Libertarian Party ACTUAL position on Immigration. .

[HappyJoy]

That has zero relevance on governing the country and just sounds desperate on your part. Is this how shallow Libertarians are? I completely underestimated the juvenile attitude. Level with me, I bet you make fun of Democrats and Republicans when they overly praise their own, amiright? You know what liberals and conservatives have on libertarianism? Creating viable coalitions and convincing others.

Sounds pretty, has nothing to do with accomplishment.

Like it or not, government is the ultimate arbiter of our laws. Government as in every other country too. There are no libertarian governments. And that is for a very valid reason.

Like it or not, government is the ultimate arbiter of our laws.

Really?

I wonder why the Jews didn't like Hitler?

I wonder why Afro-American didn't like the government in the southern states?

I wonder why the Palestinians don't like the Zionists?

I wonder why the liberals didn't like Pinochet?

I wonder why the Russians didn't like Stalin?

I wonder why Cambodians didn't like PolPot?

Vs. Somalia where there is no law?

You're cherry picking. Every liberal democracy today uses government as the upholder of the law because there is no other viable alternative.No one is asking you to trust government, it's just that it's the best instrument available in a democracy. Much better than Chevron.

Well you motherfuckers destroyed Somalia - the Somalians didn't elect to have "no laws".


The US of A was a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE until you stupid motherfuckers destroyed CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT .


.

I see. So according to you the U.S. created a libertarian utopia and it got all fucked up.

That is correct. The Constitution (1787) was a Libertarian Minarchist document.

I see. Tell me more.

 

[Contumacious]

Really?

I wonder why the Jews didn't like Hitler?

I wonder why Afro-American didn't like the government in the southern states?

I wonder why the Palestinians don't like the Zionists?

I wonder why the liberals didn't like Pinochet?

I wonder why the Russians didn't like Stalin?

I wonder why Cambodians didn't like PolPot?

Vs. Somalia where there is no law?

You're cherry picking. Every liberal democracy today uses government as the upholder of the law because there is no other viable alternative.No one is asking you to trust government, it's just that it's the best instrument available in a democracy. Much better than Chevron.

Well you motherfuckers destroyed Somalia - the Somalians didn't elect to have "no laws".


The US of A was a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE until you stupid motherfuckers destroyed CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT .


.

I see. So according to you the U.S. created a libertarian utopia and it got all fucked up.

That is correct. The Constitution (1787) was a Libertarian Minarchist document.

I see. Tell me more.

You are a massive waste of broadband.

 

[HappyJoy]

Vs. Somalia where there is no law?

You're cherry picking. Every liberal democracy today uses government as the upholder of the law because there is no other viable alternative.No one is asking you to trust government, it's just that it's the best instrument available in a democracy. Much better than Chevron.

Well you motherfuckers destroyed Somalia - the Somalians didn't elect to have "no laws".


The US of A was a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE until you stupid motherfuckers destroyed CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT .


.

I see. So according to you the U.S. created a libertarian utopia and it got all fucked up.

That is correct. The Constitution (1787) was a Libertarian Minarchist document.

I see. Tell me more.

You are a massive waste of broadband.

This is your moment to shine and you shrink away.

 

[Ravi]

Oh look, my posts are being deleted by the libertarian mod who was just fine debating me until he realized he lost his ass.

This is also probably 'breaking the rules' but perhaps a mode shouldn't be actively modding a thread they are engaged in, just a thought. I expect this to be removed as well of course.

Glibs don't like opposing views.

 

[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.

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..

America is far smarter than you give credit.

We will use the Libertarian Party, then ignore it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And thus we see the hole in libertarian thinking.

Americans do not believe that social parity comes because of normal reason and discourse minus social and political activism.

We have progressive governments because minimalist governments failed to provide social parity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well you motherfuckers destroyed Somalia - the Somalians didn't elect to have "no laws".


The US of A was a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE until you stupid motherfuckers destroyed CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT .


.

I see. So according to you the U.S. created a libertarian utopia and it got all fucked up.

That is correct. The Constitution (1787) was a Libertarian Minarchist document.

I see. Tell me more.

You are a massive waste of broadband.

This is your moment to shine and you shrink away.

Several weeks passed before contumacious could spell "Libertarian Minarchist " correctly nine out of ten times.

The argumentation for libertarianism merely confirms the confirmation bias that affects the small group.

 

[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..

America is far smarter than you give credit.

We will use the Libertarian Party, then ignore it.

In your case Jakey, we never know exactly who "we" is. But we sounds like desperate, valueless people who have lost control of THEIR electoral process. Don't like them. Jokes on you of course. Because you're not thinking this thru. If the Lib Party gets more than 15% in most states -- it will automatically qualify us for ballot access in future cycles and save us $MILLs in cash in ballot access time and money and court challenges that will go directly in campaigns.

