Thread: Libertarian Republicans Split from National Party on Immigration

Libertarian Republicans Split from National Party on Immigration

RLC Los Angeles Calls on GOP to Rediscover Liberal Roots

REBECA MORLA FEBRUARY 26, 2015 AT 9:35 AM

Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Los Angeles County rose to national prominence late in 2014 with an appearance on the Glenn Beck Program. (LAC RLC)

The Los Angeles chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) has issued a stinging critique of immigration policy in the United States — targeting both the measures taken by President Barack Obama to address illegal migrants, and the stance of the GOP itself.

“When a staggering 52,000 kids (toddlers to teenagers) were detained by US Customs and Border Protection last summer, it was an unprecedented crisis in American history…. [Obama] actually gained popularity in his handling of the migrant/refugee situation. How could conservatives and Republicans drop the ball?” the briefing released on Sunday, February 22, asks lawmakers.

The article, titled “The Immigration Crisis Solved: A Liberty Republican View,” first appeared in Voices of Liberty, a media network promoted by former US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). It states that “not a single elected Republican voice of rationality offered the pro-liberty alternative,” and tasks liberty-conscious Republicans with “rais[ing] the level of the immigration crisis debate.”

Preventing “yet another unmanageable influx of migrants” should be a priority, the RLC chapter argues; but they reject policies such as the mass deportation of immigrants, or Obama’s “irresponsible allusions to amnesty” without deeper reform.

“So, what to do now?” it continues. “When pundits from all around are screaming at Washington, DC, ‘Don’t just stand there! Do something!’ that should trigger our collective instinct to reply, ‘No! Undo something!’”

Members of the Los Angeles chapter explain that the US federal government has been “ignoring the root of the problem,” by not seeing the presence of widespread illegality as a symptom of a greater disease. Current immigration policy, it suggests, amounts to little more than combining “federal mandates to provide welfare to illegals, with the violence in Central and South America exacerbated by the War on Drugs.”

Instead, the RLC emphasizes a “libertarian tradition” within the GOP that Republicans must “resurrect.”

Following the philosophy of key figures such as Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan leads to one inescapable conclusion, according to the Los Angeles-based Republicans: openness towards would-be migrants.

There’s a caveat, however: “Open borders doesn’t mean no borders. It doesn’t even necessarily mean no immigration laws.

It certainly doesn’t mean amnesty. What it means is recognition of human liberty and respect for the US Constitution,” the paper explains.

(LAC RLC / Facebook)

The RLC chapter assert that the US Constitution grants no specific authority to the central government to regulate immigration — although Article I Section 8 does note a uniform rule of naturalization — and that “every single person now on American soil who isn’t a criminal ultimately has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — altogether that’s the right to work.”

As a result, the group advocates for states taking the lead on proactive immigration reform, by offering residency and work permits to illegal immigrants.

Finally, the statement reads, “the key is understanding that government intervention in the economy and personal behavior has far-reaching consequences.”

“So let liberty Republicans lead the way to winning America a great deal. One based in free trade, free labor, and free markets that will focus on downsizing and abolishing the welfare state and War on Drugs.”

The GOP and Migration: An Evolving Tale

Nick Hankoff, chair of the Los Angles County Chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, argues that Republicans have lost their libertarian streak on migration relatively recently. The GOP “seemed to be transformed on the immigration issue sometime in the mid/late-90’s Rush Limbaugh era.”

“A lot of grassroots conservatives are very confused by the Us/Them mentality, so they forget that non-citizens actually were born with the same liberty, no more and no less, than people who were born in America. I’m still trying to understand the hostility to immigration in the GOP because it’s usually based on leftist logic,” he adds.

According to Hankoff, Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) have distinguished themselves by proposing liberty-oriented solutions regarding the immigration crisis. However, “the problem is ultimately any comprehensive immigration bill in Washington, DC, comes with a catch.”

“The better strategy is for states to become proactive and register immigrants on their own, blocking the federal government from deporting or entitling immigrants.”

Finally, Hankoff concluded that Obama’s biggest mistake on immigration is “his fundamental commitment to the status quo.”

“The War on Drugs, welfare state, and closed borders are our status quo, and those are his tools for fundamentally transforming America. That’s what leads to tens of thousands of refugees flowing in. Then, his proposal is to reform the immigrants, never the immigration system.”

http://panampost.com/rebeca-morla/20...n-immigration/

Oh my God, where to begin? They get part of it right and then screw it up with some notion that has nothing to do with liberty or Republicanism, they are direct quotes from Democrats.

Democrats started free trade in 1913 and instituted the non-free federal income tax to pay for it.

Democrats started free labor with massive immigration and illegal immigration and then stick US taxpayers using their non-free federal income tax to pay for it.

Republicans stand for protected/fair trade, because it's common sense for our businesses. If we don't protect our trade, we'll have trade deficits as we do now which means less business, less income and less jobs for US business and employees.

Hey Liberty Republicans and that includes you, Ron and Rand:

People In (immigration) + Jobs Out (free trade treason) = Bankrupt Nation

I've always found it helpful to educate oneself on a topic before you adopt a policy change that will destroy our economy and bankrupt our nation.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/libertarian-...market-297168/

To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place...


The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally...

