Hawkins issues call to “Abolish ICE”

Hawkins Denounces Supreme Court decision upholding Muslim Ban

Will Join the NYC Protest on June 30 To Support Immigration, Reunification of Families

Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate for Governor, denounced Tuesday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding the so-called Muslim Ban “as yet another action of a rogue Supreme Court that puts reactionary political beliefs ahead of the facts and fundamental constitutional rights.”

Hawkins said the decision grows out of decades of racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic policies fueled by both major parties, growing out of 9/11, the so-called War on Terror and white nationalist opposition to immigration.

Hawkins, who has long campaigned to turn New York into a “Sanctuary State” for immigrants, said that “providing a safe harbor for refugees is the morally right thing to do, and that in order to enact any reasonable immigration policy we need to get the racist leadership of Trump and Sessions out of office.” Hawkins noted that immigration has always enriched New York’s economy.

Hawkins will join the Green Party contingent at the End Family Separation rally and march starting in Foley Square in NY on Saturday June 30 at 10 AM.

Hawkins called for abolishing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as well as ICE and putting their legitimate functions under the Department of Justice. Hawkins noted that before 9/11, Immigration and Naturalization Service was under the Department of Justice. After 9/11, INS was reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security as ICE and CBP and it became even more militarized and repressive.

Hawkins, a Syracuse resident, pointed out that CBP and ICE operate within 100 miles of the Canadian border and is snatching immigrants in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo and from NY farms. The ACLU says that the federal government often ignores the constitution within those 100 miles.

The Green Party has spoken out strongly against the Trump administration’s separation of children from their immigrant parents.

“Not only is this treatment of children barbaric and inhumane but it is also illegal because child abuse in this country is illegal. Sub-standard living conditions compounded with the emotional trauma of being separated from their parents is a threat to a child’s emotional and psychological well-being and will have long lasting negative effects on these innocent lives. The Trump administration and heads of ICE should be tried and convicted of child abuse and neglect,” said Gloria Mattera, GPNY co-chair and child development specialist.

30 –


Howie Hawkins – Green for Governor
www.howiehawkins.org

Media Release

For Immediate Release:
June 27, 2018

For More Info:
Howie Hawkins, howie.hawkins@icloud.com, 315-425-1019 h; 315-200-6046 c
Michael O’Neil, michael@howiehawkins.org, 917-825-3562

32 thoughts on “Hawkins issues call to “Abolish ICE”

  1. Andy

    Not surpring to see this come from a Marxist, since this falls right inline with the Marxist agenda.

  2. Andy

    Just to clarify, I would be in favor of abolishing ICE as well, if it also meant abolishing the state, which would mean that all land would be privatized, and the private property owners had full freedom of association and disassociation. Government controlled borders would be replaced with private property borders. ICE agents would be replaced with private security guards and private militias.

  3. Jim

    Marxist? Every national Libertarian Party Platform from 1978 through 2004 explicitly called for amnesty for all illegal immigrants and the abolition of the Border Patrol without precondition.

  4. Andy

    Every libertarian platform also called for privatizing all land, repealing anti-discrimination laws, and ending government welfare programs.

    So yes, Marxist is the proper description of what is is for which they are calling.

  5. Jim

    None of those issues are mentioned in the article above. And the LP Platforms did not say “abolish the Border Patrol, but not until after privatizing all land and ending welfare programs.” They did not attach any preconditions. And none of the LP Platforms from those years called for privatizing all land. They called for privatizing specific lands.

  6. Andy

    “Jim
    June 27, 2018 at 16:20
    None of those issues are mentioned in the article above. And the LP Platforms did not say “abolish the Border Patrol, but not until after privatizing all land and ending welfare programs.” They did not attach any preconditions. And none of the LP Platforms from those years called for privatizing all land. They called for privatizing specific lands.”

    None of these issues are mentioned in the article, because the Greens are not trying to implement an anarcho-capitalist society.

    The Libertarian Party platform and libertarian strategy are not necessarily the same thing. Lots of libertarians are strong on philosophy, but are weak when it comes to actually implementing the philosophy they espouse.

    Allowing unlimited numbers of people to enter a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property and infrastructure is not a path to more liberty, it is a path to more statism, because every statistical indicator shows that a super-majority of people attracted to democratic welfare states are people who want big government. This is why Marxists and globalists push for “open borders” under the present construct under which we live.

