Steve G.

Bob Barr’s extremely un-libertarian views on immigration

In Barack Obama, Immigration, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics on June 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The Libertarian Party’s stance on immigration is quite clear. Bob Barr, on the other hand, is far less libertarian than even the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to immigration.

From Third Party Watch:

The following is a campaign letter from Bob Barr:

John McCain and Barack Obama Plan To Bring Back “COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

From The Desk of Rep. Bob Barr

Dear Friend and Fellow American,

We’re facing a “new” crisis: BORDER SECURITY.

But really, this is the same crisis we faced last year at this time, when Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy tried to push their “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill on us—supported by Senator Barack Obama!

The American people were able to STOP the McCain-Kennedy bill—but will we be able to stop PRESIDENT McCain (or PRESIDENT Obama) from pushing it through again?

We need to send a strong message to both the Republicans AND the Democrats, to let them know that WE MEAN BUSINESS when it comes to securing the border!

A lack of border security allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.

That’s one of the reasons I’m running for President of the United States—and I need YOUR help to make sure every voter in America will have a chance to send that strong message to both parties! CLICK HERE to donate now.

Last week, there was a closed-door meeting between Republican presidential candidate John McCain and a group of Hispanics. There was NO media allowed—but it DID get reported. And what did the Associated Press report? That “John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected.”

It’s McCain-Kennedy all over again – and now that McCain has the GOP nomination “sewn up,” he’s ready to start pushing it again!

A conservative Hispanic lady named Rosanna Pulido, an original “Minuteman” who has worked hard for years to fight the “pro-illegal immigration” crowd, got into that closed-door meeting, and in her report quoted John McCain as saying, “I was proud to work for Comprehensive Immigration Reform… and if I am elected President I assure you that in 2009 I will ask Congress to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

Pulido went on to report, “John McCain talked about a debate he was in about enforcing the law, and he says that the ‘other side had a lot of rhetoric… you know what I am talking about!’”

The AP story says, “After the event, McCain met privately with Martin Sandoval, an Illinois state senator and Democratic convention delegate for former candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sandoval said he left open the possibility of backing McCain, citing his immigration stance and pledge to keep business taxes low.” Pulido calls him “the Godfather of the massive illegal alien movement in Illinois”—in fact, Sandoval serves on a MEXICAN government advisory council called the “Institute for Mexicans Abroad”!

This isn’t really NEW news—last month, McCain proclaimed in a speech in California, “Sen. [Edward] Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States. We must make it a top agenda item.”

Do YOU want to see McCain-Kennedy brought back to life—by either McCain OR Obama? We ALL need to stand up and say NO! Please, help me to make sure every voter in America will have a chance to send that strong message to both parties! CLICK HERE to donate now.

We don’t need McCain’s OR Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform” bills. What we DO need is to secure our borders NOW. The fact is, our government doesn’t HAVE an immigration policy right now—one day they want to build a fence, the next day they want to build a “virtual” fence. It changes daily, and it’s ineffective. What we need is simple: Let’s go back to how we USED to do it, when we had a REAL border. If people want to enter America, we require them to come through a checkpoint, check that their health is not dangerous to our citizens, and that they have a legitimate ID.

No lack of border security. No “smoke and mirrors” immigration policies. No promises to supporters of illegal immigration that you’ll re-introduce “comprehensive immigration reform.”

It sounds pretty simple. But if we don’t ACT QUICKLY, the only choice Americans will have in the voting booth this November will be between the co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill, and his fellow Senator that voted “YES” on that bill!

WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. I need YOUR help to make sure every voter in America will have a REAL choice for this election, and NOT just “McCain/Obama” or “Obama/McCain” and their “comprehensive immigration reform” tricks! CLICK HERE to donate now.

During my time in Congress, I was a strong advocate of border security. For four years in a row, I voted to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control efforts. Our overworked, understaffed Border Patrol Agents need all the help they can get, and I voted to send them that help in preventing the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.

Don’t the voters in America deserve the chance to vote for a candidate that will secure our border?

And what about all of the other issues where McCain and Obama agree—like in-state tuition for illegal aliens, and giving social security benefits to illegal aliens? Since when did the U.S. Constitution authorize a “nanny state” to dole out taxpayer money to lawbreakers?

It is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

Apparently, not all of our politicians believe that. But I do.

This issue is one of the most important national security issues facing America today. An insecure border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity. We must recognize the fundamental problem—a complete breakdown of respect for immigration laws in this country prompted by an utter failure to enforce those laws.

Don’t the voters in America deserve the chance to vote for the rule of law in our country—and send a strong message to ALL of those politicians in Washington, D.C.?

I believe they DO —but I need YOUR help to make sure every voter in America will have a chance to send that strong message to Washington! CLICK HERE to donate now.

John McCain and Barack Obama don’t want you to have that choice. So right now, this month, one important thing MUST be done to give American voters a chance—and a choice. And that is making sure I get on all 50 state ballots.

Most Americans are not even aware that ballot access laws exist in our country, or how difficult it can be for third party or independent candidates just to get their name on the ballot.

Right now, I have ballot access in only 30 states. The rest of the states must be fought for by a combination of gathering signatures, paying fees and filing paperwork—AND a few legal battles.

For example, Oklahoma is the hardest state for me right now. In the 2004 election, Oklahoma voters weren’t offered any choice at all. No third party or independent candidate was on the ballot—in fact, they’ve rigged the election rules in Oklahoma so you can’t even write in a candidate’s name!

To get my name on the ballot in Oklahoma, we’re now going to need to go to court to FIGHT for it!

We’re already facing an expensive legal battle in Oklahoma—and there’s more coming. To get access in the remaining 20 states, and to pay the costs for the states we’ve gained ballot access in, we’re going to need to raise $310,000.

That’s a lot of money—but that’s what it will take for us to be able to offer a strong choice to American voters this fall.

I believe that you share my concern about our dangerous lack of border security. I believe that you agree that this is a national security crisis. And I believe that, like me, you want to send a strong message to the politicians who have been pandering to the supporters of compromised security for too long now. The best way to do that today is by helping to get me on every state ballot, so that I can challenge the Washington “status quo” on illegal immigration and border security. CLICK HERE to donate now.

I’m not asking you to vote for me right now. I’m just asking you to help me send a strong message to BOTH the Republicans and Democrats, that the American people are sick and tired of politicians playing games with the national security of the United States.

Help me to turn things around in this presidential campaign, and put the focus back where it should be—on America.

Sincerely,

Bob Barr
Presidential Nominee
United States Libertarian Party

P.S. John McCain is scheduled to address the annual “La Raza” convention in July, making him the first Republican to do so. La Raza (Spanish for “The Race”) is a controversial “Hispanic rights” group that has been roundly criticized for its pro-illegal immigration advocacy.

Is that the message we need to be sending? Of course not! I need to get on all fifty state ballots to make sure that we ALL have the opportunity to express our opposition to the out of control, power seeking, power hungry, big government Republican AND Democratic politicians who are trying to throw border security out the window—and drive our great country into the ground. Thank you for YOUR help in giving us all that opportunity.

________________________________________________

LFV Update: Independent Political Report was contacted by La Raza, and posted the following correction to facts alleged in Bob Barr’s letter:

John McCain will not be “the first Republican” to address an annual La Raza convention, nor even the first high-profile Republican to do so — unless you consider Karl Rove, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush to be of a lesser stature than McCain.

