Libertarians pushing for opening of U.S. borders??

P

Patrick Graham

Moderator
:confused:

From the Yuma AZ Sun -

http://sun.yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_17163.php

Libertarian speakers push for opening of U.S. borders

BY JEFFREY GAUTREAUX
Jun 10, 2005

The audience found some areas of agreement with two San Diego area Libertarians who spoke Thursday night at the meeting of the People for the USA. However, the speakers' main point — the need for more open borders — was not well received by the majority in attendance at the Yuma library.

Michael Benoit and Michael Metti, who have both run for the United States Congress as Libertarians in California, said opening the borders would help the economy, allow immigrants to return to Mexico and dry up the alien smuggling industry.

"You create an industry for coyotes," Benoit said of the current situation. "And once they've spent $1,500 or $2,000 to get here, they're not so anxious about going home."

California responded to its serious immigration problem, Benoit said, by building fences and pushing the problem eastward. He said the current border enforcement is porous enough that people can get in, but so tight that they fear returning home and being forced to pay again.

Benoit said the guest worker program should be expanded to allow more people to enter the country legally. He said the current border enforcement, like the war on drugs, spent too much taxpayer money with little results.

Metti said America is a country of immigrants that should be accepting of more immigration. He said more workers can take low-level jobs, pushing everyone else up economically. He said this would also decrease the number of corporations exporting jobs overseas.

"I respect people who will do anything to live free," Metti said of immigrants. "We as Americans should respect that. We've fought a war and killed thousands of people in what we say is a fight for freedom."

Those in the audience staunchly against open borders said that corporations that hire illegal aliens should be punished by the government. Metti disagreed. "You want to punish people for giving people jobs?" he said.

Some in the audience pointed to homeland security as a reason for tight border security. Benoit said the United States had trouble with both legal and illegal immigrants when it came to terrorism, citing the fact that the Sept. 11 hijackers had visas.

"The world is less safe, but we need to address the causes, like going around the world and meddling in other countries," he said.

Agustin Tumbaga, former mayor of Somerton, said there was a lot of misinformation about why people wanted to cross the border. He urged those in attendance to look deeper into Mexico and the imbalances between the American and Mexican economies.

"You should get up at 4 a.m. to see the thousands of people lined up to come across legally to work," he said. "And the thousands who come back every night."

Tumbaga was glad that people with different beliefs had a chance to discuss. He said more people, regardless of their political bent, should listen to opposing viewpoints, rather than simply turn a deaf ear.

There was discussion about assimilation of immigrants. Some in the audience said Spanish speakers in the United States should have to speak English.

Tumbaga said there are many schools in Mexico where the students are taught English. He said this was another example of misinformation. "You'll have kids in Mexico who speak better English than kids in the United States," he said.

Some members of the Yuma Patriots, a border watch group, were in attendance at the meeting. Metti said he did not believe that volunteer efforts to police the border, like the Patriots and the Minuteman Project, were the right way to solve the problem.

"It's an admirable attempt," he said. "But I don't know the longevity of it because it's not their job. It's our government's job."
Click to expand...
 
Counterpoint by former Governor Richard Lamm:
If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

Here is how they do it. Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.

My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."

A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate.

Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.

Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything he says, but much of it makes sense to me.
 
Some of the most stable countries in the world are tri-or quadrilingual. Switzerland has four official languages, Belgium three, Canada two. So, on that basis alone, Richard Lamm's point is bunk. The whole thing is xenophobic, pseudo-intellectual claptrap, in my opinion.

America has always been an immigrant nation. For the first few hundred years, the only immigration procedure was to step off a boat, and the country not only survived, but prospered.

The first immigration restrictions didn't come about until the hysteria pot was stirred by each successive wave of established immigrants in turn. WASPs didn't want an influx of Catholic Irish. The Irish disliked the Italians coming after them. Then it was the turn of the "heathen Chinee", and then the Japanese got theirs.

In every case, the argument was the same: "They'll destroy America and our culture with their foreign ways!"

