Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Do Libertarians Support Open Borders?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    Yep. Or at the very least (and taking a more realistic look at the reality that at least for some time, welfare programs are nogoing anywhere), make welfare programs more strict to qualify, more short term and focusing ong etting people back on their feet, and most importantly, restricting it to only citizens.
    That begs the question, without any changes in government largesse, would you support 'open borders'?

    I can see looser immigration with tighter controls of welfare, but I don't see the latter ever happening.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Maranatha View Post

      That begs the question, without any changes in government largesse, would you support 'open borders'?

      I can see looser immigration with tighter controls of welfare, but I don't see the latter ever happening.

      personally I think it would actually encourage changes, if only because it would strain thesystem enough that the people used to getting their handouts would sit up and take notice that they arent getting it (or as much) anymore, and demand restrictions to it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post


        personally I think it would actually encourage changes, if only because it would strain thesystem enough that the people used to getting their handouts would sit up and take notice that they arent getting it (or as much) anymore, and demand restrictions to it.
        But it just seems like the government is in a "print more money" phase, and nobody really seems concerned about that.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

          That is correct.

          https://www.libertarianism.org/colum...t-open-borders

          https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

          there are certainly some that don't but a large enough majority do, that it's part of the party platform as seen above(its not as divisive a party issue as abortion for example).
          Open borders will eventually lead to just eliminating countries and governments altogether and everyone will just be their own "country" - kinda of like a mad max movie. Total anarchy?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I saw this, and rather than derail a thread, thought it was worth it's own thread...

            Is this true? Do "many" libertarians support "open borders", and what does that mean?
            I do not.

            One or the other has to give: Generous welfare/social programs - or - open borders. A country can't have both and expect to maintain any semblance of quality of life. Since the former is complicated and difficult to control, controlled immigration is the obvious answer.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post

              Open borders will eventually lead to just eliminating countries and governments altogether and everyone will just be their own "country" - kinda of like a mad max movie. Total anarchy?
              Not particularly. Countries would certainly still exist, as would governments, and citizenship.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                That is correct.

                https://www.libertarianism.org/colum...t-open-borders

                https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/

                there are certainly some that don't but a large enough majority do, that it's part of the party platform as seen above(its not as divisive a party issue as abortion for example).
                Hrm, this is a more radical position than I remember the LP's platform having. It must have been amended at some point.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  Open borders will eventually lead to just eliminating countries and governments altogether and everyone will just be their own "country" - kinda of like a mad max movie. Total anarchy?
                  I believe that the United States had open borders for the first 100 or so years of its existence (unless you want to count bans on slave importation. The first federal law to create any restrictions on immigration was passed in 1875, the Page Act. Clearly, this did not have the function of eliminating countries and governments altogether during that time period.

                  In fact, the United States to this day has open borders insofar as the borders between states. Obviously, there has been no elimination of state governments and the states have continued to exist. Obviously there is a difference between countries and states, but the point is that the ability to travel freely between states has not led to the existence of the states being eliminated.

                  One final consideration is that of citizens and residents. Citizens have rights and privileges that residents do not. Open borders may allow people to freely enter the country and be a resident, but it does not freely grant them citizenship, which (for an adult) requires one to have been a permanent resident for several years. So long as this continues to be true, countries and governments are inherently not eliminated because the citizenship distinction requires them to exist.

                  I am not in favor of open borders myself but I do not think that open borders would cause the situation you describe.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    I believe that the United States had open borders for the first 100 or so years of its existence (unless you want to count bans on slave importation. The first federal law to create any restrictions on immigration was passed in 1875, the Page Act. Clearly, this did not have the function of eliminating countries and governments altogether during that time period.

                    In fact, the United States to this day has open borders insofar as the borders between states. Obviously, there has been no elimination of state governments and the states have continued to exist. Obviously there is a difference between countries and states, but the point is that the ability to travel freely between states has not led to the existence of the states being eliminated.

                    One final consideration is that of citizens and residents. Citizens have rights and privileges that residents do not. Open borders may allow people to freely enter the country and be a resident, but it does not freely grant them citizenship, which (for an adult) requires one to have been a permanent resident for several years. So long as this continues to be true, countries and governments are inherently not eliminated because the citizenship distinction requires them to exist.