About these ads
  1. This letter strikes me as pretty consistent with Ron Paul’s position on immigration. In fact, Ron Paul would go a step further and ban birthright citizenship.

    Is Ron Paul unlibertarian?

  2. Brian, rather than continually trying to compare Barr to a presidential candidate that’s been out of the race for weeks, why don’t you actually try to defend Barr on these issues? Yes, Ron Paul was bad on abortion and immigration, but he at least made a libertarian defense of his views (protecting the unborns’ lives and preventing the welfare state from becoming worse, respectively). Barr is bad on not only abortion and immigration, but also on taxes, money, foreign policy, the drug war, etc. Comapring him to Paul on issues where the latter is weak does not make Barr a libertarian.

  3. I’m not defending Barr on these issues.

    I fundamentally disagree with Barr on these issues.

    However, I brought up the same issues about Ron Paul over a year ago, and got slammed by the same people who are now lecturing the LP ticket and Libertarians about “principles.”

    So I am just asking those people to explain those “principles” and what they mean, because I’m not seeing them… and after all, the “revolution” was all about principle, right?

  4. Barf not libertarian? I’m shocked! SHOCKED!

  5. Is Ron Paul unlibertarian?

    Is Ron Paul running as a Libertarian?

  6. I fundamentally disagree with Barr on these issues.

    Yet you continue to be a Barf apologist.

  7. This is pretty much Badnarik’s immigration policy of 2004.

  8. Chris Moore Says:
    June 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    This is pretty much Badnarik’s immigration policy of 2004.

    Wrong. Badnarik openly acknowledged a change in “policy” for his congressional campaign in 2006, so it may be close to Badnarik’s stance on immigration in 2006, but not at all like his 2004 stance, when he was running for president.

  9. I still don’t understand why it is OK for Badnarik and Paul to be anti-libertarian on this issue — with anyone criticizing them being shouted down by the LP Amen Gallery… while Barr is getting criticized by the same Amen Gallery.

    Frankly, I think the stance is appalling regardless of who has taken it. I don’t understand the double standard.

    Surely *someone* can explain it?

  10. Wrong. Badnarik openly acknowledged a change in “policy” for his congressional campaign in 2006, so it may be close to Badnarik’s stance on immigration in 2006, but not at all like his 2004 stance, when he was running for president.

    No. You’re wrong. I very clearly remember anti-illegal immigration ads produced by Arron Russo that ran in New Mexico during the 2004 presidential campaign. I also remember a scathing article written by Starchild about Badnarik’s immigration position.

    This is also pretty much Kubby’s immigration position, though Barr’s contains more disturbing rhetoric (which will probably help with fundraising from the Ron Paul crowd).

  11. Brian,

    Some people vocally disagreed with Paul on this issue and now are doing the same with Barr. Some people didn’t express much opinion about Paul because he was running in another Party’s primary (I am in that category, for the most part). Some people said “Hey, for a Republican he’s pretty OK.” Some people said Paul was a saint and now say Barr is an ass.

    Why do you continue to harp on *just the last category*? What’s your _point_? If your entire point is that some _individuals_ are not consistent, that’s hardly news. And frankly I’m not sure what the point of mentioning it over and over again is.

    Hell, if Barr was running as a Republican (and Paul wasn’t) I’d probably watch his race with mild and fairly sympathetic interest – or not watch it all, whichever. But since he’s running as the standardbearer for my Party, I’m wanting to see him ACT as the standardbearer, and this Minuteman crap is not what I consider getting the job done.

  12. Why do you continue to harp on *just the last category*?

    Because so many “radicals” who supported Ron Paul are jumping down my throat about principle — yet would have enthusiastically supported Paul had he sought the nomination in the LP itself. Let’s not kid ourselves here.

    since he’s running as the standardbearer for my Party, I’m wanting to see him ACT as the standardbearer

    The irony, which I am ultimately driving at, is that the Big-L Libertarian embrace (and excuses) for Ron Paul ultimately laid the groundwork for the Bob Barr nomination.

  13. Badnarik in 2004:

    I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren’t criminals or terrorists. And I advocate treating people who cross the borders elsewhere as what they are: invaders.

    Kubby in 2008:

    The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in “through the front door” — to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they’d rather be welcomed than hunted … and welcoming them rather than hunting them will reduce the cover they provide for our enemies.

    Barr in 2008:

    If people want to enter America, we require them to come through a checkpoint, check that their health is not dangerous to our citizens, and that they have a legitimate ID.

    So other than rhetoric, where exactly is the difference?

  14. Barr’s contains more disturbing rhetoric

    I’d go a step further and say it’s downright race-baiting. Substitute “blacks” or “Jews” for the term “Hispanic” in the letter to see what I mean.

    Unfortunately, the climate enabling this sort of rhetoric was created and sustained in our own movement by Big-L Libertarians who did nothing during the Ron Paul thing — and especially by those who reflexively defended Paul. That climate became an incubator for the LP candidacy (and LNC shenanigans) of today.

  15. Ron Paul didn’t:

    Vote FOR the patriot act
    Vote FOR illegal wars of aggression
    Vote AGAINST freedom of religion
    Work FOR the CIA for nearly 10 years
    Vote FOR the war on drugs
    Work as a drug war prosecutor
    [doesn't] support the war on drugs
    [doesn't] support an interventionist foreign policy
    Vote FOR the creation of the Dept of Homeland Stupidity
    And on and on and on….

    Ron Paul is FAR, FAR, FAR more libertarian the Barf could even dream of being. Immigration isn’t even a factor, in my book, when you consider the notorious fascism that Barf supports.

  16. If the only blemish on Barf’s record was his racist, un-libertarian, immigration stance, then I would support him 100%. Too bad he is guilty of far worse…

  17. Mr. Badnarik stayed with me for the Virginia State convention in ’04 and I had a chance to speak extensively with him, about . . . well everything. He was not a closed borders advocate. I think that certain influences during the latter part of the campaign, and pressure to pander to the New Mexico voters regarding immigration (shameful I agree) is the reason IMHO why things “changed”.

  18. Quoth Chris Moore;

    “This is also pretty much Kubby’s immigration position”

    Not even close:

    http://www.kubby.com/issues/immigration.html

  19. We’re not discussing those other issues. The discussion is immigration. If it’s OK for the Libertarian party or movement to accept an “impure” candidate on this issue — without criticism — then it’s rather rich to see people pop up later to attack another candidate for having the same opinion on the same issue.

    This selective blindness and inconsistent commitment to principle is a major reason why the LP is in its present shape today.

  20. From the LP Platform:

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. 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 threat to security, health or property.”

    Here are the reasons Barr gives above for needing to secure the border:

    “A lack of border security allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.”

    “What we need is simple: Let’s go back to how we USED to do it, when we had a REAL border. If people want to enter America, we require them to come through a checkpoint, check that their health is not dangerous to our citizens, and that they have a legitimate ID.”

    Nowhere does Barr suggest that immigrants are a threat to our economy or culture. Nowhere does he suggest that we should reduce the number of immigrants coming to America.

    The clear implication of the statements quoted above is that the ONLY restrictions to immigration Barr supports are the same ones the LP platform supports (and as I recall, supported prior to this past convention).

