losers. It's the PARTIES that are orchestrating this. You elect a Bernie or Gary Johnson and in EITHER CASE --- corporate welfare and handouts and favors END tomorrow. Guaran--Damn-Teed. Because BOTH DEMS/REPS use that influence to fund themselves. And NEITHER wants to shut down the corporate feeding trough.

Libs do. At the highest priority... And when they tell the people the extent and madness of this chronyism --- the people will back reform.. INSTANTLY !! In majority numbers. FROM BOTH your damn parties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Millions of us will be voting for Johnson to guarantee Trump's defeat.

And those millions will have no further interest in your ideology the day after the election, with all due respect.

 

[midcan5]

Libertarianism is so odd a religion, all you need is freedom, of course as the above OP suggests, this freedom has rules, so doesn't that just put us back at the beginning? Treanor's piece covers it well.

Libertarianism in a Nutshell II

Why is libertarianism wrong?

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarianism is so odd a religion, all you need is freedom, of course as the above OP suggests, this freedom has rules, so doesn't that just put us back at the beginning? Treanor's piece covers it well.

Libertarianism in a Nutshell II

Why is libertarianism wrong?

Another person that searches out confirmational material. What is so hard to understand that we accept the Constitution and it's boundaries and that Fed govt should be limited within that? OR that our favorite alternative to massive bureaucracy and regulation is a VIBRANT legal system in which people resolve their disputes.

We do have anarchists in the party. They are loud. But anarchists are not helpful people. Financially or organizationally. Welll -------------------- because they are anarchists.

Let's just take all your misconceptions one at time --- shall we? Any questions on borders and immigration?

 

[flacaltenn]

Millions of us will be voting for Johnson to guarantee Trump's defeat.

And those millions will have no further interest in your ideology the day after the election, with all due respect.

What a gift you are.. The day after the election the suicide rate will spike.

Another 4 years of class warfare and division will tank this country. And the other psycho meglomaniac is even more dangerous. America is not as stupid as you think we are..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

America is not as stupid as you think we are..

I don't know about that. If that were true I think Johnson would be a shoe in

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

 

[flacaltenn]

America is not as stupid as you think we are..

I don't know about that. If that were true I think Johnson would be a shoe in

Media was more than generous during the nomination than we ever expected.. If people KNOW there's a choice, then their only excuse is stuck on stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

We have a lot of support from the LGBT community now. NOT because we promise to FORCE change with the stroke of the pen -- but they know we are serious about effecting that change thru the Civil Law and voluntary compliance and by example in ANY govt we are part of and eventually getting to the goal line.

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That’s what’s great about USMB: one can encounter actual libertarians, providing further confirmation of the fact that libertarian dogma is naïve, sophomoric, reactionary, inane, and wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

Lots of confusion about Libertarians being totally "open border" people,. In the IDEAL -- one of us will leap to statements that rightfully concern people. But 2 things stand out..

1) While the Lib Party supports generous immigration policies --- at the SAME time -- we are adamantly AGAINST providing govt incentives that ENCOURAGE mass migration. Like no guarantees of subsidized Health Care, Welfare, Fast track citizenship for minors, Reduced College fees, etc for non-citizens. That's an important point often left out. Since the INCENTIVES to cross the border have astronomically increased since the last "amnesty".

2) Similar to that important missed point is the fact that we respect ALL of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- not the parts we like. So in our platform -- when immigration is discussed -- we INCLUDE the appropriate Constitutional duties of the Fed Govt..

Platform

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

At no time during his 8 years as a border state governor -- did Gary Johnson go out of his way to make illegal immigrants "comfortable and secure" with the funds of his state. No sanctuary doctrines. No attempts to "open the border".

The majority of tactical libertarian thought on amnesty/deportation is not that far from a moderate from either DEM/REP sides.

Immigration

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

In any party -- you will have the purists that only approve of the "end goal ideals".. (especially in the Bernie camp). So you will hear a lot of ideals coming from Libertarians. But the party is prepared to govern as a moderate instrument of change without dogmatically trying to instantly make-over everything in the "ideal". These purists will probably show up angry about this thread.

Do not let "ideals" scare you...

More BETTER Lib Party info as the shit approaches the fan in November.

Open Borders as they existed prior to 1965.


The concept merely means that an immigrant is free to enter an exit.

It does NOT means that the government will provide any benefits.


Now under the bracero program employers were free to offer any incentives to recruit workers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

BULLSHIT


The Trouble With the ’64 Civil Rights Act



Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society