This letter was sent in response to a letter Starchild received regarding Rand Paul’s speech about immigration. The letter was previosuly posted on IPR, and you can read that here .
Thank you for writing. I was also heartened by Rand Paul’s filibuster of president Obama’s drone-loving nominee to head the CIA. However I must disagree with your support for restrictions on peaceful freedom of movement, which are fundamentally at odds with the “limited government constitutional republic of minimal intrusion on individual freedom” that you desire.
Senator Paul may not have pointed this out in his speech, but the Constitution only allows the federal government to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a U.S. citizen), not *migration* (who can physically enter or leave the country). The Feds have no authority to control migration. This is why there were virtually no controls on immigration to the United States for about the first century of the country’s existence.
Unfortunately, over time the government began to engage in more and more constitutional violations, culminating in the out-of-control situation that exists today, with the U.S. president claiming (and Congress approving) the power to arbitrarily murder anyone in the world at any time, including U.S. citizens, that he claims is involved with terrorism. Militarized borders, walls and fences are definitely part of this picture, as are the unconstitutional Social Security and tax laws that you complain about undocumented migrants violating. It is *good* that these illegal and anti-freedom statutes are being violated.
As a refugee from communist Cuba, you should understand the importance to freedom of not allowing the authorities to exercise this kind of control over who comes and goes, this kind of ability to keep tabs on everyone, rob them of money they have earned, etc. It is anti-libertarian, and a recipe for a police state like the Castro regime, which America is in danger of becoming.
On a practical level, is it any wonder that most immigrants in the United States disdain the Republican Party, when that party so blatantly disdains their rights and freedoms? Polls show that immigration reform is the top
issue for Hispanics in this country, and that they will vote accordingly:
“Latino voters selected their presidential candidates largely based on immigration rhetoric and policy, according to the report. Specifically, 43% of Latinos who voted for Obama said they would back a GOP candidate if the Republicans lead immigration reform.
“If President Barack Obama and the Democrats take the lead on immigration reform, however, Latino voters reported that they would be more likely to vote for them.
“A total of 44% said they would be more likely to vote Republican if this party led on immigration reform. Yet, when asked how Republicans blocking immigration reform would affect their vote, 42% said they would be less likely to vote Republican (including 33% of Latino Republicans).
“Currently 58% of Latino voters polled rate immigration reform as the most important issue for the government to address, up from 35% in a November 2012 Latino Decisions poll.”
George W. Bush was not an “open borders” president by any stretch of the imagination. Peaceful immigrants continued to be deported under his administration, border walls and fences were expanded, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created, and more money and personnel were added to border control. Nevertheless the 39% of the Hispanic vote that you report him receiving was significantly greater than the 27% that the more anti-immigrant Romney received.
Abridging the freedom of peaceful people who want to come to the United States for more rights and economic opportunity as you and your family did is a losing political proposition. If the Republican Party gets this issue wrong, not just the Democrats but the Libertarian Party of which I am an elected leader will be there to offer voters who might otherwise vote GOP a better alternative.
I don’t mind encouraging the Republicans to adopt policies that will reduce the appeal of the LP because my first loyalty is to the cause of freedom, not to any particular party or organization, and seeing the right thing happen is more important to me than getting credit. I urge you to likewise support freedom by standing for the important principle that all people deserve equal rights under the law regardless of where they are born, and governments should not discriminate against people on the basis of their nationality.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
Starchild is a long-time Libertarian activist and proponent of freedom. He is currently an At-Large representiative to the CA Exectutive Committee and the Libertarian National Committee. He also sometimes writes here on IPR.