First of all, thank you for providing the link to the Immigration Position Paper for the Libertarian Pary. I was able fo find the quotations.
Second, reading the actual position paper, I can only conclude that you were being misleading when you claimed in post #86 that: “The Libertarian position on immigration is actually quite a bit more “conservative” than the position any Republican politician has taken.”
If you read the position paper and the party platform, you find that the Libertarian Positions are:
- A virtual fence so immigrants would be encouraged to use formal border crossing locatations.
- The only restrictions on immigration would be background checks and a physical. In fact, the position paper you quoted still includes this statement: “The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America.”
So, in your opinion, ‘free and open immigration’ is the conservative position?
Also, in post #86, you posted this statement: “First off, no Libertarian I know of is advocating illegal immigration when they advocate reducing restrictions on where and how people can travel and work.”
It should be clear at this point that the Libertarian position on immigration is essentially the same as the proposed amnesty bill recently shot down by real conservatives because it solved the illegal immigration problem by making all immigration legal. And, yet, you claim this is the ‘more conservative positions’.
You also state in #86, this: “”Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, Social Security, health care, business subsidies, and the public schools.” implying that the solution to our immigration problems is in denying welfare to immigrants. But we find in the Libertarian Position paper you referenced that you failed to include the next sentence which reads: “ I would argue, first, that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition.” One can only conclude that the statements you partially included have nothing to do with an attempt to solve the immigration problem.
Yes, you were ‘misleading’.
Yes, you were ‘misleading’.
Somehow you think that quoting from the Libertarian web site as a way of explaining their position is misleading, and you still insist on twisting their positions -- like claiming that advocating more open legal immigration, including securing the border and requiring background checks, etc. for immigrants is equivalent to supporting illegal immigration.
One can only conclude that the statements you partially included have nothing to do with an attempt to solve the immigration problem.
It is clear to me that you are determined to find fault with whatever ideas are proposed by the Libertarians.
But what I don't get is why you reject out of hand the ideas they propose for allowing increased levels of immigration, but where the immigrants and their descendants are not eligible for any government services. You claim that isn't a "conservative" position, so presumably as a result you believe it is a "liberal" position. Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't expect a Democratic Party member to sponsor a bill to cut off government services to immigrants (legal and illegal). Interestingly conservative Republicans have proposed cutting off government services to illegal immigrants - not going as far as the Libertarians propose, but implementing one of the steps they call for in their platform. So how is it misleading to point out, as I posted previously, that some of the Libertarian ideas are more conservative in nature than the ideas being promoted by politicians who call themselves conservative?