Comments on: UPDATED: Do Immigration Laws Violate Libertarian Axiom?

By: DENNIS

DENNIS — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:11:46 +0000

I am in agreement with Daniel. The points he notes are very, very important. I believe that the three aspects are the three legs of a stool. Language is extremely important since words of one language do not translate, one-to-one, to another language. Please believe me, I have studied Latin, French, German, and dabbled with Japanese and Mandarin. Legal phraseology in the U.S. is different than in Canada or in England. Can anyone imagine how laws would be interpreted if any language was acceptable? Too many nuances, idioms, faux mots, colloquialisms, and slang – all of these would create the Tower of Babel.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:57:20 +0000

As far as I am concerned anarcho-libertarianism is a dead end, like every other pie-in-the-sky utopia ideology. The preservation of our language, culture, and borders (to borrow a talking point from Michael Savage) is essential and anyone that says otherwise is a participant to the destruction of our civilization (that would include the liberal Democrats, the Republican establishment, and most self-proclaimed libertarians).

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:18:40 +0000

Hey, I wear boots on my nude motorcycle runs, that little shifter hurts my big toe otherwise. “Immigration restrictions require the use of aggression against non-aggressors” spoke the truth. When a person trespasses on another person’s property (The US is the property of US Citizens)that is an act of aggression, no matter if it’s a drug mule or a two year old toddler, it is still a trespass. If one says that the person being trespassed on has no right to defend his property, he or she concedes ownership to the trespasser. That does not sound like any kind of a Libertarian to me.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:20:07 +0000

Many of our Classical Liberal Founders were members of the first congress who in 1790 passed the first naturalization act. I don't think there is anything to be ashamed of in defining borders and who can and cannot become members. On a somewhat related topic, I recently learned about the new Indo-Bangladeshi barrier. This is a 2500 mile, $2 billion, 10 foot fence being built along India's border with Bangladesh. It is intended to prevent, among other things, large scale illegal migration. Note the size of this project is similar to what would be required along our southern border which is supposedly too big to guard. If the world's largest democracy can build a fence, why can't we?

By: james huggins

james huggins — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:41:30 +0000

Even after all this time I still don’t know that much about Libertarianism but I do know that the total free access to a country’s border is a disaster in the making. Maybe if all people in all nations saw the human experience the same and had the same wants and needs it might work. In the real world it aint gonna happen. Free borders are a concept bordering, pardon the pun, on stupidity.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:59:16 +0000

I am a classical liberal and not an anarcho-libertarian. However, an absence of “government” might indeed “work” in a county-sized monolithic community such as the Amish, Hassidim, Mormons, or even Pushtuns. The commonality of ethics, beliefs, community interest, and morals might be able to resolve disputes in the absence of a panoply of lawyers, taxes, police and “government”. Likewise, tzedakah (care of the sick, blind, retarded) could be handled by the community without the mechanisms of mass compulsion and a 5000 page IRS codebook.

One thing that this anarchist county would need, however, is a BORDER or boundary. To mix the community (Amish, Hassidim…) up with Haitian voodoo practitioners, nude motorcycle alcoholic gangs, lesbian militants, or whatever would destroy that cohesion. I fail to see what libertarian principle would require that community to mix with a completely foreign culture.

Currently, America has a welfare state, public roads, labor/affirmative-action laws (providing employer incentives to hire “illegals”), and family/birthright immigration preferences. We have an extremely poor Third-World neighbor caught in an American-induced drug war with American imported guns. A secure border would benefit both sides. In LIBERTARIAN-UTOPIA, such a border might be superfluous but that is not today’s reality.

By: Van Wijk

Van Wijk — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:10:28 +0000

In The Camp of the Saints (spoilers ahead) the Indian immigrants who are the main antagonists of the novel are armed with nothing but their will to sail to Europe. Upon their arrival at Marseilles, a handful of French soldiers fire on them, but the majority do not. As a result, the Indians are able to disembark successfully and Europe is lost. An army doesn't need rifles or mortars if it has White Guilt. And a mass of foreigners armed with White Guilt and bent on colonization is no less an army than the one currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be gunplay on the border. Ironically, the federals have brought us one step closer to that outcome with their latest activist ruling. Invest in lead.