<p>As I read this thread and the other one, I keep thinking of DeanJ, who often reads this forum and imagine him slapping his head and saying "what have we done?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said I support penalizing American employers for employing immigrants. In fact, I believe that this is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean I can't support preventing the immigrants from arriving in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Firstly, is the Constitution necessarily the most libertarian contract? In the past, it has allowed slaves and the prohibition of suffrage to women ... so the Constitution isn't just by being the Constitution. Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists wonder whether the State is even necessary. </p>
<p>As a libertarian, you have been pretty inflexible about the nature of the State, and taken the existence of States as a given and you act all shocked when I put forth an argument that questions their existence. At this moment, many libertarians view the State as a necessary evil -- it's just problematic to get rid of it at this very moment, though we eventually want to work towards a stateless society. It being a necessary evil, there's no reason to endorse principles that would only augment and amplify that evil.</p>
<p>Again, why is the US "collective private property"? The US consists of a social contract among Americans, that also provides for a mutual defence and security ....</p>
<p>So thus, you may screen migrants for purposes of defence and security, public health and so forth -- but there is no libertarian basis for restricting immigration any more than that.</p>
<p>Even the site of the Libertarian Party you quoted to me supports my measure.</p>
<p>If you know of geolibertarians, you know one of their primary charges is that since land is a resource you cannot make more of, it is a special type of property that requires especially different treatment ... in this case, public land especially cannot be treated like collective private property.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must apologise for my behaviour in this thread. This is an issue that easily gets me worked up and angry (and I am normally a quiet person in real life), so I do have a tendency to reply as a knee-jerk reaction and "to the gut". So I have been more abrasive than I would like to be (in retrospect), especially to the posters who assert "X have no rights." Arguments about whether a group of people have legal rights or not can draw sharp reactions from me, so you must forgive me. </p>
<p>I think Ernie H has posted the most rational arguments of the opposition so far, so I ask him not to take my knee-jerk retorts personally as I know he has been the most patient of the posters so far. I am however a bit frustrated how he takes certain things as an unconditional given for libertarianism [other than its central tenets], such as the idea that we should continue working towards strengthening sovereign nation-states, rather than slowly working to break down national barriers. </p>
<p>Btw, I did use the issue of my left libertarianism for one of my essays, so maybe you can console yourself with the possibility that my school might have known what they were getting into.</p>
<p>Anyway, maybe I shall post a more coherent/cogent summary later. I'm going to take a break and walk under the stars. :)</p>
<p>last post for tonight</p>
<p>LP</a> News June 1998 - Libertarian Solutions: The benefits of open immigration</p>
<p>(by the Libertarian Party)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Firstly, is the Constitution necessarily the most libertarian contract? In the past, it has allowed slaves and the prohibition of suffrage to women ... so the Constitution isn't just by being the Constitution. Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists wonder whether the State is even necessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the courts' non-libertarian - and in some cases, flat-out wrong - interpretation of the constitution has allowed these things. The constitution is the be-all-and-end-all of American jurisprudence. Nobody is interested in doing away with it, and very few people are interested in changing it. And for the thousandth time, you are not using the term "libertarian" in the generally accepted manner. Libertarians do not want to work toward a completely stateless society; they just want to reduce the government's power. Just clarify that you are an anarchist, and everything will be fine!</p>
<p>The US is the collective private property of its citizens, because those citizens are taxpayers who are actively involved in establishing and maintaining the land/institutions in the US.</p>
<p>I am signing off as well. I really should be working on my final paper right now. No hard feelings, galoisien - I enjoyed debating you, and perhaps we can continue this discussion some other time.</p>
<p>Galosien, I wasn't being facetious when I told you that I hope you find a willingness to learn from other people when you get to college, along with some gratitude and joy. I meant those things and you would be wise to at least consider what I have said to you.</p>
<p>People need to relax the attitude that "what I perceive to be true is true." It's hard to comprehend what an immigrant goes through. Often that extra nine years it takes to immigrate legally is the difference between life and death.</p>
<p>Cultural and social reform, not political reform, can solve this problem. Make people (ie lawmakers at private universities) realize that kids are just kids. Even if they came here illegally they have a right to an education.</p>
<p>Ernie, although I think you have been winning this argument, I am afraid to ask your position on some other issues. You probably support free guns for all, abolition of welfare, etc...</p>