  7. Paul

    A lot of crazy Marxists, like Bernie Sanders, don’t like the free movement of people because of the perception that it hurts American workers (well, unions anyway).

    A government agency that involves violently kidnapping and exiling peaceful people is not on the side of liberty.

  8. Andy

    Why Socialists Have Always Fought for Open Borders

    http://www.leftvoice.org/Why-Socialists-Have-Always-Fought-for-Open-Borders

    From the article: “Socialist traditions

    The socialist movement has been debating this question for more than a century. Over 100 years ago, an international congress categorically rejected all border controls. A resolution passed by the majority of the delegates at the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart from August 18-24, 1907 declared categorically:

    ‘The congress does not seek a remedy to the potentially impending consequences for the workers from immigration and emigration in any economic or political exclusionary rules, because these are fruitless and reactionary by nature. This is particularly true of a restriction on the movement and the exclusion of foreign nationalities or races.’

    The resolution included the demand:

    ‘Abolition of all restrictions which prevent certain nationalities or races from staying in a country or which exclude them from the social, political and economic rights of the natives or impede them in exercising those rights. Extensive measures to facilitate naturalisation.'”

  9. Rob

    Here noted Leftist and Socialist Bernie Sanders lays out the Socialist position on borders. He says closed, regulated borders, are the Socialist position and that open borders are a “right wing” project of the Koch brothers, who he portrays as libertarian and free market capitalist proponents.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

    The reality is that outside the rhetoric Socialism has only ever prospered by becoming nationalistic and having closed or nearly closed borders. If people can leave then Socialist nations cannot survive and the less ethnically homogeneous a group is due to immigration the less likely they are to want to support or maintain Socialism.

  10. Jim

    It’s Progressives who were historically anti-immigrant for the economic protection of workers. That was true for both the Republican and Democratic varieties of Progressives. Progressives have absorbed socialists in more recent decades, so the group’s positions are less distinct now, but the anti-immigrant position was historically more in line with the Progressives.

  11. Andy

    “Jim
    June 27, 2018 at 19:11
    It’s Progressives who were historically anti-immigrant for the economic protection of workers. That was true for both the Republican and Democratic varieties of Progressives. Progressives have absorbed socialists in more recent decades, so the group’s positions are less distinct now, but the anti-immigrant position was historically more in line with the Progressives.?”

    You don’t know what you are talking about, and I would suggest you do some research into the history of Marxism, and socialist/communist subversion tactics.

  12. Andy

    How Would Karl Marx View Open Borders and Illegal Immigration?

    Video description from YouTube: “During street protests concerning illegal immigration there are two signs I always see, ‘open borders’ and ‘there is no such thing as illegal immigration’. Both of these statements come from the heart of Karl Marx. Marx is the father of Communism and Socialism which starts with having no national borders or national sovereignty.”

  13. Jim

    Andy “The Libertarian Party platform and libertarian strategy are not necessarily the same thing. Lots of libertarians are strong on philosophy, but are weak when it comes to actually implementing the philosophy they espouse. Allowing unlimited numbers of people to enter a democratic welfare state ….”

    It’s a matter of prioritizing values, not strategically implementing philosophy. Both those who would open borders without precondition and those who would precondition open borders on eliminating the welfare state are just ranking their values in order of what they feel is more important. To both sides, the other looks irrational.

    For most libertarians, life is prioritized over liberty and liberty over property. Requiring the elimination of the welfare state before allowing free immigration reverses property and liberty. The thing is, complete economic freedom can never be accomplished prior to allowing free immigration because immigration restrictions are funded through violations of property (taxes, eminent domain, etc.) So even on your own terms, I’m not sure how that strategy makes sense. You can never, ever get to an anarcho-capitalist society prior to eliminating the Border Patrol.

  14. Jim

    Andy “You don’t know what you are talking about, and I would suggest you do some research into the history of Marxism, and socialist/communist subversion tactics.”

    What? I was agreeing with you. I said the anti-immigrant position was Progressive, not Socialist.

  15. Andy

    “Jim
    June 27, 2018 at 19:38
    Andy ‘The Libertarian Party platform and libertarian strategy are not necessarily the same thing. Lots of libertarians are strong on philosophy, but are weak when it comes to actually implementing the philosophy they espouse. Allowing unlimited numbers of people to enter a democratic welfare state ….’

