Libertarian Party supports immigrants

For immediate release
Aug. 3, 2017

Contact: Elizabeth Brierly: Media [at] LP [dot] org or (408) 930-4172


Libertarian Party supports immigrants

Yesterday, a senior Trump aide dismissed the Statue of Liberty’s poem that welcomes immigrants.

The poem famously says, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

It is a cherished line that embodies the timelessness of immigrants coming to America in search of freedom and prosperity, wanting simply to build a better life for themselves.

The President and Republican senators have proposed a new immigration plan that purportedly would cut immigration in half by prioritizing those that have higher education and speak English.

This turns a blind eye to the many immigrants who need America the most — the tired, the poor, those yearning to breathe free — and prioritizes the rich and powerful instead.

This is not the spirit of America.

America’s immigration system has many problems that need fixing but this is not the right approach and it is dehumanizing to many who would be outstanding Americans if we gave them the chance.

Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark says, “Had these been the requirements years ago, almost none of our ancestors would have been deemed fit to immigrate to this country and we wouldn’t be Americans today. This bill is flat out un-American. It favors the wealthy and powerful and ignores the many who are fleeing extreme poverty and violence, wanting to build a better life for themselves.”

For many years, the Statue of Liberty stood proudly as the logo for the Libertarian Party. That legacy lives on today with her torch serving as our logo.

The Libertarian Party’s position is that peaceful people should be allowed to travel and immigrate however they wish. If someone is peaceful, they should be allowed to travel or immigrate to the United States.

###

29 thoughts on “Libertarian Party supports immigrants

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Great release — in addition to being right and being an attractive public face to the party, it’s also a nice lump of Kryptonite for our “alt-right/paleoconservatives masquerading as libertarians” problem kids.

  2. Andy

    All this shows is that we have people in the Libertarian Party who do not understand their own supposed philosophy, and who are inept when it comes to political strategy. Flooding the country with more poor people when there is a welfare state is not going to make us more free, it has the opposite effect.

    Saying that “American is a land of immigrants” is an exaggeration. A good half of my ancestors were not immigrants, they were pioneers. My English, Scottish, and French ancestors were in this land before the American Revolution, and my English and Scottish ancestors actually fought in the revolution (as in they were Revolutionaries). I’m pretty sure that my French ancestors were in what was then French territory and did not fight in the revolution, although they did fight in the War of 1812. Yes, there were various Native American/”American Indian” tribes in this land territory at that time, but their population was sparse, they had basically no infrastructure set up, and the European settlers were not trying to move in with them, they built their own cities/towns. Yes, the Europeans did commit some injustices against the Native Americans, including running them off of land, but there was also a lot of land that was empty, and it is not like the Native American tribes wanted the Europeans there, as they did in fact stage attacks against them in an attempt to drive them off, but they were unable to because the Europeans had more advanced technology, and they kept arriving in greater numbers.

    People who arrived in a land that was mostly empty, and who settled this land, and who built their own infrastructure, are not immigrants. There was basically nothing here at the time that the early European explorers/pioneers/colonists arrived. It is not like today where immigrants show up, and then have immediate access to lots of infrastructure, and can get on government welfare programs, and use other taxpayer supported services, and can become citizens, and vote, which means that they can gain political power.

    My Irish, Dutch, and Spanish ancestors came later (later in the 1800’s, as in after the Civil War, and in the early 1900’s), so I suppose that they could be labeled having been immigrants, but there was no welfare state back then, they spoke English, and they were not hostile to the existing population, nor did they come from a culture that was alien to the existing population (there were Irish, Dutch, and Spanish people here in the pioneer/colonial days).

    So it is really intellectually dishonest to compare the settlers/pioneers of the past, and the immigration of the 1800’s and early 1900’s (pre-welfare state) to the immigration of today.

    The days of the open frontier ended a long time ago. US population is now over 325 million. Today’s immigrants are not moving out to the wild frontier and building their own settlements. They move into cities that were already built by the existing population and the ancestors of the existing population (which means more using public infrastructure/resources). It used to be that if you came to this land, you had to be rugged to make it here (which is why some of the people who came here back in those days actually left). Today, immigrants, and their offspring, can get on government welfare programs, and use other government services, which they do at a rate that is higher than the existing population. Under the Refugee Resettlement Act, immigrants can actually use taxpayer money to get here, and then once here, sign up for every welfare program available upon arriving, and stay on it for years. Many of these people stay unemployed, or under-employed for years, which begs the question of why they are even here at all, since if the true intent were to actually help these so called “refugees,” it would be much cheaper to help them in the countries where they are from, or in countries that are near where they are from, rather than pay to for them to travel to the USA, which has a higher cost of living. The true intention for bringing these people here is not to help them, it is to use them as a weapon to destroy what is left of freedom in this country, which is the real intention behind the mass immigration here in the USA, as well as in Canada, and in Europe. This is the United Nations Population Replacement globalist agenda.