Libertarian Party on Immigration

Eliminate all restrictions on immigration. (Jul 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/libertarian_party.htm

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

http://www.alipac.us/f9/libertarian-...market-297168/

To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place...


The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally...

Immigration is bad whether it's legal or illegal when a population reaches a certain level because of the adverse impact on the job market, housing, development, wages, government spending and natural resources to sustain the population successfully.

We reached that tipping point in the 1950's.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Libertarian Party on Immigration

Eliminate all restrictions on immigration. (Jul 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/libertarian_party.htm

The Libertarians are wrong on their immigration position. They have some other good positions, but they are wrong on both free trade and immigration. They have twisted thinking when it comes to these two issues. For example, they support free trade because it has the word "free" in it, not realizing that actual free trade is not free. The typical free trade agreement is over 2000 pages of rules and regulations governing the "free trade" between the countries involved. So free trade has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. Free trade means no tariffs, certainly not worth closing plants in the US, laying off American workers, spending taxpayer money to pay for the Trade Adjustment Act which provides some temporary income and retraining for laid-off workers, who usually can't find a job even with their retraining that paid as well as the one they lost to "free trade" because all the free immigrants will suck 'em up first.

Immigration control is a must, that's been known since the beginning of our country, whether the transportation of imported persons banned by Congress in 1794, or the importation of persons which Congress banned in 1808, the earliest date for such under the Constitution, or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1901, the Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan in 1907, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, and on and on and on.

The Liberty Republican group is correct when it states the Constitution granted the central government no authority to regulate immigration in the sense of admitting immigrants. However, it clearly granted the central government the authority to prohibit, ban or limit migration and importation of persons, which is why if the States make their argument under Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, they will win their case.

Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch have constitutional authority to admit a soul into the United States without the approval of the states. Congress has the right to ban migration, whether the states like it or not, but it does not have the authority to admit migrants on green cards and visas without the prior express permission of the legislatures of the States. The Executive Branch has no authority to admit even 1 immigrant to the United States without the express and specific statutory authority of both Congress and the States, only the authority to enforce a ban on migration by Congress. So green cards, visas, guest worker permits, work authorizations, all of it as being executed today by both Congress and the Executive Branch are 100% unconstitutional and beyond their legal authority.

Article 1, Section 9 - US Constitution

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.

I am a member of the NC RLC and most of our members here in NC would not agree with this article from the LA RLC, and while some do agree with the Libertarian Party on this subject, most do not. The reason we are Liberty REPUBLICANS is because most of us do not agree with the Libertarian Party on some key issues on which we DO agree with conservative Republicans. Immigration is one, abortion is another and there are more. Mostly, we want lower taxes, smaller government, and we want them to get out of our lives, and this is what we work toward. I think the NC RLC is much more conservative than either this LA group or true Libertarians. I don't know about the national RLC, but in NC, we must be registered republicans to be members of the group.

Libertarian Party

1.5 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

http://www.lp.org/platform

From NC RLC Caucas Website:

What is the RLC’s position on abortion?


Neutral. We have everything from pro-lifers to pro-choicers and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most “tolerant” of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally.

http://www.rlcnc.org/?page_id=2

imblest, the two positions of Libertarian and NC RLC read to be very similar, neutral which is actually the pro-choice pro-privacy position, which means up to the choice of the individual, not the government. Is that your understanding?

I'm very pleased to know about this group in North Carolina and wish our Republican Party as a whole would revise the National Platform to neutral on abortion. That's what it used to be and where it should return in my view. The Republican Party has made it very difficult for a lot of people who might be interested in running for office to do so under the Pro-Life position instead of the neutral or Pro-Choice position, and it's made it very difficult to impossible for a lot of Americans to join our party or vote for our candidates. I belong to another organization called Republican Majority for Choice that works to return our party to that neutral position.

So, according to the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee Donald Trump’s immigration policies are “…just racists.” Even though I believe in free enterprise and limited government, I can not stand libertarians because they are always saying really stupid things like that.

The libertarian party calls for the end of all restrictions on immigration. Thus they are fully in support of national suicide. A nation can not exists unless it controls whom and under what rules foreigners are allowed within its jurisdiction, otherwise it is just a geographical location on the map like the ”international waters” of the oceans. Unrestricted immigration will inevitably result in chaos. Who will be considered citizens and who will be allowed to vote to decide who will weld government power? The rejection of restrictions on immigration is a rejection of the concept of borders and the rejection of borders is the rejection of the nation state, and the rejection of a nation state is the rejection of the very idea of a government --unless one thinks of a one world government that will inevitably be a one world despotism. Why? Because of the 7 billion people on this planet the great majority are ignorant, illiterate in their own language with an average IQ of around 87 (the average Caucasian IQ is 100) 87 is really stupid. The great majority of humanity does not understand and is incapable of comprehending the concepts upon which a free society is made possible. That is what is happening now in Europe that has implemented the libertarian idea of unrestricted immigration. The Third World is destroying the First World. And a GENOCIDE of the Caucasian people and their superior culture is now occurring.

The libertarian concept of no immigration restrictions is a utopian, intellectual suicide and as dangerous as the most hardcore Marxists despot. The greatest human suffering has been caused by well meaning utopians.