                    I am not in favor of open borders myself but I do not think that open borders would cause the situation you describe.
                    You forgot the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to free white people who could obtain citizenship after living here for two years. Additional limitations were added five years later requiring any immigrant to renounce any allegiance to any foreign head of state or government (no dual citizenship) as well as prohibiting British citizens who fought against the U.S. during the Revolutionary War and increased the residency period to five years.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      You forgot the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to free white people who could obtain citizenship after living here for two years. Additional limitations were added five years later requiring any immigrant to renounce any allegiance to any foreign head of state or government (no dual citizenship) as well as prohibiting British citizens who fought against the U.S. during the Revolutionary War and increased the residency period to five years.
                      The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a setting of requirements for United States citizenship (being a "free white person" was one of the requirements for citizenship that it set). It set no restrictions on immigration.
                      Last edited by Terraceth; 01-19-2021, 07:05 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        Hrm, this is a more radical position than I remember the LP's platform having. It must have been amended at some point.
                        Nope my dude, it's been that way (not that exact wording, but words of the same meaning) since 1976 (they formed for the 72 election, so that was added in on the second platform they ever had). https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:National_Platform_1976
                        We should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted travel and immigration.
                        Definitely ain't remotely new. Hell, even early libertarian thinkers before the party was ever a twinkle in anyone's eye, like Locke and Von Mises wrote about right to freedom of movement between countries/immigration.

                        Originally posted by Locke
                        It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father's tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman's son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father's being a subject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the same liberty, though he be born any where else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the same, where-ever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations, are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and commonwealths.
                        Originally posted by Von Mises
                        There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                          Nope my dude, it's been that way (not that exact wording, but words of the same meaning) since 1976 (they formed for the 72 election, so that was added in on the second platform they ever had). https://lpedia.org/wiki/Document:National_Platform_1976
                          No, it was definitely less radical. Here's the platform from 2016 that I was remembering:
                          https://www.lp.org/wp-content/upload...tform-2016.pdf

                          And it says this on immigration:

                          "Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property."

                          Contrast this with the current platform:

                          "Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life... Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."

                          To be fair, perhaps "less radical" is not the right term, and "less explicitly radical" would be. The phrase "individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government" is ambiguous and could be interpreted in the manner of the current platform or in a more moderate manner of thinking there should be restrictions but they should be lenient.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            For reference, here is the full text of the Naturalization Act of 1790.

                            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.


                            As I noted, this is entirely concerning the process of gaining citizenship. It puts no restrictions on immigration. The same is true for the 1795 act, which is longer so I will not include it in my post, but its text (along with that of the the 1790 act) can be found here.

                            The federal government was, in fact, prohibited from doing any real restricting of immigration by the Constitution itself prior to 1808 ("The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.") Now, the reason for this inclusion was that it prevented the federal government from enacting any laws banning the slave trade until then, but its wording functionally prohibits the US government from enacting immigration restrictions prior to 1808.
                            Last edited by Terraceth; 01-19-2021, 07:30 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                              No, it was definitely less radical. Here's the platform from 2016 that I was remembering:
                              https://www.lp.org/wp-content/upload...tform-2016.pdf

                              And it says this on immigration:

                              "Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property."

                              Contrast this with the current platform:

                              "Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life... Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense."

                              To be fair, perhaps "less radical" is not the right term, and "less explicitly radical" would be. The phrase "individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government" is ambiguous and could be interpreted in the manner of the current platform or in a more moderate manner of thinking there should be restrictions but they should be lenient.
                              Or perhaps more accurately - they have become more clear and precise on what they've meant.

                              There's litearlly zero difference between the two practically, just one is more flat out in saying it. Your first quote very clearly says 'unrestricted movement' which is open borders.

                              And as my 1976 quote says straight up: "recognizing the right to unrestricted travel and immigration."

                              Open borders has always been part of the platform, with various ways of saying it. That's 45 years now.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                1. They can become citizens after going through a naturalization process, etc. Much like we have now.
                                2. I'd definitely support that - some decent amount of civic volunteering or military service couldn't say, get them to the front of the line of the citizenship process.
                                3. Nope. Not until (or if) they become citizens.
                                4. No, I favor ending welfare programs as well, but even if we dont we need straight up long term citizenship requirements.
                                What do you mean by ending welfare programs?
                                Social Security disability benefits?
                                Food stamps?
                                Unemployment insurance?
                                Medicaid?
                                CHIP health insurance for children?

                                If all programs benefiting the poor were ended, how would they manage, especially the sick, disabled, children, elderly...?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X