    Modern day mass immigration has nothing to do with expanding individual freedom. This is not to say that all immigrants are bad people, although some of them are. A lot of them are just dupes, as in they are just pawns being used in a game. by the globalist puppetmasters Some immigrants actually are good, and I have no beef with these people. However, if you examine welfare use statistics, and if you examine voting pattern statistics, you will find that super-majorities of modern day immigrants (and their offspring), you will find that super-majorities of them use government welfare programs, and once obtaining American citizenship (which requires an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution), that they vote in favor of expanding the welfare state, and restricting the right to keep and bear arms, in super-majority numbers (which shows that a super-majority of these people either did not understand the oath they swore to the US Constitution when they became “citizens,” or they understood it and they intentionally lied when they took the oath, which ought to invalidate their citizenship status, since they perjured themselves). Another thing that you will find if you examine crime statistics, is that some of these immigrant groups commit crimes at a rate that is higher than the native populations (see what is happening in European countries right now that have allowed mass Muslim migration, where the number of rapes and other crimes has skyrocketed as a result).

    There is a big difference between peaceful people crossing borders, and non-peaceful people crossing borders. People who come in and leech off of a country’s welfare system are not peaceful people, People who come in and alter a country’s political landscape to move in the direction of increasing the welfare state, and restricting civil liberties, are not peaceful people.

    If you take the libertarian philosophy to its logical conclusion, it leads to a private property anarcho-capitalist society. This would mean that all land would be privately owned, and that land owners, or groups of land owners acting in voluntary associations, would set migration/immigration policies. Under such a society, there’d be no such thing as “open borders,” unless it was unclaimed land, in which case, once it was settled, it would no longer be open.

    So as I have said numerous times, the real issue with immigration is not “open borders” vs “closed borders,” but rather, who controls the land, a government, or private property owners. Being that we live in country that has a government, as does pretty much everyone else in this world, who can enter the land is going to remain a political issue as long as government exists, and even if government were to cease to exist, it would then become a private property issue. Given that government exists, and it does not appear likely that it is going to cease to exist anytime soon, we have to deal with the fact that we live in a country that has 1) public infrastructure and common spaces which immigrants of which immigrants gain the use once they enter the country, 2) a welfare system, 3) forced association laws, and 4) democratic elections, which means that immigrant groups can gain political power and vote against the interests of much of the existing population once obtaining citizenship status (if you don’t think that this is a real issue, then do a search for ethnic block voting).

    So, the only way that so called “open borders” would work (as in not be destructive to liberty), is in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which actually would not have “open borders,” since it would have private property borders.

    Advocating in favor of “open borders” and mass migration into a democratic welfare state with forced association laws is not a libertarian position. It is actually destructive to liberty.

    So given that we don’t live in an anarcho-capitalist society, and given that libertarians have had absolutely zero success at ending, or even reducing, the welfare state, the only thing that makes any sense when it comes to immigration policy, is to have a policy which weeds out/discourages, as much as possible, people with socialist, communist, and/or theocratic ideologies. as well as welfare leeches, criminals, and people with communicable diseases, from coming here. The only people who should be accepted as immigrants are those who are not coming here to become a burden to the taxpayers, and who really understand what freedom is, and who actually want it. There should most certainly not be an immigration policy in place which attracts people who are hostile to and/or are who will become a burden to, the existing population, nor should such policy overwhelm the existing population.

    If some people want an immigration policy that says that just anyone can show up, no standards, and no limits on numbers, great. Let’s form a private property anarcho-capitalist society, and you can have such a policy on your own property. You don’t have a right to force such a policy on those who don’t want a policy like this.

  3. Andy

    Here is what a real libertarian icon had to say about immigration.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  4. Andy

    “It is a cherished line that embodies the timelessness of immigrants coming to America in search of freedom and prosperity, wanting simply to build a better life for themselves.”

    More Than 90 Percent of Middle Eastern Refugees on Food Stamps

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/more-than-90-percent-of-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps/

    From the article: “More than 90 percent of recent refugees from Middle Eastern nations are on food stamps and nearly 70 percent receive cash assistance, according to government data.”

  5. Andy

    “America’s immigration system has many problems that need fixing but this is not the right approach and it is dehumanizing to many who would be outstanding Americans if we gave them the chance.”

