Posted on 11/17/2009 9:54:20 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
On April 16 in NRO, Daniel T. Griswold, the head of immigration policy for the libertarian Cato Institute attacked National Review complaining that in three "consecutive" issues, "anti-immigrant crusaders," including John O'Sullivan and Mark Krikorian, have "pushed every button to whip up hostility to immigration." Let us ignore the nasty smears....focus on Griswold's substantive position.
Near the end of the NRO article Griswold insists that he is not for "open borders," but his record suggests otherwise. A story in the Christian Science Monitor (August 30, 2000) by Scott Baldauf is particularly revealing. Baldauf describes a new project of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Border Patrol that specifically targets highly sophisticated criminal smuggling rings that employ infrared scopes, two-way radios, and computer databases. The project goes after smugglers associated with organized crime rather than simply individuals who cross the border illegally.
These criminal gangs have done enormous damage. One gang, headed by Mexican criminal Nick Diaz smuggled about 12,000 foreigners, most of them from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and India, into the United States. These illegal immigrants paid $20,000 a piece to be placed in safe houses in 38 different states. Senator Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) praised the new INS/Border Patrol initiative. So too, did Judy Marks, a spokeswoman for the National Immigration Forum, a left-wing advocacy group, that nearly always opposes any form of border control.
But not Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute. Instead, Griswold specifically attacked the new Border Patrol initiative that targets organized crime. Scott Baldauf records Griswold's response as follows: "Noting the INS's new strategy, he sighs, 'It's just another example of government trying to stop people from doing something that is natural, to better their conditions.'" In addition, Baldauf quotes Griswold as declaring: "The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration; it's that it's illegal."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Open border Libertarians are just as bad as OBL Republicans.
Btw, 9 May 2002 article, and the border is still not secure.
I hate this guy’s statement being declared orthodox libertarianism. Hayek is a much better source and Hayek’s position is laid out in this article.
You cannot have external free market contacts with another economy that does not have a free market internally. That goes for immigration as well. If Mexicans and South Americans lived in open, free and free market societies, they wouldn’t have to escape to ours.
Instead of escaping, of course, they are just bringing their problematic outlook to our society, trying to destroy the very society and markets that they came to enjoy.
“Open border Libertarians are just as bad as OBL Republicans.”
Libertarians are much worse, here is the “Complete Platform Text” of the 2004 Libertarian Party Platform from the “Individual Rights and Civil Order” section, stating their position on immigration.
IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”
Exactly. Friedman is a classic libertarian, not one of these new-fangled libertards who have tried to use a label to legitimize themselves. I hate the title “Dogmatic Libertarians” when they aren’t espousing libertarian ideals.
I should be careful. I don’t disagree with open borders, I just disagree with them as the world is now. In theory, yes, they would work fine, but we have a long way to go before we’d be in a position to have them.
Which is essentially the Libertarian position. There would be no State operated welfare - none. No food stamps, no Section 8 housing, no free cars, no free electricity - nada, zip, zero.
In addition, people would regain their right of free association. Run a grocery store ? Don't want to sell to people who don't speak English ? You don't have to. (Of course, if you want all customers to speak Spanish, you could require that, too.)
But, those with phony Latin names don't bother to tell you that. It's more fun to bleat about "liberaltarians" and open borders.
What's the purpose of this post ? Telling half-truths about Libertarians ? Try telling the WHOLE truth for a change.
We will not get rid of the welfare state in my lifetime or my daughter's lifetime or my grandchildren's lifetime.
Awwww, somebody said something you didn’t like.
Get over it.
We will not get rid of the welfare state in my lifetime or my daughter's lifetime or my grandchildren's lifetime.
While I agree with you, I hope you're wrong on the last point.
Nawww, somebody told a half truth (old at that) in order to ridicule a point of view he doesn't like. Liberals do that.
Get over it.
I'm hoping one day you'll get over telling half truths and present arguments honestly, instead of setting up straw men. But I'm probably asking for too much.
Ahem. Since you have nowhere shown what this "half-truth" is, your statement is basically worthless. Assertion does not equal reason.
I'm hoping one day you'll get over telling half truths and present arguments honestly, instead of setting up straw men. But I'm probably asking for too much.
Again, would you like to show where Fonte was "dishonest" in his article? Or is it too much to ask you to move beyond hand-waving and argument from outrage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.