Thread: Libertarians In Name Only (Open Borders Utopianism)

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

This was the part that most people did not understand about Ron Paul

He believed that if you get rid of all welfare , the illegals wouldn't come.

In a sense he may be right to an extent , Our handouts and freebies to illegals at this point in time are out of control.There is no doubt that is why a lot of them come , That is how they also can afford to send billions back to their home countries.

Without the freebies I doubt many of them could afford to live in Calif or any other state for that matter.

I don't think that Paul believed that cutting off welfare would get rid of all illegals. I think he believes that so long as they are not on the welfare roles, they are acceptable. Paul believed that if you cut off welfare, the undesirable illegals would not come. It would narrow down our illegals to only those coming for work, which would be acceptable in Paul's libertarian perspective. He was agianst the 2007 amnesty bill because it allowed illegals to stay on welfare, and get citizenship. Paul opposed that, but even if we cut them off of welfare, he believed that "We need laborers," and would support a "generous work program" for them.

Employment is the #1 magnet for illegal immigration.

If we only cut off welfare, and not employment it will only deal with a portion of the problem. Some of the families of working males will leave, while some will stay, and almost ALL of the working males will stay. They will not go back to Mexico to make 1/10 what they make here, simply because they are no longer receiving welfare. Most libertarians would accept this scenario, because they believe in the free movement of people and capital across international boundaries. And they believe in unregulated, unrestricted, laissez faire capitalism, which open immigration is representative of.

Cutting off only social services would get rid of a number of them. Cutting off jobs would get rid of almost ALL of them. But they BOTH need to be done. I can not support a politician, party, or political philosophy that rejects employer sanctions.

We as a country will never cut off all welfare. Never. Especially to the elderly, disabled and children. So the illegals will continue to cash in on the deal no matter what. The husbands/fathers incomes cannot be verified because of multiple ID's, several last names, and payments in cash. Our country will not let them starve, nor should we, as long as they should legally be here. And they will continue to come here, bring disabled mama and her brother who is in poor health for free ER treatment.

Paul's idea is like Obama's foreign policy program, just be nice to our enemies and they won't attack us. How's that working for us?

I think we can cut off welfare fully at some point. I think doing so is actually a mainstream middle class supported idea. Of course we need to retake the legislature fully from all long termers with real people who have worked real jobs.

But keep in mind things like medicare and SS are not welfare. People actually did pay into them. Now SS I don't see going anywhere but I do see reform comming going back to the rules that have been broken many times. SS and medicare will go back to its original intent which was to be assistance to elderly, but NOT there entire retirement plan. SS and Medicare were never meant to be a persons entire plan just an extra cherry on top... especially medicare.

I do think however with the economy getting better in 3-4 years if we get a good president who thinks of the middle class and replace more of the long timers in the lesgislature with such like tea party candidates we could in the interests of the people drop welfare completely. After all its what 90%+ non workers w/o any disability?

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

I think we can cut off welfare fully at some point. I think doing so is actually a mainstream middle class supported idea. Of course we need to retake the legislature fully from all long termers with real people who have worked real jobs.

But keep in mind things like medicare and SS are not welfare. People actually did pay into them. Now SS I don't see going anywhere but I do see reform comming going back to the rules that have been broken many times. SS and medicare will go back to its original intent which was to be assistance to elderly, but NOT there entire retirement plan. SS and Medicare were never meant to be a persons entire plan just an extra cherry on top... especially medicare.

I do think however with the economy getting better in 3-4 years if we get a good president who thinks of the middle class and replace more of the long timers in the lesgislature with such like tea party candidates we could in the interests of the people drop welfare completely. After all its what 90%+ non workers w/o any disability?

I understand where GaPatriot is coming from. Cutting off welfare would be extremely difficult under current circumstances. IMO, before that can even be remotely approached, and AGRESSIVE campaign must be launched to create a huge amount of working class jobs that pay a livable wage. Ending outsourcing and illegal immigration would be a start. There must be a concerted effort to re-build our manufacturing indusrty, investing in high-tech, energy conserving cars, where we can have a comparative advantage.
Obama claims he wants to do this, but its BS.

He already had a golden opportunity with GM, and did not take advantage. When GM was begging the government for a bail-out, Obama could have used leverage over the desperate company by saying, "OK, you can get your bail-out money, but with stipulations: the money MUST be invested in AMERICA, and most of it MUST go to high tech, energy conserving cars." Hell, even back during the bail-out, that was my plan. And Obama did nothing but hand them money, which they invested in creating jobs with Mexico.

Anyway, under current circumstances it is impossible to end welfare. Cutting off welfare would reveal the real inadequacies of the system. The elites use it as a means of keeping their cheap labor structure intact. And to keep their slave labor system, they choose welfare over social unrest, upheaval, chaos, and rebellion.

The subject of entitlement reform is too broad to discuss at any length here. Suffice it to say, I don't think that we'll be seeing massive curtailment of social welfare spending any time in the near future, which is why the subjects of limiting immigration growth and proactive immigration enforcement are so important.

I've already received comments in response to my essay from two typical anarcho-libertarians who don't believe we should have any defined borders. Now, if you believe in anarchy, then I don't think you can call yourself a libertarian. So "right wing" open borders advocates have two choices:

1. Either abandon the pretense that you're in favor of limited govermnent,

or

2. Realize that you can't return to the original, limited government this nation's founders envisioned while opening up our doors to millions of unskilled immigrants from semi-socialist or socialist nations.

Originally Posted by Shapka

The subject of entitlement reform is too broad to discuss at any length here. Suffice it to say, I don't think that we'll be seeing massive curtailment of social welfare spending any time in the near future, which is why the subjects of limiting immigration growth and proactive immigration enforcement are so important.

I've already received comments in response to my essay from two typical anarcho-libertarians who don't believe we should have any defined borders. Now, if you believe in anarchy, then I don't think you can call yourself a libertarian. So "right wing" open borders advocates have two choices:

1. Either abandon the pretense that you're in favor of limited govermnent,

or

2. Realize that you can't return to the original, limited government this nation's founders envisioned while opening up our doors to millions of unskilled immigrants from semi-socialist or socialist nations.

Your response to those libertarians was good, and you have made your points very clear. Even Milton Freidman said that you can't have open immigration with a welfare state. That is essentially the policy of Ron Paul. Of course, their ultimate objective is to end welfare, and then throw the border open. As much as I vehemently disagree with them, I will at least acknowledge the consistency of their arguments as it pertains to their philosophy. That is much better than what Wilkinson has shown, as well as the libertarians that have responded to you so far.

The idea that you can have a vast welfare state and unfettered immigration makes sense if you're trying to destroy the state and reshape it into some sort of Marxist paradise, a la Frances Fox Piven or Van Jones. Even that is unworkable, but as a means of undermining the United States it's a good strategy. What troubles me is that this line of reasoning is adopted by purported libertarians, you see it especially in places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, with folks like Jason Riley.

The Wilkinson position to me is Utopianism-and he admits as much in his pieces for the Economist-so I don't see how he's any different from the fanatical Obama supporters or Piven in that respect.