    Steve Dasbach
    LP National Chair 1993-98

  21. “This is also pretty much Kubby’s immigration position”

    Not even close:

    Tom, as I am sure you helped craft Kubby’s written positions, it is obvious you are the authority in this matter. Obviously I was under the impression that they are similar positions in substance (not style) having quoted the article you link to. So I ask the following as a serious question:

    Other than Paulian, borderline rascist rhetoric, how exactly is Barr’s position as discussed in the above letter dramatically different from Kubby’s?

    Barr is not a closed-border advocate (or so it seems). He states that those that wish to come in should do so through the front door and be checked out. Not once in the letter above does he mention stopping ANYONE so long as they enter via a checkpoint. Of course, he’s vague on that, but I’m assuming he specifically tailored this letter to appeal to Paul supporters and disgruntled Republicans. If he actually wanted to seal the borders Tancredo style, then I’m sure he would have said that, and appealed even more to that group.

    My understanding was that Kubby’s position was fundamentally the same: let them through the front door, crack down on other points of entry. They may differ in details, but neither presents details, so who knows.

    Where am I wrong?

  22. He was not a closed borders advocate.

    Please quote where Barr advocates closed borders.

  23. I’m a radical who supported Ron Paul for the REPUBLICAN PARTY nomination but never excused his immigration/abortion/don’t ask/tell positions. I just realized that he was as libertarian as we’d get from one of the two major parties. Bob Barr is less libertarian than my 70 year old conservative neighbor- at least she’s done something for libertarian thought by working on the Goldwater campaign and helped secure one of his Texas area wins. (Gregg County)

  24. Barr is not a closed border advocate, neither a liberal open border, more something in between, just like Paul. He is simply anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration. Is it so difficult to understand? Any party should follow the law of a country, and illegal was never legal in any dictionary!

    So cool down and see it in perspective. Interesting that the racist philosophy of La Raza is never even brought up…or is it a taboe theme among Libertarians?

  25. I remember there was a Libertarian party member in the beginning of this year who announced he was running against Ron Paul in TX district 14. Now if Paul is not a libertarian, why don’t any of them have the balls to run against Paul in November. We dare you. Maybe politicians like Paul and Barr are much more attuned to the feelings and wishes of the people they represent than many Libertarians, that cannot claim to represent any significant amount of people. Or does the LP not accept the wishes of the majority of the people, what democracy is, after all.

    BTW: Dr. Phillies for instance also does not accept an open borders policy in the Denver debates….

    How much coverage has Barr already received and spread the libertarian message of non-interventionism in Iran, Iraq, legalization of medicinal marjuana, stress the value of civil liberties etc. but this is strangely never even mentioned by certain”Libertarians”…

  26. Chris,

    You write:

    “Other than Paulian, borderline rascist rhetoric, how exactly is Barr’s position as discussed in the above letter dramatically different from Kubby’s?”

    Well, to start with, there’s this from Barr:

    “Do YOU want to see McCain-Kennedy brought back to life—by either McCain OR Obama? We ALL need to stand up and say NO!”

    What are the provisions of McCain-Kennedy? According to Wikipedia, it “would have provided legal status and a path to legal citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.

    Check out Steve Kubby’s responses on immigration questions in the Political Courage Test: He supports both amnesty and a “pathway to citizenship.” I don’t know that he ever specifically addresses McCain-Kennedy, but if he had, I strongly suspect he would have called it “a good start,” not something “we all need to stand up and say NO!” to.

    Barr: “For four years in a row, I voted to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control efforts. Our overworked, understaffed Border Patrol Agents need all the help they can get, and I voted to send them that help …”

    Kubby: “As your president … I could order the Coast Guard to pay attention to its legitimate job of protecting our coasts from attack by sea instead of trying to keep Cuban refugees from getting their feet on dry land so that they [can] claim asylum.”

    Barr: “If people want to enter America, we require them to come through a checkpoint, check that their health is not dangerous to our citizens, and that they have a legitimate ID.”

    Kubby: “The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in “through the front door” — to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they’d rather be welcomed than hunted … and welcoming them rather than hunting them will reduce the cover they provide for our enemies.”

    Hint on that last: In the absence of a warrant based on probable cause to believe that a crime is being or has been committed, the government has no legitimate power to demand “a legitimate ID.” Quarantine is only legitimate AFTER the discovery that you ARE carrying a communicable disease that would require quarantine in Newark just as it would in Nogales, not UNTIL you prove you’re NOT carrying any communicable disease at all. Kubby never said anything that I know of about “showing your papers” or “waiting 48 hours for a TB test to clear.”

  27. Is there anything Kubby would find objectionable in McCain-Kennedy? I’m certain there HAS to be something, considering its authors. I’m picking nits here, but I view that passage as empty rhetoric in the sense that McCain-Kennedy is probably dog-shit, though Barr would like to lead some to believe it is dog-shit for a different reason.

    I’m not sure what your point is concerning boarder patrol and the Coast Guard. They are two different entities. One should patrol the coast, the other should patrol land-based boarders. I’m assuming Kubby would need some sort of enforcement agency to ensure people come through “the front door”.

    I understand and agree with you concerning “a legitimate ID”. But I would hardly characterize Barr’s position as “extremely un-libertarian” based soley on that. I had thought Kubby favored screening before entry. That is how it comes across in the article you quote. That would certainly be a fundamental difference.

    What I should say, then, is that Barr’s position does not seem fundamentally different from Badnarik 2004 and Phillies 2008.

  28. The irony, which I am ultimately driving at, is that the Big-L Libertarian embrace (and excuses) for Ron Paul ultimately laid the groundwork for the Bob Barr nomination.

    Thanks, Brian; that makes sense. I will consider this and its implications.

  29. Hint on that last: In the absence of a warrant based on probable cause to believe that a crime is being or has been committed, the government has no legitimate power to demand “a legitimate ID.” Quarantine is only legitimate AFTER the discovery that you ARE carrying a communicable disease that would require quarantine in Newark just as it would in Nogales, not UNTIL you prove you’re NOT carrying any communicable disease at all. Kubby never said anything that I know of about “showing your papers” or “waiting 48 hours for a TB test to clear.”

    Incorrect as a matter of law. First, under Hiibel, you can now be constitutionally asked to identify yourself by the police. But the large mistake you are making is conflating the free right of travel guaranteed to American citizens and resident aliens with the right to enter the country. The rules are not, and have never been, the same.

  30. Tom, excuse me but I think the Supreme Court has ruled that police have the authority to stop & require legitimate ID anyone anywhere at any time. I’m not sure of the source & rationale of that authority.

  31. How much coverage has Barr already received and spread the libertarian message of non-interventionism in Iran, Iraq, legalization of medicinal marjuana, stress the value of civil liberties etc.

    Not even a tiny fraction as much as the much more principled and libertarian, Ron Paul – someone who doesn’t flip-flop on a dime in order to pander to whomever he wants support from this week.

  32. Stefan Says:
    June 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    I remember there was a Libertarian party member in the beginning of this year who announced he was running against Ron Paul in TX district 14.

    Every two years, the LP of Texas advertises that someone is running in the 14th congressional district. Every two years, this never comes to fruition. I would give this no credibility at this point.

    One interesting note for the Republican race for the 14th district, Dondero had said that he would challenge Paul in the primary. He would have gotten smoked even worse than (can’t remember his name) the real challenger did!