    It’s a matter of prioritizing values, not strategically implementing philosophy. Both those who would open borders without precondition and those who would precondition open borders on eliminating the welfare state are just ranking their values in order of what they feel is more important. To both sides, the other looks irrational.”

    The true libertarian stance on borders is not to open them, but rather to turn them over to private property owners. If this were to happen, private property owners would control migration/immigration across private property borders.

    People who claim to be libertarians, and who promote that the state leave the door open to unlimited mass migration are not promoting the actual libertarian stance on the position, because they are ignoring the parts about turning everything over to private property owners, who’d have full freedom of association, which means the right to discriminate, for any reason, and they are also ignoring the part about the state being abolished in the process, which means no government welfare programs, and no democratic elections, unless they were held by voluntary organizations, and the outcomes of which only applied to those who voluntarily consented to the election.

  16. Andy

    Jim said: “The thing is, complete economic freedom can never be accomplished prior to allowing free immigration because immigration restrictions are funded through violations of property (taxes, eminent domain, etc.) So even on your own terms, I’m not sure how that strategy makes sense. You can never, ever get to an anarcho-capitalist society prior to eliminating the Border Patrol.”

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe debunks this myth.

    In the Free Market, May a Businessman Hire Any Immigrant He Chooses?
    September 22, 2004

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/in-the-free-market-may-a-businessman-hire-any-immigrant-he-chooses/

    From the article: “Thanks to Brian Doherty for his link to my work in his recent essay on immigration. But let me clarify one point with the following, drawn from footnote 23 of my Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.

    It is incorrect to infer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered “invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immigrant-employee. This is the case under the much-maligned arrangement of a “factory town” owned and operated by a proprietor. Here, the full cost of employment, the cost of housing, healthcare, and all other amenities associated with the immigrant’s presence, is paid for by the proprietor. No one else’s property is involved in the immigrant-worker settlement. Less perfectly (and increasingly less so), this full-cost-principle of immigration is realized in Swiss immigration policy. In Switzerland immigration matters are decided on the local rather than federal government level, by the local owner-resident community in which the immigrant wants to reside. These owners are interested that the immigrant’s presence in their community increase rather than decrease their property values. In places as attractive as Switzerland, this typically means that the immigrant (or his employer) is expected to buy his way into a community, which often requires multimillion-dollar donations.

    Unfortunately, welfare states are not operated like factory towns or even Swiss communities. Under welfare-statist condition the immigrant employer must pay only a small fraction of the full costs associated with the immigrant’s presence. He is permitted to socialize (externalize) a substantial part of such costs onto other property owners. Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private association is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever. This is not an “invitation,” as commonly understood. This is an imposition. It is like inviting immigrant workers to renovate one’s own house while feeding them from other people’s refrigerators. Consequently, because the cost of importing immigrant workers is lowered, more employer-sponsored immigrants will arrive than otherwise. Moreover, the character of the immigrant changes, too. While Swiss communities choose well-heeled, highly value-productive immigrants, whose presence enhances communal property values all-around, employers under democratic welfare State conditions are permitted by state law to externalize their employment costs on others and tend to import increasingly cheap, low-skilled and low value-productive immigrants, regardless of their effect on all-around communal property values.

    Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically. One source can be found in the Randian upbringing of many left-libertarians. Big businessmen-entrepreneurs are portrayed as “heroes” and, according to Ayn Rand in one of her more ridiculous statements, are viewed as the welfare state’s “most severely persecuted minority.” In this view (and untainted by any historical knowledge or experience), what can possibly be wrong with a businessman hiring an immigrant worker? In fact, as every historian knows, big businessmen are among the worst sinners against private property rights and the law of the market. Among other things, in an unholy alliance with the central State they have acquired the privilege of importing immigrant workers at other people’s expense (just as they have acquired the privilege of exporting capital to other countries and being bailed out by taxpayers and the military when such investments turn sour).

    A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” — non-bourgeois lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose nondiscrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the normal price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.” See further on this Democracy: The God That Failed, esp. chap. 10.”

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    “So Andy has the progressive position? That makes sense.”

    I’d say its more accurate to say that, as an alt-right nationalist, Andy has a statist position that happens to coincide with a position other statists (hard left progressives) hold, but for different reasons.