That's why I intend to take all these misconceptions about Lib policy public in the next months. Here and a lot of other places. Immigration and borders is one of the more misrepresented stances that are out there. And when you actually inform people of what the REAL views of Immigration and Border are (e.g.) --- people will make INFORMED choices.

Even if it is to USE us to fix their runaway slide into Dem/Rep implosion. You have any problems with the general Lib view of Immigration and Borders?????

 

[JakeStarkey]

The joke is always on the Libertarian Party which is going to be used again and thrown aside.

 

[Ravi]

Idealistic glibs will never convince enough people that social norms don't matter.

 

[ChrisL]

flacaltenn, okay I read it but that still doesn't mean that each candidate isn't interpreting "open borders" in his or her own way. There are certainly SOME libertarians who do in fact support completely "open borders." I've spoken with them here on this forum and other places too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most libertarians believe in "soft" borders. Those who don't but remain 'libertarian' are in danger of becoming reactionary nativists devoid of common sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

The LP is the only party thi s year that has put forth a credible slate of candidates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gary Johnson is credible, yes

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn, okay I read it but that still doesn't mean that each candidate isn't interpreting "open borders" in his or her own way. There are certainly SOME libertarians who do in fact support completely "open borders." I've spoken with them here on this forum and other places too.

Of course. The Libertarian "movement" (and I hate that phrase) is not centered in party politics. It is a branded political philosophy.. The center of that thought is in places like the Cato Institute, the Inst. of Justice, and Reason Foundation. It's been a debating society largely. Attracting all types of "idealists, dreamers, liberty advocates".

We fight CONSTANTLY between the idealists and the pragmatists. It's sometimes ugly. But no uglier than than the splits opening up in the Dem/Rep camps.

What the "idealists" believe on immigration is that if you don't PROMISE or advertise or deliver all sorts of benefits and accomodations (that we do now) -- only the RIGHT type of people will still choose to come. I've got a very Conservative local radio host who also advocates stemming southern border immigration.

He calls it "De-Magnetizing Tennessee". His Conservative intuition is the same as ours. You remove the "magnets" and you get less and better immigrants. That's the "libertarian immigration" policy in a nutshell.. But then -- he's also signed to deport Granny and Pawpa --- a move that I don't think is really necessary..

 

[flacaltenn]

I may have mis-represented "Uncle Phil's" position on immigration a bit. He's the Conservative show host I mentioned "de-magnetizing Tenn". The main difference would be that HE wants to deny them jobs completely along with cutting off the freebies and the bennies. Using a form of insta-check on immigration status.

It's already illegal to hire illegals. More so in some states than others. But to be honest -- libertarians would not favor completely cutting off "migrant labor". Tho -- managing it better would be most welcome. If the Feds and States were on their toes -- labor permits could be tied to LOCAL employment conditions. This stops WELL short of issuing official State ID. Tho it would SERVE as an alternate ID indicating their immigration status.

If you wanted to come here to work -- you would beregistered to do so. And screened for crime, disease, etc. Not registered in that state -- no legal employment.

Reps and Dems go out of their way to AVOID identifying who is illegal. Especially the Dems. By any reason -- it's REQUIRED to know WHO is illegal before they are allowed to work.. So that no accommodation is made to confuse their status with citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

I may have mis-represented "Uncle Phil's" position on immigration a bit. He's the Conservative show host I mentioned "de-magnetizing Tenn". The main difference would be that HE wants to deny them jobs completely along with cutting off the freebies and the bennies. Using a form of insta-check on immigration status.

It's already illegal to hire illegals. More so in some states than others. But to be honest -- libertarians would not favor completely cutting off "migrant labor". Tho -- managing it better would be most welcome. If the Feds and States were on their toes -- labor permits could be tied to LOCAL employment conditions. This stops WELL short of issuing official State ID. Tho it would SERVE as an alternate ID indicating their immigration status.

If you wanted to come here to work -- you would beregistered to do so. And screened for crime, disease, etc. Not registered in that state -- no legal employment.

Reps and Dems go out of their way to AVOID identifying who is illegal. Especially the Dems. By any reason -- it's REQUIRED to know WHO is illegal before they are allowed to work.. So that no accommodation is made to confuse their status with citizens.

And we need to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Make the penalties much more harsh. It's only a form of slave labor anyway.

 

[flacaltenn]

I may have mis-represented "Uncle Phil's" position on immigration a bit. He's the Conservative show host I mentioned "de-magnetizing Tenn". The main difference would be that HE wants to deny them jobs completely along with cutting off the freebies and the bennies. Using a form of insta-check on immigration status.