  33. Yes Susan, I think Brian has hit the nail on the head. Think of how it has already hepled to spread the message of liberty and the very term “libertarian”. Paul, a conservative-libertarian, has also given respectability to libertarianism with the general public in a way “libertine/liberal libertarians” never would be able to. Period!

    Now if some of you want to work Barr & Co out after the November election, feel free to do so. You can return to your click of pro-choice, atheist/pagan libertine libertarianism and can continue to arrogantly tell people who are not on the Lp they do not understand freedom and return to your 0,5 % caves of irrelevance.
    Or you could open your eyes to new possibilities and understand that in politics there should actually be interaction between the leaders and policy formers and wishes and feelings of the general voter public. (Between us, try to get Root not voted in. In a certain sense it is good that he got the VP spot – note I do not trust him very much – as this barred him from being a LNC member, and after the election, he would have to see if he would run of mayor or so. Try not to get him elected as the next candidate). The LP may also have been attracted to a Gary Johnson nomination, but he will not consider this if the LP cannot show a considerable better showing with the election in November.

    As to Susan, she is smart and intelligent and I assume open hearted. A question:what do you think of Michael Munger your candidate for governor in NC? He makes a good impression and can put the LP on the map in NC.

  34. Chris,

    “Is there anything Kubby would find objectionable in McCain-Kennedy?”

    I’m sure there is. It called for expanding the Border Patrol, building 370 miles of “border fence,” requiring undocumented aliens to return to their former country to apply for “green cards,” a complicated system for issuing work visas, a national database / employment registry to turn every business into an unpaid ICE substation, etc.

    However, those things were already (bad) law under the 2005 “REAL ID Act” and the 2006 “Secure Fence Act.” The anomalous and DEFINING elements of McCain-Kennedy were amnesty and “pathway to citizenship” — the specific measures that Barr is not-so-subtly painting as negative and the things Kubby clearly approves of.

    “I’m not sure what your point is concerning boarder patrol and the Coast Guard. They are two different entities. One should patrol the coast, the other should patrol land-based boarders.”

    The point is that Barr brags that he voted for times to put the military ON immigration enforcement, and still wants to do so, while Kubby says that he would take the military OFF immigration enforcement.

    “I’m assuming Kubby would need some sort of enforcement agency to ensure people come through ‘the front door.'”

    That’s a strange assumption. Why WOULD someone crawl across the border in the desert in the middle of the night when they could grab a taxi across the border in any number of convenient cities in broad daylight? I could theoretically get my car into my driveway by driving through my neighbor’s back yard and over the shrubbery, but if the road is open to me I can’t for the life of me think why I would do so.

    “What I should say, then, is that Barr’s position does not seem fundamentally different from Badnarik 2004 and Phillies 2008.”

    It looks more like a continuum to me: Phillies is openly and avowedly aligned with the anti-libertarian, anti-freedom, anti-American Know-Nothing Axis of Evil.

    Barr is less openly and avowedly so, mainly because he seems to want to have it six different ways from Sunday on every issue with every different crowd he speaks to.

    Badnarik … well, Badnarik was something of an empty vessel on the issue, and post-nomination he had Russo trying to fill from the anti-libertarian side while myself, Anthony Gregory and others were trying to do so from the libertarian side. I think we won more than we lost in that contest, but every loss (especially those idiotic New Mexico commercials) hurt.

  35. Brian Miller Says:
    June 25, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    This selective blindness and inconsistent commitment to principle is a major reason why the LP is in its present shape today.

    We all hierarchically order the importance of various “issues”. Even though Ron Paul was short on a few issues, most “consistent/principled” libertarians (at least the ones I’ve met and discussed such issues with-and that is a whole lot of them) put immigration and abortion further down the “importance list” than the disagreements had with Barr’s positions on a whole array of issues, from taxation(fair or VAT), ID’s, surveillance, war on drugs (people owning their bodies), votes on wars, Patriot Act, DOMA, etc, etc.

    It IS true that many “consistently principled” libertarians were willing to overlook principle on the few issues (myself included) which Paul was weak on (from a libertarian point of view), but the key issues he stressed . . . war, taxes, money trumped them.

  36. Steve: Yes, the Democrats would also not even be so stupid as to nominate someone in district 14.
    LOL Yes, do you remember how Eric wrote he would beat Paul in district 14 and told everybody Paul is going to sink. Indeed, he would have been smoked even much worse than Chris Peden, the challenger, who has lost a lot of money he loaned himself. Eric endorsed Peden, who is a stauch Bush type “conservative hawk”, very strong pro-life (Eric is strong pro-choice) and also a social conservative. Eric was going to run on seatbelt issue, pro-choice campaign and pro-prostitution platform. Just imagine what what roaring applause a pro-prostitution campaign would have received in a conservative Texas state, that is strongly pro-life! Eric would have been lucky if he got 3%!

    The guy may be a good campaigner or talker, but his knowledge of politics and understanding of principals leaves a lot to be desired! he is sitting on two chairs: he backs McCain and Barr and does not realise how different they are on civil liberties, the Patriot Act, gun-rights, foreign intervention etc. etc. Clearly I cannot understand how one can support two such diverse directions. McInsane would even more more state control than Bush and in 2000 he was actually the favorite for the neocons (of, and Eric does not even know what neocons mean, he thinks it stands for pro-life social conservatives!! LOL). McCain also voted for the banning of gambling, something that Root and Dondero (Dumdildo?) strongly supports.

  37. The obvious fact is that Bob Barf has had to flip-flop in order to appeal to brain-dead retard caucus members. He not only can’t be trusted, but he also reeks of the type of politician real libertarians despise.

    Ron Paul’s message, and record, has been consistent for 30+ years.

  38. can continue to arrogantly tell people who are not on the Lp they do not understand freedom

    What evidence do you have that I act in such a manner? It’s true that I do expect more understanding of freedom from Libertarians – and a great deal from my presidential candidate. To infer from that that I “arrogantly tell people who are not on the Lp” anything is a pretty large leap.

  39. The obvious fact is that Bob Barf has had to flip-flop in order to appeal to brain-dead retard caucus members. He not only can’t be trusted, but he also reeks of the type of politician real libertarians despise.

    How about you tell us how you really feel about your fellow Libertarian Party members. Don’t hold back.

  40. Principled conviction is extremely important, for the identity of any party. Any party must have its set of principals and stick to them. I think the problem witht he past failure in real progress (apart from limited financial resources and lack of media coverage)is definitely not with sticking to principals, but rather failure of identifying a common denominator of basic principals all can rally behind and be happy with and then agree to disagree on some others. Things like a non-interventionist foreign policy should be sacrosanct! Sticking to basic principals and showing flexibility (also in implementing) other ideas and building alliances are important. Ron paul has a radical message, he does not back away, but he knows he should be realistic and practical and not easy to bring about these changes overnight. Even if the LP could elect a president, he or she should work with congress there is a balance of power – and it takes time and persuasion and patience.

  41. Dear Susan: I was NOT referring to you, I was referring in general, no one specifically :-) Sorry, if I gave the impression it was directly at you…I can assure you, it was definitely NOT. As a matter of fact, like your your argumentation with many things and find myself in agreement with quite a few things :-)

  42. The universal employment registry database i.e. “no-work list” was NOT in REAL ID or any law passed previous to McCain-Kennedy. No libertarian should support the totalitarian no-work list. Knapp should be ashamed of himself for defending it.

