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?
“Somehow you think that quoting from the Libertarian web site as a way of explaining their position is misleading,”
I believe it is misleading to partially quote their positions especially when the next sentence following the quote you gave indicates that the Libertarian position is that denying immigrants benefits is not a solution to the immigration problem.
“...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.”
Never said it was equivalent. I said that it was not conservative and was more liberal than the ‘amnesty bill’ just rejected by the Senate.
For example, the Senate amnesty bill at least put limits on immigration. And, I’m hardly twisting their position when I point out the official Libertarian position from the paper you referenced calls for ‘free and open immigration’.
Nor am I distorting their position when I point out that their version of regulating the borders consists of a virtual fence to “encourage” immigrants to use official border crossings so that we might check their vaccination records.
“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?”
Simply because when you make statements like: “Seeing the whole story puts the idea of more open (but still regulated) borders in quite a different light. The Libertarian position on immigration is actually quite a bit more “conservative” than the position any Republican politician has taken.”, you grossly distort the Libertarian position. “More open”? The Libertarians would have “free and open” borders. “Regulated”? No limits on immigration is “regulated”. You might call these positions many things, but conservative is not one of them.
But you are correct, when the complete Libertarian position is fairly expressed it does put those positions in a “different light”.
“It is clear to me that you are determined to find fault with whatever ideas are proposed by the Libertarians.”
Quite the contrary. I find some Libertarian positions, especially on economic matters, quite compelling. I find their positons on defense and social issues, well, misguided at best.