    Its really kind of an analog to the ultimate philosophical similarities between nazism (i.e., Andy), where the goal is a political jurisdiction created for a favored “race” and communism, where the goal is a unified worldwide revolution for the “laborers” (i.e., “workers of the world unite!”).

    But ultimately, they share the same desire for control, for suppression of individual liberty.

  18. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 28, 2018 at 09:31
    “So Andy has the progressive position? That makes sense.”

    I’d say its more accurate to say that, as an alt-right nationalist, Andy has a statist position that happens to coincide with a position other statists (hard left progressives) hold, but for different reasons.”

    How is my position “statist” when I’ve called for the elimination of the state in favor of a private property anarcho-capitalist society?

    How is my position of saying that that while the state exists, it should not invite, or reward, and it shoul “physically remove,” foreign migrants who pose a threat to the life, liberty, and property, of the existing population, and that its policy should also not overwhelm the existing population, and less statist than saying that the state should open the door to mass migration, even if most of the existing population does not want it, and even if some of the migrants pose a threat to the life, liberty, and property, of the existing population, and/or are coming in at a rate that is so high that they displace the existing population? If anything, I’d say that my proposal is actually less statist than those who want to use the guns of the state to impose “open borders” and mass migration onto the existing population. You people want the state to invite the world, and hold the door open for foreign latecomers, against the will of most of the existing population.

  19. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “But ultimately, they share the same desire for control, for suppression of individual liberty.”

    One more time, my goal is not to control anything. My goal is for the state to cease to exist, and to form a private property anarcho-capitalist society. This means that people can do what they want on their own private property so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others on their private property.

    What I said about immigration is an interim solution, not an end goal. We are nowhere near close to having an anarcho-capitalist society, and you of all people should know this, since you are always advocating that the LP run very moderate, watered down candidates like Johnson/Weld.

    Do you not understand the concept of incrementalism, or do you only understand it when it comes to certain issues? Advocating that the US border be ripped open right now, thus allowing for unlimited immigration, is not only a suicidal policy for liberty, because of the fact that we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property/infrastructure, it would also be a politically suicidal position to take among the voters, as there is very little support for this.

    My position is basically this, while the state exists, that the policy in place in regard to immigration should not invite or reward destructive foreign migrants, nor should it invited in so many foreign migrants that it leads to the displacement of the existing population.

    If the welfare state were eliminated, my position would be altered, and if the state were completely abolished in favor of a private property anarcho-capitalist society, my position would be altered even more, to the point where I’d say, “Let the private property owners handle it.”

  20. Anthony Dlugos

    “How is my position “statist” when I’ve called for the elimination of the state in favor of a private property anarcho-capitalist society? How is my position of saying that that while the state exists, it should not invite, or reward, and it shoul “physically remove,” foreign migrants who pose a threat to the life, liberty, and property, of the existing population, ”

    Because “elimination of the state” is a non-starter. So your deal is really just an opened-ended offer to the state to increase its power and control of people. Your deal belies your immediate desire, which is ejecting people you don’t like based on their race. You are a white nationalist.

    If you were a libertarian rather than an alt-right nationalist, your “deal” with the state would involve reducing its power in some way, not increasing it.

    Or, it would be a principled, non-voting stance against the state in any of its formulations.

    But a principled anarchist does not say things like “if the state exists, I want it to eject races I don’t like.” There is nothing principled about that.

  21. Andy

    You say that elimination of the tate is a non-starter. Well so is rip the borders open and allow unlimited, no questions asked, immigration.

  22. Andy

    Anthony, that has been one of my main points all along. Ripping the borders open to unlimited no questions asked immigration is not politically sellable. It is one of the least popular things any libertarian says, and i, and lots of others in the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart would argue that it is only a libertarian position if it is under the context of a private property anarcho-capitalist society, as in if government relinquished control over land to private property owners, and then government ceases to exist. These are far off fantasy scenarios, not something that is even close to being feasible in the here and now.

    The only sensible thing for libertarians to do in the here and now in regard to this issue is to advocate a policy that allows for some immigration and some foreign guest workers, but which screens out, as much as possible, people with Marxist or theocratic ideologies, criminals, welfare seekers,
    and people with communicable diseases. Could some of these people sneak in anyway? Sure, but you do not have to reward them with taxpayer funded benefits and American citizenship.

    I fail to see how this is unreasonable.