America still stands. America has a way of making people Americans...the generation fresh off the boat may talk and dress funny, but their American-born kids will smoke Marlboros, drink Coca-Cola, wear blue jeans, and listen to decadent music. The siren song of personal freedom and capitalism is hard to resist...why do you think everybody wants to come here?

America is a nation of immigrants...get over it.
 
You have a roach problem in your kitchen. Do you:

A) Attempt to hermetically seal the entire house, foundation and all, or...

B) Clean up the spilled food all over the place and let the bug problem solve itself.


As long as we remain the country of the dolecheque and the handout, the free schooling and the free health care, the benefits check and the entitlement program, then we will attract folks who want that stuff. If all we offer is a chance to bust your ass and succeed, or slack off and starve, then the only immigrants we'll get will be the kind we want.

We need to clean up our kitchen before we have the gall to complain about a roach problem...
 
We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border.
Click to expand...
LEGAL IMMIGRANT. Legal. We get weaker everytime an illegal crosses the border, and begins leeching off the system without putting any tax money into it. I don't know what is so damned bloody hard about understanding that! We enforce murder laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, let's enforce the damned border laws!
 
America is a nation of immigrants...get over it.
Click to expand...

That sounds great, however do you put a limit on anything, what is enough.?

Controlled legal immigration is fine anything else is and will continue to be
a burden and threat to this country.
 
Tamara hit the nail on the head.

My grandparents and mom came from central Eurupe two years after WWII, they had to move to Canada for a little more than a year so that they could wait until getting a US visa. They weren't coming over to be welfare monkeys either - my grandfather was a Physicist and my grandmom a Chemist - it seems that creeping over the border is a much better proposition for those willing to do so.

Tom
 
Those who cross the border illegally..

need to be shot on sight. We need the Army on the border, and anyone who crosses illegally(on both borders) dies. No one will try then.

Next, re-instate Operation Wetback. Get them back accrossed the border. It worked then, it will work now. Scum don't have rights.

They are nothing but worthless dogs and scum. My family worked hard to become citizens of this country, as did most of our families. Its disgusting that we allow scummy dogs to ruin this great nation. They are sucking our nation dry. We allow them to pollute our schools, eat our food, and steal our money.

This is one issue I think President Bush is to much of a ninny to take on, he lacks the balls to stand up to the ACLU and their kommi ilk.
 
I'm going to disregard the ethics of "shooting wetbacks on sight" here for a second, and just pose a question to you.

How many soldiers do you think it takes to secure 6,000 miles of land border? (That's 2,000 miles of border with Mexico, and 4,000 with Canada. Add the convoluted coast lines on both east and west coast, and you're at well over 10,000 miles.)

I'll give you a pointer, just in case you're not familiar with the amount of front you can cover with a combat division.

You'd have to put every breathing body in the U.S. Army and the USMC on the borders, including the Reserves and the National Guard, and you still wouldn't have enough personnel to manage the task.

It is logistically impossible. You might as well discuss filling the Rio Grande with sharks that have frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

Even if you could do it, you'd have the combat divisions of the U.S. Armed Forces playing border guard indefinitely, with no chance to actually prepare for wars. How low do you think the enlistment rate would drop if all they get to do is patrol a stretch of desert and follow your orders to shoot unarmed civilians occasionally?

Now, please move the discussion back onto both workable and ethically supportable territory. Advocating the machine-gunning of trespassers just makes the board look like the Wannsee conference, and I greatly dislike it when people mess up the carpet in what is Rich's virtual living room.
 
well, I look at the border problem with two things in mind. One, that illegal immigrants are coming across our border looking for work. OK, fine. They need a place to raise a family. But they should have a better way (in Mexico and the US relations) of getting a family here on an extended work VISA to let them earn a decent living here while supporting the government in the country that they work for. Now, what percentage of illegal's be that are trying to avoid the law? And what about a terrorist coming across our border? Not that hard i suppose, seem like a lot of people do it daily. And what if you find a person on your border property? Do you have the right to bring about an escelation of force upon them (shooting, striking, detaining), or is that illegal and you must call the border patrol? too many questions are going unanswered. It seems like no one can come up with a compromise here. One logical answer would be for Mexico to better the economic situation there. A middle class needs to be created. An extremely low class and an extremely upper class do not make for easy times in a country.
 