  43. I’m going to wade into this against my better judgment, mainly because this is the one area I disagree with the LP position on.

    I’ll tell you why, and it’s very simple:

    Good fences make good neighbors.

    Making peaceful people enter the area through the gate instead of hopping the fence is common courtesy.

    That’s the top layer. Now to delve down some:

    In Spring 1984 I was in the 4th grade, and my class went on a field trip to the U.S. Federal Distrcit Court over in Gary, IN. We weren’t there for some lesson in how courts operate. We were there to see our classmate’s Italian father, who also happened to be our soccer coach, get sworn in as a naturalized citizen. The judge saw us there and took the time to explain it all to us, and then the swearing in happened, about 50 people, taking the mass oath. Later on each individual got to do it again for photographic mementos. The oath was taken, and while it was going on, the atmosphere in there was pure electric. You could sense the pride, the accomplishment, and the joy of the people there–they had made it, they had done it, they were now Americans. Think of the energy of a graduation, then square it, then square it again, and you’ll get close. I’m surprised the roof stayed on with the roaring cheer that came up after the oath was done. 24 years later I have never forgotten that experience, and it is something ALL natural-born citizens should experience at least once to understand it.

    Illegal immigrants don’t understand it. They don’t get that sense of belonging, of accomplishment, of pride. They hide in fear, work under the table, don’t assimilate, and in general choose to not belong. It’s their choice, but it’s their loss. And ours, too, because when they feel they don’t belong, then they don’t care about their neighbors, either. They’re not good neighbors. It divides and breaks down society, and it causes things like dual langauge barriers and cultures, and as we all know from history, those things can eventually lead to war, deaht, and dictaotrship. Joining the nation through the system in play helps to alleivate those problems. Heck, ask a naturalized Hispanic what they think of their illegal counterparts, and you’ll find that most of them are unhappy with the illegals, mainly becuase the illegals ruin the reputation of the naturalized!

    Good fences make good neighbors.

    And yes, Barr is correct: there is a security issue here. Texas has had reports of potential terrorists coming across the border via coyotes (people who ferry others across the border illegally) for years now. One guy did a publiclity stunt where he crossed the Rio Grande and back again, in full sight of the border station, on an elephant. The LAX bomber was nailed at the border crossing between Vancouver, BC, and Bellingham, WA, so it’s not just a southern border thing. Our ports are just as bad if not worse–94% of all cargo boxes go unchecked–nuke smuggler’s wet dream there. The concerns are many, and safeguards few. It’s no secret that MS16, the biggest gang in Los Angeles and possibly the nation, with branches in other major cities, is made up of mostly illegal aliens, including drug mules and coyotes. That’s a legitimate crime problem right there, which goes back directly to protection of our property and ourselves.

    Libertarian Principles supposedly indicates we should support open borders. Economic practicality, social assimilation, property rights, and self-defense (from both crime and illness) indicate otherwise. There’s a stronger argument there, IMO, for secure borders than for open borders.

    Advocates’ quiz querstion is “Let peaceful people cross borders freely.” I agree, but what is determined to be peaceful (and not) is the rub.

    I expect people to have at me on this one. So be it.

  44. total info,

    I don’t know where you got the idea that I support the “totalitarian no-work list.” I oppose it 100%.

    Mr. X and Mr. Milnes, I’m going to steal and mangle a quote from Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall: “A Supreme Court ruling which is repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

    Yes, under Hibel, I can “constitutionally” — according to a majority of nine political hacks in black dresses — be “asked” to identify myself by the police. And under any civilized rule, I can decline to do so (under less civilized rules, I might accompany that refusal with words like “shove,” “request” and “ass”). The police have no business asking me who I am unless they have probable cause to believe I am committing, or have committed, a crime — in which case, I have the right to remain silent.

  45. disinter: Indeed, is it not wonderful and exceptional to see such consistency with Paul. I think it comes from an early principled thinking through of things philosophically. I have studied Philosophy and Theology and find it takes a long time to build an opinion and think through all, but you can build your basis in your twenties and – if deeply thought out – stick to them for the rest of your life, while incorporating new perspectives and making smaller adjustments.

    We do not know Barr’s history as well as Paul’s, but if you consider his early introduction to the philosophy of Ayn Rand (with which I do not agree with everything, least not objectivism, but there are many small govt. principles and civil liberties and freedom), there is some consistency with Barr, or in any case libertarian basis when he was young, so he is just rekindling his past. I really do think he is sincere, he does not come across as someone that just says something that he knows others would like. He has thought deeply through things and the raise in govt. power frightens him.

    Hey, you were critisizing his more “liberal immigration policies” leading to asylum before, so you should be happy with his letter/statement.? Note that I do think I have a 6th sense (call it a “bullshit radar”, I look not only at what a person says, but also how he or she says it, and what he or she does not say etc.) and I must admit I personally still do not trust Root. I also think Root would convey more a “rightwing low tax liberalism” and more importantly, convey a perception of libertarianism of more for high net worth people that want lower taxes, e.g. someone that attract high net worth individuals as voters, and not really a deep poor and middle class movement like Paul or Rothbard and yes also Barr (a radical populism). Root reminds one of Donald Trump, someone that is a ruthless fighter, for his own greed, and not really a citizen of the people that is beloved by many and respected by those that do not agree with him/her (socialists etc.). Paul has a very balanced approach, he listens and can speak from experience. On immigration, he is not like Tancredo and also mentions aliens should not be made the scapegoats for American’s economic problems. Paul is like a dialectician. It is in a certain sense not easy to popularize the thoughts of a deep thinker. I personally do not like the word “aliens”, one you use the term “foreigners”. I have understanding for a rejection of amnesty and applying the law vs illegal immigration, while welcoming legal immigration. I think one can (should) also go further and encourage say entrepreneurs to make use of the low wages in Mexico and build and expand business there. This will also help to uplift the Mexicans in their own country and boost their economy, so that many of them will have no incentive or interest to go to the US. ALso things like a big shopping complex, educational centers, say using old/used computers in Mexico etc. are all possible humanitarian projects, that is also very libertarian in nature, e.g. free trade.

  46. ???

    Where is Knapp defending that list?

  47. Quoth Michael Seebeck:

    “Illegal immigrants don’t understand it. They don’t get that sense of belonging, of accomplishment, of pride. They hide in fear, work under the table, don’t assimilate, and in general choose to not belong. It’s their choice”

    Not unless they’re serving members of Congress who voted to MAKE themselves “illegal,” it’s not.

    “it causes things like dual langauge barriers and cultures”

    English didn’t realy begin to become the near-universal language in the US until World War II when millions of men got drafted into the armed forces and taught English at gunpoint so they’d understand sentences like “Spiccoli, Goldberg and Karmanoff — take out that machine gun nest.”

    Question: Was the US more domestically tranquil BEFORE World War II, or has it been more domestically tranquil SINCE World War II?

    “Texas has had reports of potential terrorists coming across the border via coyotes (people who ferry others across the border illegally) for years now.”