    Illegal Alien With 7 Kids Got Food Stamps, Housing & Social Security — for 20 Years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXDhMvFoXrc

  6. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    August 7, 2017 at 05:13
    Andy,

    Spamming every thread in which the subject comes up with the same debunked non-arguments isn’t going to work.”

    Notice how Tom can’t refute anything that I said, so to avoid admitting that his position is wrong, he dodges the facts. This is a classic defense mechanism.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Notice how Tom can’t refute anything that I said”

    I’ve refuted everything you’ve said more than once, as have others. Spamming arguments that have previously been refuted, as if they haven’t, is a classic Big Lie mechanism.

  8. Tony From Long island

    There’s no point in refuting Andy. He will just post the same useless YouTube clips and other specious nonsense over and over as though they are supposed to carry some sort of weight.

    Andy – leave the LP. You are an embarrassment to its principles.

  9. paulie Post author

    I’ve refuted everything you’ve said more than once, as have others. Spamming arguments that have previously been refuted, as if they haven’t, is a classic Big Lie mechanism.

    Exactly.

  10. paulie Post author

    Spamming every thread in which the subject comes up with the same debunked non-arguments isn’t going to work.

    Right again!

  11. paulie Post author

    Here is what a real libertarian icon had to say about immigration.

    How many threads have I and others debunked this drivel from Rothbard’s senile period on now? I have lost count. And add in the nonsense from the likes of Breitbart and Pamela Gellar…sad.

  12. paulie Post author

    All this shows is that we have people in the Libertarian Party who do not understand their own supposed philosophy, and who are inept when it comes to political strategy.

    If by “this” Andy meant the rest of his TL;DR comment that followed, that would be an accurate statement.

  13. William Saturn

    Andy is 100% correct on this issue.

    In speaking for the whole party, Sarwark pushes away those who share the views of Ron Paul in favor of leftist social justice warriors like Jim Acosta. I hate to break it to you Nick, but SJWs aren’t interested in liberty. They are not the base of your party.

    This reminds me of the time Sarwark issued a press release praising Hillary Clinton while attacking Rand Paul. It’s poor strategy, as Andy says above.

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    “Andy is 100% correct on this issue.”

    That should make you rethink your psychotropic drug schedule.

  15. langa

    …SJWs aren’t interested in liberty.

    No, they’re not.

    Then again, neither are the alt-right.

  16. Andy

    If “open borders” are such a wonderful and libertarian idea, and that there should be no ideological grounds for keeping anyone out of any land territory, after World War Ii was over, and the state of Israel was being formed, should Nazis have been able to immigrate there? I mean, the war was over by that point, so in the spirit of “open borders” and fairness, shouldn’t they have allowed some hard working Germans immigrate to Israel (instead of say Brazil, or Argentina, or the USA under Operation Paperclip)? Ok, so they had been Nazis in Germany, why hold that against them? Not all Nazis killed or imprisoned Jews, and even for those that did, the war was over by that point.

    So either ideology matters when it comes to entrance to land that is occupied by other people, or it does not.

  17. paulie Post author

    after World War Ii was over, and the state of Israel was being formed, should Nazis have been able to immigrate there?

    Of course. That way Israel would not have had to spend a lot of money and time to track them down and bring them to Israel for their war crimes trials. However, I was not aware that there were a bunch of nazis who wanted to move to Israel at that time.

  18. Matt

    The quicker all of the so-called “races” are blended together the better off we will be.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The state of Israel,” like all other states, is a street gang with delusions of grandeur, and no one (Nazis included) owes its turf lines any respect whatsoever.

  20. dL

    “The state of Israel,” like all other states, is a street gang with delusions of grandeur, and no one (Nazis included) owes its turf lines any respect whatsoever.

    Bears pointing out that the state of “Israel,” as an actual recompense for nazi war crimes, would have been located somewhere between Germany and Poland. So, I imagine any Nazis still hanging around would have been tossed out to make room.

  21. paulie Post author

    It’s not a recompense for nazi war crimes, although that is one of the justifications used to support it. Jews were always a substantial minority in what had once been and once again has become Israel throughout the millenia of diaspora as other peoples have come and gone, and had been moving back there in a concentrated fashion for decades before the British recognized that fact officially in 1919. After that many more Jews moved there, as did quite a few Arabs as the area became more developed. Jews fought a war of independence against the UK and then fought off Arab invasion from all sides; UN recognition was after the fact and did not create Israel, regardless of what arguments were made by some in the UN to do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *