The Libertarian Party recently implemented significant changes to its website, including updates to several policy positions and the introduction of new issues. Among the most notable changes is the party’s revised language on immigration, which now specifically calls for an end to birthright citizenship—a position not previously mentioned.
The updates, made this month based on records by the Internet Archive, appear to simply coincide with the conclusion of the 2024 election cycle. However, it remains unclear why the party chose to revise the language of specific policy sections as part of this process, how these decisions were made, or when they were finalized. No public vote by the Libertarian National Committee on these updates is available on its most recent Business List.
The previous language described the United States as a country enriched by peaceful immigrants seeking better lives. It called for streamlined legal pathways and criticized the current immigration system as overly complex, costly, and inaccessible. The party also voiced strong opposition to classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals, instead advocating for “fair” and “reasonable” reforms to existing laws.
In stark contrast, the new policy language frames immigration as a “crisis” caused by “perverse incentives” such as government welfare and foreign intervention. While the party continues to support open migration, this support is now tied to addressing these systemic issues. The updated policy opposes state subsidies for immigrants, warns against their political influence to expand government, and introduces stricter conditions for those seeking citizenship or residency.
One of the more significant shifts is the call to end birthright citizenship, a policy previously unaddressed by the website and in the party’s platform. Instead, the party proposes a paid model for citizenship, similar to investment-based programs in countries like Malta and Turkey. Non-citizens would face harsher penalties for crimes, including potential deportation, under the new guidelines.
Other changes to the website include an overhaul of its graphics and homepage layout, as well as the removal of Caryn Ann Harlos as the Libertarian National Committee Secretary. The position is currently unlisted in its entirety. A full list of the Libertarian Party’s policies as of the update can be viewed here.
Does the Liberal Party support wide open borders? Murderers, rapists, sex traffickers, welfare leeches, come right on in? Doesn’t seem like a sensible policy to me.
So glad the Liberal Party USA is openly & unapologetically pro-immigration unlike every other political party including the LP – the LNC should be embarrassed to have this crap on their website!
If you’re sick of this MEGA Trump crap please join us: https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/
“Citizenship should have a paid model in similar fashion to other countries with investment-based citizenship programs, such as in Greece, Malta, and Turkey”
Ah yes, because selling their citizenship has worked out so well for those countries… And why not also mention any of the Caribbean or Pacific Islands without extradition treaties that have gotten overrun by wanted criminals due to such schemes?
“The higher standard should apply to cops and politicians and government bureaucrats”
Now there’s a novel idea: holding those privileged with higher levels of legal protection to higher standards… Unthinkable! xD
“Ending birthright citizenship is certainly sensible”
Jus soli, definitely yes. Jus sanguinis, definitely not completely – though I would be in favor of restoring citizenship by blood as being inheritable only from the father, the way it used to be, with the clause that the parents must be legally married at the time of the child’s conception.
“We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants. […] We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country. We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens”
All good and sensible enough. But the provision of welfare subsidies and taxpayer-supported benefits to legal aliens and US citizens must be opposed equally: no more, no less.
CP pulled up:
US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”
James Madison:
“When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…”
We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.
Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants – including illegal aliens – have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state and local levels, adding to the tax burden and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.
We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign. We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.
We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.
The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state or any citizen of the United States.
We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.
We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion. We oppose bilingual ballots. We insist that those who wish to take part in the electoral process and governance of this nation be required to read and comprehend basic English as a precondition of citizenship.
We support English as the official language for all governmental business by the United States.
—-
Much better than even the new libertarian statement, and especially the old one.
As for the website changes, it looks cleaner and less cluttered than I remember, but that was a while ago – long enough that I can’t say for sure whether it was months or years.
Ending birthright citizenship is certainly sensible, and the new statement is incrementally more sane than the previous one, but it seems like the sort of position shift that should be voted in convention, or else they should change their rules and dispense with the platform in favor of allowing the national committee and their office employees to decide what their issue positions are on an ad hoc basis.
I’d say that the constitution party’s position is better, but I tried to check their site to make sure that is still true and was unable to get any of the relevant pages to load under the positions header. I’ll check back later to see whether that was a temporary glitch.
LPHQ dues not have the authority to change LP policy.
Sensible common sense changes.
“…can be viewed here”
Where? Link appears to be missing.
Immigration has reached a crisis primarily due to perverse incentives that the government has created between state welfare, and foreign interventionist policies and actions, by the United States. The Libertarian Party supports open and free migration in tandem with correcting these incentive problems.
Nothing wrong here, but more explanation would be useful as to how those policies have cause the problem.
People should be free to trade and travel so long as they do not violate the bodies or properties of others. However, they should not be subsidized by state welfare, state housing, nor should they be able to leverage the political process to enact a bigger government.
Also nothing wrong here. But that also applies to everyone.
To help balance the conflict between those who want migration freedom and those concerned about dangerous persons coming over, the Libertarian Party calls for an end to birthright citizenship and reformation of the citizenship process.
And, here we have a large problem in that they simply fail to understand the difference between jus soli citizenship, lex soli, and jus sanguinis, the latter of the two conferred by Congressional legislation. They would do good to go read The Law of Nations, specifically chapter 19, because de Vattel lays it our rather clearly.
Citizenship should have a paid model in similar fashion to other countries with investment-based citizenship programs, such as in Greece, Malta, and Turkey. Those who don’t wish to become citizens, or who cannot afford the process yet, should be free to trade and travel within the country. However, if they commit a crime, they should face harsher sanctions with potential deportation to balance out their lack of citizenship status risk.
Pay-to-play managed by who, the federal government by more big government? Yes, illegal alien criminals should be deported, BUT crime has to be properly defined as aggressive force or fraud against innocent individuals and not bovine excrement “administrative crimes.” (a speeding ticket should not be grounds for deportation, but assault should, for example.) Under current 18 USC 1323-1325, all illegal aliens are criminal trespassers. Whether that should be changed is a different debate.
Giving people the freedom to come to America, but holding them to a higher standard if they are not citizens yet, is the ethical way to encourage peaceful people to come over while shunning those who come to America for unscrupulous purposes.
No, just the same standard. The higher standard should apply to cops and politicians and government bureaucrats, not regular individuals no matter what country they’re from.