    And why does that coyote industry exist? Could it have something to do with, oh, I don’t know, MORE THAN ONE MILLION IMMIGRANTS PER YEAR BEING FORCED TO USE IT IN ORDER TO GO WHERE THE JOBS ARE? Stop hassling the guys schlepping up here to pick your lettuce, mow your yard, slaughter your poultry, etc., and the coyote industry is OUT. OF. BUSINESS. Our immigration policy subsidizes that industry, and to the extent that terrorists use that industry, our immigration policy subsidizes those terrorists.

  48. Mr. X and Mr. Milnes, I’m going to steal and mangle a quote from Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall: “A Supreme Court ruling which is repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

    Yes, under Hibel, I can “constitutionally” — according to a majority of nine political hacks in black dresses — be “asked” to identify myself by the police. And under any civilized rule, I can decline to do so (under less civilized rules, I might accompany that refusal with words like “shove,” “request” and “ass”). The police have no business asking me who I am unless they have probable cause to believe I am committing, or have committed, a crime — in which case, I have the right to remain silent.

    Perhaps, but that is a legal determination and it is the Supreme Court who makes that determination. Do I think Hiibel is a bad decision? Yes, along with a few others I could mention.

    I would note that Hiibel does not change your right to remain silent, just your right to not be arrested when doing so. ;)

    However, you didn’t address my main point, which is that the law that applies within the country to citizens and resident aliens is not and has never been the same as the law that applies to people entering at the borders.

  49. Mr. X,

    At root, here’s the problem: You’re making a constitutional/legal argument from precedent. I’m making a political/philosophical argument from principle. I’m merely humoring you on the other, but I guess I’ll continue to do so.

    As far as precedent is concerned, I strongly suspect that any decent research on the topic will reveal that the US/Mexico border was substantially unregulated well into the 20th century, with the only truly problematic situation being a military situation that was TREATED as a military situation (Villa’s raids and Pershing’s expedition). My historical understanding, which is of course subject to disproof, is that citizens of Mexico and citizens of the US wandered back and forth over the border at will with little or “no bureaucratic supervision” until the post-WWII period.

    “Them damn furriners comin’ in here” has been a convenient political terror issue since the antebellum period. Thing is, that’s all it’s ever been, and all it will ever be. Instead of trying to find constitutional or legal hooks to hang that red herring on, Libertarians should be very publicly and forthrightly throwing the smelly thing in the trash where it has always belonged.

  50. Interspersed below.

    TLK: Quoth Michael Seebeck:

    “Illegal immigrants don’t understand it. They don’t get that sense of belonging, of accomplishment, of pride. They hide in fear, work under the table, don’t assimilate, and in general choose to not belong. It’s their choice”

    Not unless they’re serving members of Congress who voted to MAKE themselves “illegal,” it’s not.

    MWS: Wrong. They could have chosen the legal route. They did not. Others did. They are either on the road to or have become legal immigrants or citizens. Congress only lays out the details of that legal route. Like I said, go see one of these ceremonies.

    TLK: “it causes things like dual language barriers and cultures”

    English didn’t really begin to become the near-universal language in the US until World War II when millions of men got drafted into the armed forces and taught English at gunpoint so they’d understand sentences like “Spiccoli, Goldberg and Karmanoff — take out that machine gun nest.”

    Question: Was the US more domestically tranquil BEFORE World War II, or has it been more domestically tranquil SINCE World War II?

    MWS: Beats me, but I do know from talking with my grandparents when they were alive that immigrants back then spoke both English and their native tongues, and they learned English along the assimilation that comes with the naturalization route in order to function in the world outside their homes. My own immigrant ancestors did the same thing in the 1830s when they came over from Germany, Estonia, and Prussia.

    TLK: “Texas has had reports of potential terrorists coming across the border via coyotes (people who ferry others across the border illegally) for years now.”

    And why does that coyote industry exist? Could it have something to do with, oh, I don’t know, MORE THAN ONE MILLION IMMIGRANTS PER YEAR BEING FORCED TO USE IT IN ORDER TO GO WHERE THE JOBS ARE? Stop hassling the guys schlepping up here to pick your lettuce, mow your yard, slaughter your poultry, etc., and the coyote industry is OUT. OF. BUSINESS. Our immigration policy subsidizes that industry, and to the extent that terrorists use that industry, our immigration policy subsidizes those terrorists.

    MWS: Nope. Coyotes exist to make their own money, period. Call it the market creating a job niche. Some of them abandon their hitches to die in the desert after taking their money. The hitches themselves may be looking to come here for a better job, but A) why can’t (or won’t) they fix their own nation instead? and B) why can’t (or won’t) they go through the legal process? It is neither America’s responsibility nor our obligation to intervene in the affairs of another nation by employing or welfaring that nation’s citizens within our borders. That’s simply a non-interventionist policy applied at home instead of abroad.

    Besides, the coyotes make their living by trespassing on private property on our side of the border. No justification for that, market or not.

    BTW, I mow and compost my own grass, which Lidia then uses to help grows our own lettuce, and my organic poultry comes from sustainable farms that employ American citizens.

    You are correct in that our immigration policy subsidizes that industry, but it is because the policy is not enforced. Enforce the law, for crying out loud, and the below-market, under-the-table wage jobs will go away. The only reason the jobs exist is because employers don’t want to pay the higher wages for American workers, let alone the taxes and other expenses (and that’s a whole different discussion).

    If anything, you make my argument for me: the inability of the government to do its job and protect our property and ourselves compounds the problem, and in this case, it is their DUTY to do what they are not doing: enforce the law and protect our lives, liberty, and property. As we Libertarians believe in responsibility, it makes perfect sense to require government to be responsible as well. To advocate government abandoning that responsibility flies in the face of what we believe government should do first and foremost: protect our lives, liberty, and property from infringements. It is also hypocritical for us to suggest that it is OK for government to be irresponsible but people not, especially since it is the government irresponsibility we see that gives us a reason (one of many) to call for limited government in the first place.

  51. Quoth Michael Seebeck:

    “They could have chosen the legal route.”

    Well, SOME of them could (25,620 persons per year per country of origin are allowed to apply for legal immigration to the US).

    The number of Mexicans (the primary country of origin at issue) seeking to peaceably emigrate to the US per year is somewhere north of fifty times that amount. Even assuming a lowball number of one million per year, that means that the legal route is closed to 974,380 of them.

    “Coyotes exist to make their own money, period. Call it the market creating a job niche.”

    Calling it that won’t make it that. US government restrictions on immigration are not “the market” — and those restrictions are what create “the niche.”

    “You are correct in that our immigration policy subsidizes that industry, but it is because the policy is not enforced.”

    Part of that might have to do with the fact that it’s unenforceable. It’s been a few years since I ran the numbers, but the last time the result was that even if we assigned the entire federal law enforcement apparatus AND the entire US armed forces to NOTHING but “border enforcement,” every man on the line, no admin in the rear, eight-hour shifts, seven days a week, we’d still have extremely thin coverage of the 95,500 miles of US border and coastline.

    The way to make “border security” possible is on the supply end — reduce the size of the populations trying to cross illegally in the first place by making it easy for the peaceable to cross legally. Then instead of Fortress America and “your papers, comrade” trying to stop herds of thousands of ordinary workers seeking work, you can focus a smaller force on surveillance and interdiction of the rare hostile.

    “Enforce the law, for crying out loud, and the below-market, under-the-table wage jobs will go away.”

    Translation into English: “Have the government artificially force wages above market by legally barring large numbers of prospective workers from the market.” That’s the manure that this xenophobic Know-Nothingism grows in.