People are fond of citing the "old days," how immigrants were a vital part of America's skeletal infrastructure, and then comparing those immigrants with today's illegal ones. What do you think they would've done with someone who had illegally gotten into our country in 1850 and expected to be treated as a legal citizen, or as ridiculous as it sounds, be treated BETTER than a legal citizen (with gratuitous handouts and whatnot)? I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it'd have something to do with a vat of hot black liquid and a few plucked fowl.
To just say, "oh well, the next generation will assimilate," is pie-in-the-sky thinking. When illegals have children - and they are VERY adept at that - those children are born into and reared in an atmosphere of entitlement; free healthcare, free schooling - all the way down to ATM's in spanish. From Day One, there is no incentive to put forth any effort for survival. Not that ALL children of illegal immigrants will fester in poverty and live off the rest of us, but I can't help but feel that a good portion will. I think that a family that comes here legally has a much better chance of raising good citizens than one that comes here illegally. Something about scruples.
Seriously, I'm dumbfounded that people can defend illegal immigration and contend that they aren't hurting our society.
Like Tamara said, clean up the mess and suddenly there's no need for Roach Motels.
 
As long as the incentives exist, they will come, regardless of how many border agents you hire. Remove the freebies, and the flow will slow down and bring only those willing to work to make their own way. Simple enough.
 
As long as the incentives exist, they will come, regardless of how many border agents you hire. Remove the freebies, and the flow will slow down and bring only those willing to work to make their own way. Simple enough.
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, politicians aren't in the business of doing what makes sense.
 
Marko, I agree with you....partially. Changing the way we do things here is the best option - it's also the most difficult and unlikely one.
As far as them getting in no matter how many people are guarding the border, why do you say that? What are they gonna do, parachute in? If we put more people on our borders, it WILL cut down on the number of illegals coming in. The Minute Men proved that in the region they were guarding. Obviously, the crooks could just go down the way and get through there, but the point is that the more people we have guarding the border, the fewer people will be tempted to cross it. The Mexicans have "preferred crossings" where they have forged trails and watering stations, etc. If we start with those spots, a percentage of them would be too discouraged to make an attempt elsewhere. To not even TRY to stop this is just too dismally flippant for my taste.
 
Hi, tj, the U.S. has a long history of illegal immigration. Heck, it was among the Bill of Particulars for TJ in the Declaration of Independence and the Crown bemoaned illegal immigration into KY and TN (darn illegals, tried to shoot them on sight). The nickname for TFL stronghold Oklahoma is derived from illegal immigration. Moreover, I, as well as many others here, are descended from illegal immigrants, from those of us from England that were declared Enemies of the Crown (that would be me) to Paper Sons (my friends).

Yesterday's immigrants, the Germans, the Greeks, the Jews, the Irish, the Italians, other Southern and Eastern Europeans (Slovaks, Czechs, Poles--"defeated men of defeated races"), the Chinese, the Koreans, Armenians etc. were all unable to assimilate, unable to become Americans. They were all declared parasites (O.K., maybe not the Germans) and aliens. How about now?

There were dozens of newspapers in German. Business catered to Germans. Public schools taught in German. Is anyone wringing their hands about those awful Germans?

If you remove the Welfare State, the Border Guards will complain about something else. The Welfare State is only a convenient hook to hang eye color concerns on.
 
Please close this thread. There's no way it's going to stay on topic. TheBlueMan summed it up perfectly in #4 below; his last post closing the thread.

Here are examples of where this thread will travel, and will likely have the same repetative comments as we've already seen, will see, and are likely by the same people:

Example #1

Example #2

Example #3

Example #4

Example #5
 
KS, thank you for your post. You have valid points, but it still (and always will) comes back to: doing something legally is much better than doing it illegally. There must be a price for breaking the law, and "free everything" ain't it.

Trip, I don't see that this thread is THAT off track. Also, I think that this thread is well-placed. The political board doesn't have to be firearms related. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top