  23. Jim

    Andy “The true libertarian stance on borders is not to open them, but rather to turn them over to private property owners.”

    No it isn’t. The Libertarian stance is the non-aggression principle. It doesn’t matter who owns the roads if that is held. Government can continue to operate the roads as long as it is done in a voluntary manner.

    No part of that Hoppean copy/paste addressed the point that anarcho-capitalism can never be achieved prior to eliminating the Border Patrol.

    You are already free to keep immigrants off of your property. YOUR property. Trying to keep them off of property that you do not own is not the libertarian position. That would imply that you and I own property in common. We don’t. You have no claim on my property.

    But if you want to post quotes from Hoppe, I prefer this one:

    “What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.

    “More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.”

    At least Hoppe is willing to admit that his motivation for his anti-immigrant crusade is to keep out non-whites.

  24. Andy

    Jim, how is government relinquishing control over land and borders over to private property owners initiating force? The only way I could see this would be if it was done in some kind of cronyist manner, but if every citizen gets their fair cut, I do not believe that this initiates force or fraud.

    I do not believe that people without property claims have any right to cross onto or occupy land where other people have already made a claim. If you put up a fence to keep me out of your backyard, or if you see me in your backyard without your authorization, you have the right to tell me to leave, or to throw me out.

    There is no country in the world where people can waltz in with no questions asked, and expect to be treated as if they are a citizen there. This would not change in a private property society, except in the case of unclaimed land.

  25. robert capozzi

    aj: …screens out, as much as possible, people with Marxist or theocratic ideologies, criminals, welfare seekers, and people with communicable diseases.

    me: Partly agree. I am uncomfortable with the notion of screening ideologies, and I don’t think it would work. It’s very easy to lie and say “I’m not a Marxist or a jihadist. ”

    Screening welfare seekers is also impractical. I’d be more inclined to simply deny welfare to legal and illegal immigrants.

    I’m curious: Do you think the immigration issue is a top 5 one?

    I don’t. It might make the top 20 at most. If there were a serious Lessarchist Party, on immigration it’d be in the center on immigration. Most emphasis on the issue would be to tout the benefits of legal immigration.

  26. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “So your deal is really just an opened-ended offer to the state to increase its power and control of people.”

    I never said that state power should be increased, and the proposals that I outlined above, would actually decrease the size of government.

    Like I pointed out above, countries in Europe like Switzerland, Lechtenstein, and Luxombourg, all rank high on the freedom index, and none of them are being overrun by destructive foreign migrants, and they did not accomplish this by building up a big police state. They simply do not invite them, and they do not entice them with welfare benefits and easy citizenship. Contrast this with countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Sweden, who are being overrun with destructive foreign migrants.

    “Your deal belies your immediate desire, which is ejecting people you don’t like based on their race. You are a white nationalist.”

    I never said that people should be ejected or rejected solely based on race. There are some white people who I would not want immigrating here (like Piers Morgan, who is a gun grabber). If I were able to build a libertarian community, I’d rather have a black libertarian, like say Eric July or Nickolas Wildstar or That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), or an Asian libertarian, like say Lily Tang or Jefferson Kim, move into it, than have a white person move in who is hostile to liberty, When you are dealing with large movements of people, statistically speaking, we already know that most of them are not going to be libertarians, since libertarians are a minority, and the reality of human nature is that ethnic and/or religious conflicts can emerge.

    “If you were a libertarian rather than an alt-right nationalist, your “deal” with the state would involve reducing its power in some way, not increasing it.”

    This is a ridiculous statement.

    First of all, even you have admitted that it is not politically feasible, and is basically political suicide, for a candidate to advocate that the borders be ripped completely open, and that a policy of unlimited, no questions asked, immigration be implemented. This is an extremely unpopular position to take with the public, and you know it. So given that you have admitted this, you know damn well that a political candidate, unless they are running Darryl W. Perry or Adam Kokesh style “shut down the federal government” campaign, which, as you and I both know, is not likely to win an election anytime soon, and is more of an educational style campaign (which is basically what all LP campaigns for high level offices are anyway), the candidate is going to have to have some kind of immigration policy, and that policy is not going to be, “Rip the borders open now, and allow everyone who wants to come here enter with no questions asked.” So given this reality, if you were running, or if a candidate whom you are supporting were running, they are not going to run on a “Rip the borders open right now, and allow everyone who wants to come here to enter with no questions asked.” This means that said candidate will in fact be calling for some kind of restrictions.