  52. Sorry, but making it easier to cross legally was tried before, in 1986. It didn’t work. In fact, it made things worse. If too few people have the legal route open to them, then they either need to fix their own nation first, or work to get the numbers enlarged legally. NOT become illegals themselves. when we came here, we didn’t bitch about our government and then left for Canada. We got involved and changed it.

    And until American unemployment is at 0%, there is no need to import labor. Last I saw it hasn’t been that way in my lifetime.

    And that doesn’t address the non-interventionism point OR the responsibility of government to ptorect our lives, liberty, and property, not to mention the crime from the MS16 types.

    Government has the constitutional power to address immigration, and they have done so. It’s not xenophobia–it’s economics and infrastructure, and in this modern era we lack both to handle the influx. I see it every day on the freeways.

    Coyotes exist not because of our immigration restrictions, but because of the Mexican government policies that keep their wages down drive people here in the first place. Fix that source, and the need to leave goes away. Remember, NAFTA was suppsoed to do that? (Yeah, right!). Blaming our government for Mexico’s people leaving Mexico after recognizing Mexico’s failings makes no sense.

    And the policy is NOT unenforceable. That’s a common fallacy. It is perfectly enforceable if done properly, and it isn’t done properly. See L.A. Special Order 40 as a perfect example. The mere presence of enforcement makes it happen, as any honest cop walking his beat would tell you. You act like it takes nothing but manpower on every mile of border and coast. Guess what, it doesn’t. Whoever heard of illegal aliens coming ashore in Oregon, for example? Technology is a huge force multiplier in this case, and the technology exists already. I’m not talking Boeing’s idiotic virtual border fence that didn’t work. As any tactical person will tell you, you shore up the heavy areas with the people and use the technology to shore up the lighter areas. Do you think the US Army is on every square mile of Iraq? Nope. They rely on technology from our satellites and UAVS and aircraft to help out.

    They said SDI couldn’t be done either. Guess what? It works.
    Zebulon Pike said Pikes Peak would not be climbed. Guess what? They runa marathon up and down it every year, and a road and a train both go to the top.

    Never say something cannot be done just because it hasdn’t been done yet.

  53. One more thing, just for clarity:

    I don’t give a damn what their race, ethnicity, religion, orientation, gender, or even planet of origin are.

    I don’t care if they are:

    white, black, yellow, red, brown, or green,
    totally vsisible ot completely unseen,
    little or big, or carrying a pig,
    male, female, or in a hay bale,
    Christian, Jew, or Horton’s Who,
    atheist, agnostic, Pagan, or Reagan,
    Hindu or Voodoo, Muslim or bussed-in,
    Elvis Impersonator, Terminator, or Home Insulator–

    IT DOESN’T MATTER!

  54. Now if Paul is not a libertarian, why don’t any of them have the balls to run against Paul in November. We dare you.

    I don’t live in Ron Paul’s district.

    If I did, I would happily run a Libertarian campaign against him, and assess his right-wing bigoted points of view on immigration, social issues, and the role of government in one’s personal life with a real Libertarian perspective on those issues.

    And the same people saying “he’s a Republican, you cannot say that we should hold him to Libertarian standards” would howl with rage and indignation because of it. :)

    As for the Barr letter, I’ll be commenting on that separately.

  55. until American unemployment is at 0%, there is no need to import labor

    That’s just plain wrong.

    If the United States was not able to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, high-tech players like Apple, Intel, Sun, Motorola and Microsoft would either be weak bit-players — or would never have even been started.

    We live in a global economy with free trade. Labor is perhaps the ultimate economic commodity — everyone owns it, unlike any other commodity on the planet. Establishing barriers to trade of labor is no different than saying that “Vokswagen and Honda shouldn’t be allowed to sell cars until every Ford, GM and Chrysler plant is running at 100% capacity.” It’s a fundamentally anti-free-trade position, and it’s protectionism at its most basic.

  56. Agree with Dasbach. Barr’s in conformance with the platform, although I personally am a bit uncomfortable with this positioning. Still, I am open to some checks on immigration.

    As to Phillies view, I’d say this COULD be an issue that will gain the attention of conservatives. McCain alienated them BIG time, so the politics are pretty effective here, IMO.

    If the polling keeps going as it has been of late, a landslide for Obama gives cover to many to vote for Barr. I think the polling is still early, but combining libertarians, independents, disaffected conservatives, and Reagan Ds is a huge constituency. He should continue to say he’s in it to win it, and is not just a “spoiler,” so it’s important to garner as big a non-R vote as possible.

  57. If the polling keeps going as it has been of late, a landslide for Obama gives cover to many to vote for Barr.

    Bob:

    I hate to introduce pesky facts into the various rationales over why the Libertarian Party should transform itself into the US Conservative Party, but there’s absolutely no evidence of an Obama “landslide.”

    In fact, the latest polls show McCain and Obama in a dead heat, with McCain strengthening several percentage points over the last few days:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx

    combining libertarians, independents, disaffected conservatives, and Reagan Ds is a huge constituency

    A huge constituency with very few common policy goals to unite around, beyond disaffection with the powers that be.

    Why not throw socialists and other lefties in there and make it into the Grand Patchwork Coalition of Disaffection?

  58. Brian, yes, most polls show it close bet. McBama, but some recent ones show Obama pulling away.

    I wouldn’t suggest Barr go for the tiny and liberty-hostile socialist vote. It strikes me that he’s going for the liberty leaners. I suggest that some issues get a bit muddy, immigration being an ex.

  59. Robert Capozzi Says:
    June 26, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Barr’s in conformance with the platform

    With the new “improved platform”, that isn’t saying much. As Steve Burden (a former LP “reformer”) had explicitly remarked to a close friend of mine, (paraphrasing) the LP needs a platform that our candidates can run on.

    Well, now we can have conservatives “run on” the (purposely) vague platform that the reformers got passed in Denver.

    Mr. Capozzi and his reformer cohorts skirt extremely close, in their combined verbiage, to a tautological analysis. If this “we have a platform that our candidates can run on”, is combined with “Barr’s in compliance with the platform”, I don’t know how much closer you can get to a tautology, without it EXPLICITLY being a tautology!

  60. Robert Capozzi Says:
    June 26, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    If the polling keeps going as it has been of late, a landslide for Obama gives cover to many to vote for Barr.

    Great . . . and I suppose that if true, “liberty” and libertarianism are the true winners!

    Wow, the likes of Capozzi and the reformers are still touting vote totals as the goal, regardless of the message. Oh right. I forgot . . . “Barr’s in conformance with the platform”. (and we know, since Brian Holtz says so, the platform is a true libertarian statement!)

    How convenient! Presto, and the Alice in Wonderland dream of “liberty wins” with Barr is complete!

  61. [...] Barr’s recent “secure the borders”-themed fundraising letter was viewed as “borderline racist” and “extremely unlibertarian” by some Libertarians. Those are opinions. But the [...]

  62. “I’d say this COULD be an issue that will gain the attention of conservatives.”

    Great — so let a candidate of a conservative party use it to gain their attention.

    The LP’s job in electoral politics is to get people to the polls to vote for LIBERTARIAN policy positions, not to hang around like a vulture near the freeway hoping to occasionally feast on the guts of conservative roadkill.