It's already illegal to hire illegals. More so in some states than others. But to be honest -- libertarians would not favor completely cutting off "migrant labor". Tho -- managing it better would be most welcome. If the Feds and States were on their toes -- labor permits could be tied to LOCAL employment conditions. This stops WELL short of issuing official State ID. Tho it would SERVE as an alternate ID indicating their immigration status.

If you wanted to come here to work -- you would beregistered to do so. And screened for crime, disease, etc. Not registered in that state -- no legal employment.

Reps and Dems go out of their way to AVOID identifying who is illegal. Especially the Dems. By any reason -- it's REQUIRED to know WHO is illegal before they are allowed to work.. So that no accommodation is made to confuse their status with citizens.

And we need to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Make the penalties much more harsh. It's only a form of slave labor anyway.

You guys are great.. Which is why USMB is my home base.. And this little discussion just gave me a lot to write about outside this forum. Particularly your answer here.

Hiring illegals is illegal. Pure and simple. Top politicians have been herded from office for being caught with illegal nannies and yard guys. So why is that? How do the 2 parties just IGNORE their own law? And WHY do they do that? If the law is wrong --- FIX IT. Because certainly, if there were no JOBS -- there would be no Mexican illegal problem.. Or am I missing something here?

The "CRISIS" is of their making actually. Because instead of MANAGING and correcting the law -- both the Reps and Dems conveniently IGNORED the law for their own purposes. And you know what motivations both the Dems and Reps have for doing that. Because you are following along.

I'm gonna be pointing that out to the campaign. And PERHAPS the way to win trust is to speak the unspeakable. Tell the American voters that we won't IGNORE the fixes that the other 2 party have ignored. Folks may not LIKE the fixes -- but at least we're gonna go to work on it. And not ignore the law and the manufactured crisis.

Thanks................

 

[ChrisL]

I may have mis-represented "Uncle Phil's" position on immigration a bit. He's the Conservative show host I mentioned "de-magnetizing Tenn". The main difference would be that HE wants to deny them jobs completely along with cutting off the freebies and the bennies. Using a form of insta-check on immigration status.

It's already illegal to hire illegals. More so in some states than others. But to be honest -- libertarians would not favor completely cutting off "migrant labor". Tho -- managing it better would be most welcome. If the Feds and States were on their toes -- labor permits could be tied to LOCAL employment conditions. This stops WELL short of issuing official State ID. Tho it would SERVE as an alternate ID indicating their immigration status.

If you wanted to come here to work -- you would beregistered to do so. And screened for crime, disease, etc. Not registered in that state -- no legal employment.

Reps and Dems go out of their way to AVOID identifying who is illegal. Especially the Dems. By any reason -- it's REQUIRED to know WHO is illegal before they are allowed to work.. So that no accommodation is made to confuse their status with citizens.

And we need to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Make the penalties much more harsh. It's only a form of slave labor anyway.

You guys are great.. Which is why USMB is my home base.. And this little discussion just gave me a lot to write about outside this forum. Particularly your answer here.

Hiring illegals is illegal. Pure and simple. Top politicians have been herded from office for being caught with illegal nannies and yard guys. So why is that? How do the 2 parties just IGNORE their own law? And WHY do they do that? If the law is wrong --- FIX IT. Because certainly, if there were no JOBS -- there would be no Mexican illegal problem.. Or am I missing something here?

The "CRISIS" is of their making actually. Because instead of MANAGING and correcting the law -- they have both conveniently IGNORED the law for their own purposes. And you know what motivations both the Dems and Reps have for doing that. Because you are following along.

I'm gonna be pointing that out to the campaign. And PERHAPS the way to win trust is to speak the unspeakable. Tell the American voters that we won't IGNORE the fixes that the other 2 party have ignored. Folks may not LIKE the fixes -- but at least we're gonna go to work on it. And not ignore the law and the manufactured crisis.

Thanks................

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. I agree, they do not do all they could do to enforce the laws in many cases. If employers are going to save money in the long run (even if caught and given a relatively SMALL fine), then they are going to keep hiring illegals for what amounts to slavery. These workers are a huge liability. They usually are not accounted for (because of their illegal status) in healthcare, pay roll, workers comp, taxation purposes, etc. Although you will hear those on the left screaming that these people contribute to the economy, I think the positive effects they may have (given every other LIABILITY) is negligible at best.

 

[ChrisL]

So, as you can see, flacaltenn, I really cannot support any kind of "open borders" policies for various reasons and none of them to do with hatred. For me, it is just common sense policy.