LP follows up on IPR report on ‘immigration reform’ press release

Libertarian Party spokesman Andrew Davis sent the following message to IPR, asking that it be passed along to the site’s editor-in-chief:

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 threat to security, health or property.

The above is from the LP platform, section 3.4: Free Trade and Migration.

The LP platform does not talk about “balancing the needs of [the U.S.] economy with the need for domestic security,” as the press release does.

In greater congruency with the platform, the press release also stressed opposition to a border fence and support for a greater number of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S.

4 Comments

pdsa August 7, 2008
“This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. [p162] That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another: are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.”
Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, Talbot v. Janson, 1795
Eternaverse August 6, 2008
VOTE CHARLES JAY FOR PRESIDENT! HE”S THE ONLY REAL LIBERTARIAN RUNNING. VISIT CJ08.COM TODAY!
Trent Hill August 6, 2008
Yea. The problem is that the press release pits security AGAINST economic benefits.
Fred Church Ortiz August 6, 2008
The problem with the statement was that it made the needs of the economy and domestic security out to be inherently inimical. Probably wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if it had read “would serve both the needs of our economy [and] the need for domestic security.”

Comments are closed.