Replies

The Libertarian position from what I can gather is the total free movement of people, across national boundaries. They believe, like the Wall St. Journal that business should be able to hire whoever they choose, that's total a free market philosophy.

They try to balance this insanity by saying that of course for this to work we must do away with all welfare and government benefits. Everyone in the world should be allowed in, they just won't get anything for their efforts from the taxpayer.

The big problem with this thinking is well, their kids still have to go to school, who's going to pay for that? And what if they get sick and can't afford hospital care? Are going to let them die in the street? Of course not. Just these expenses alone would add up to billions of dollars, but the Libertarians continue on that their "plan" is workable. It is not, and that's why during election time they get about 05% of the vote if that.

As long as they keep open borders in their platform, they will always be an insignificant force in the elections.

Thank you for the reply. I had a feeling that's what they meant. That's a shame. I'll have to keep looking for a Party I can live with.

I should mention that even though Libertarians don't do well at the polls, they do still manage to find their way into government. INS chief Ziglar is a professed Libertarian, who just mentioned recently that because of his philosophy he finds it difficult to carry out the mission of the agency.

Incredible!! Then we wonder why we have 10 million+ illegals in this country.

[As long as they keep open borders in their platform, they will always be an insignificant force in the elections]

Yep, they should do like the GOP dies: make no mention of support for open borders in the platform, then pursue it as policy once elected. ;-)

The big problem with this thinking is well, their kids still have to go to school, who's going to pay for that? And what if they get sick and can't afford hospital care? Are going to let them die in the street? Of course not.

Another huge problem with the WSJ's open borders idiocy is that new immigrants vote these days (another outrage for another time) and they invariably vote for more socialism. Something directly at odds with the WSJ's economic views. In other words, unlimited immigration (especially 3rd world) is in direct conflict with conservative ideology. While this is so clear to most conservatives it is a point that is continually lost on the neo-con continent within the republican ranks. Though I suspect some of these open border neo-cons like Bush have different ideas about U.S. Sovereignty than most Americans have.