    Second of all, since I consider government to be an illegitimate institution, I don’t think that government roads should exist, but since they do, while they exist, I think that the government should keep them well maintained. I don’t think that the military should exist, but while it does, I think that it should defend the country against invaders. I don’t think that the government’s police or courts should exist, but while they do exist, I think that they should prosecute people for coercive acts of violence, theft, and destruction of property. I don’t think that government elections should exist, but while they do, I think that they should be run in a fair manner.

    So I don’t think that there is anything wrong, or hypocritical, about saying that while government is managing the land and infrastructure and borders, that it should be done in a manner that does not invite or reward destructive foreign migrants, nor should it invite so many foreign migrants that it overwhelms the existing population. Most people don’t mind some immigrants, but most people don’t like immigrants who are hostile, and most people don’t want to see so many foreign migrants to the point where they feel overwhelmed and face replacement. These are things with which most people agree, and this is so regardless of race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.

    “Or, it would be a principled, non-voting stance against the state in any of its formulations.”

    So says a guy who takes all kinds of moderate, watered down stances, and who backs candidates who take moderate, watered down stances.

    Remember, I’m the guy who voted for Darryl W. Perry to be the LP”s presidential nominee in 2016, and his platform called for abolishing the federal government. Remember, I’m the guy who has hung out with Adam Kokesh on multiple occasions, and who may end up supporting him for the presidential nomination in 2020.

    I don’t have a problem with candidates running on a less radical platform than Perry and Kokesh, but if they do, they really should not advocate completely ripping open the US border to unlimited, no questions asked immigration, because if they do, they really ought to just go the whole way and run a Perry/Kokesh style campaign, and call for the entire government, or at least the federal government, to be eliminated, because that’s the only way I could see said immigration policy “working.” as in I think that it would only work under anarcho-capitalism, where property owners would “regulate” it, or where it gets kicked back to a smaller level of government, like what Kokesh is talking about in regard to localization.

    :But a principled anarchist does not say things like ‘if the state exists, I want it to eject races I don’t like.’ There is nothing principled about that.”

    OK, well the next time a principled anarchist Libertarian runs for office, they should not complain if the state does not print their name on the ballot, or does not properly count the number of votes they got, or if the state’s police prevent them from entering a debate with their major party opponents. Principled anarchists also should not complain if the state does not fix the potholes on the roads or fix the traffic lights when they are not working. Principled anarchists should not complain if their house catches on fire, and the government’s fire department does not come to their house to put the fire out. Principled anarchists should not call the police if somebody steals their car or robs their home.

    How about living in the real world?

  27. Jim

    Andy “how is government relinquishing control over land and borders over to private property owners initiating force?”

    It isn’t. But anacho-capitalism isn’t the only way for a society to align with the NAP, even if you and I happen to favor it.

    Andy “I do not believe that people without property claims have any right to cross onto or occupy land where other people have already made a claim. If you put up a fence to keep me out of your backyard, or if you see me in your backyard without your authorization, you have the right to tell me to leave, or to throw me out.”

    Agreed.

    Andy “There is no country in the world where people can waltz in with no questions asked, and expect to be treated as if they are a citizen there.”

    True, but not relevant.

    Andy “This would not change in a private property society, except in the case of unclaimed land.”

    In an area as large and populous as the US, there will always be someone willing to sell or rent. The question is, right now, should illegals be allowed to freely buy or rent from people already in the US. Illegals don’t violate anyone’s property rights by walking down a government owned road without the government’s permission.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How is my position ‘statist’ when I’ve called for the elimination of the state in favor of a private property anarcho-capitalist society?”

    Your position is the same position as that of Karl Marx. He called for the “withering away of the state.” Eventually. Authoritarian statist measures in the interim to make things turn out just exactly the way he wanted them, and then someday, somehow, the magic anarchy faeries would make the state go away. Just like you.

    Unsurprising, seeing as you are a follower of Marxist “intellectual” Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

  29. paulie

    Some people have been tricked into supporting Marxism without realizing by the sneaky Marxist Hoppe. Hoppe knows traditional Marxist appeals fail to stir the real life working class so they sneak it in by way of racial nationalism.

Leave a Reply

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