  63. Brian Miller:

    “That’s just plain wrong.

    If the United States was not able to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, high-tech players like Apple, Intel, Sun, Motorola and Microsoft would either be weak bit-players — or would never have even been started.”

    Nope. It’s called getting and maintaining proper education and OJT–two things that are seriously lacking anymore, because employers don’t value their employees anymore. And most unfilled jobs are not high-tech white-collar. They are lower-tech white collar and blue-collar. Go check out your local classified ads for plenty of examples.

    “We live in a global economy with free trade. Labor is perhaps the ultimate economic commodity — everyone owns it, unlike any other commodity on the planet. Establishing barriers to trade of labor is no different than saying that “Vokswagen and Honda shouldn’t be allowed to sell cars until every Ford, GM and Chrysler plant is running at 100% capacity.” It’s a fundamentally anti-free-trade position, and it’s protectionism at its most basic.”

    Free trade? We have no free trade. We have government-regulated trade. Always have, always will, until we get rid of monopoly fiat currency controlled by the government.

    And you make a mistake of conflating selling products with the employment to make those products. Yes, labor is undoubtedly a commodity. As such it is also a national resource we have to make use of for our posterity. But I don’t see American factory workers following their skillsets overseas, either, to do jobs in Africa or Asia (not including govt contracts in Iraq), but the opposite is certainly true.

    We have our own labor pool. We should use it instead of importing it. The same is true for other nations. That’s not a trade barrier. That’s just wise resource management.

  64. Brian MIller asks if Ron Paul is unlibertarian on these issues. ABSOLUTELY. Paul, who was on the far right of libertarianism in 1988 moved even furher to the right in his last election. And that is one reason that this libertarian was not part of the Paul “revolution”. In 1988 he was barely acceptable, which is abandoning various positions he previously held he became unacceptable.

    When I argued with Rondroids about this they said that it was fine since Paul was running as a Republican and is still better than what was in there. My argument was that allowing Paul to get away with it would just mean that Libertarian candidates would now pick up those positions. Supporting Paul would push the entire libertarian movement into conservatism. They said that wouldn’t happen and then we get Bob Barr and that two-bit hustler Wayne Allan Root. Both of them anti-immigration.

    This isn’t the first time Barr has appealed to racism. He spoke to a convention of the former White Citizens Council only a few years ago. The LP decided to sleep with dogs and is now waking up fleas. Shame on the LP, it is no longer libertarian but a conservative party. And that is why, after 30 years in LP, I have refused to support it, vote for it, or even have a kind word to say about it. It deserves to die.

  65. Knappster,

    On a range of issues, Ls sound like conservatives, on economics, for ex. On another range of issues, Ls sound liberal. Some voters weigh issues differently. Some are single issue voters.

    On immigration, Barr sounds conservative. I’d probably sound moderate. Other Ls may sound liberal.

    I suggest that we all deal with it. Politics gets complicated sometimes.

  66. Let’s see if I get this straight: it’s unlibertarian, and even antilibertarian, to “support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.” That’s a quote from the LP platform, courtesy Mr. Dasbach, rather than from Barr’s letter, because I’d like to focus on the principle rather than the personalities and rhetoric – and it does seem to be the principle at issue.
    On first reading Mr. Kubby’s proposals, it did sound like he was saying the same thing; that people entering the U.S. should go through customs, and that some people could be refused entry. However, as Mr. Knapp has explained it, he really meant that there should be no customs; that anyone could cross the border at any time at will without impediment; and that his “front door” rhetoric was only pandering meant to disguise that. Is that the case? Is no border security, period, the “real libertarian” position?

  67. Freedom is the issue

    “Political promises to keep America free of the great unwashed masses are just one more political scam – a subterfuge by which to steal more of your freedom.

    And trying to limit immigration is an admission that the welfare state is a failure.

    It is a confession that America is no longer the most prosperous country in the world – no longer a country so big, so free, and so open-handed that it can accommodate anyone in the world who wants to come here and work to improve his life.

    A free and prosperous society has no fear of anyone entering it. But a welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.” Harry Browne http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24349

  68. BTW, Barr’s position is consistent with the 2006 platform as well:

    IV.1 Immigration

    The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

    The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands 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.

    Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

    Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

  69. “We have our own labor pool. We should use it instead of importing it. The same is true for other nations. That’s not a trade barrier. That’s just wise resource management.”

    That’s not the most disgusting defense of anti-libertarian labor protectionist restraint of trade I’ve ever read — at least it doesn’t appeal to racism for support, for example — but what’s disquieting about it is that you transparently DON’T RECOGNIZE that what you’re preaching is anti-libertarian protectionist restraint of trade. Here’s a red pill for you:

    Who the fuck is this “we” you keep quacking about? How did this alleged “we” come into ownership of a “labor pool” composed of millions of people, people who are, according to you, mere “resources” to be “managed” — presumably along with a corresponding “employer pool” — by this mythical, magical, all-powerful “we?”

    Hint: If someone wants to hire something done, or allow himself/herself to be hired to do something, it’s none of your goddamn business unless you are one the someone doing the hiring, or the someone being hired.

    You’re imagining a fantastic uber-“we” that you’re claiming has some kind of non-reality-rooted ownership rights over every prospective employer, and every prospective employee by virtue of some politicians having drawn imaginary lines on the ground. You’re living in a dream world, Neo.

  70. “WE” = “WE THE PEOPLE”!

    Sorry, Thomas, you just don’t get it. Promoting internal employment has NOTHING to do with free trade, which is of GOODS in and out of our borders.

    Labor is unique as a commodity in that it is coupled to people in order to use it. Trading labor is by extension trading people–but the people have to voluntarily agree to it, ala a barter or contract, and even then the use of the person is a loan and not permanent.

    We don’t trade labor with other nations by law or treaty. Not since the slave trade, anyway. We trade widgets. We don’t trade people for widgets, either

    To equate free trade as immigration is to make people the same as goods–PROPERTY–and last I checked, that practice was ended around 1866.

    So, no I get it fine, because I know the difference between people and goods. To fail to see than difference is what is truly disgusting.

  71. Meanwhile, Thomas, you go ballistic on labor pools and labor theory, yet you have not (and cannot) address the property rights issues at all…

    Settle down.

  72. Michael,

    “‘WE’ = ‘WE THE PEOPLE!'”

    Last time I noticed, I was one of that alleged “we” — and I reject your claim to speak for me on the issue of immigration. I also caution “we the people” about sticking its nose into individuals’ private affairs — such as whom they hire or whom they work for — unless they want that nose shot off.

    “Sorry, Thomas, you just don’t get it. Promoting internal employment has NOTHING to do with free trade, which is of GOODS in and out of our borders.”

    Open immigration isn’t PROMOTING free trade, it’s ALLOWING free trade. Close immigration is RESTRAINING free trade. Products and services are BOTH tradeable, and traded commodities.

    “Labor is unique as a commodity in that it is coupled to people in order to use it. Trading labor is by extension trading people–but the people have to voluntarily agree to it, ala a barter or contract, and even then the use of the person is a loan and not permanent.”

    Even setting aside the Marxist “labor is unique as a commodity” argument, you just made the case against closed immigration. It’s up to the people trading their labor (or trading other things for that labor) to voluntarily agree to it, not up to you and to decide whether or not they’re “allowed” to.

    “We don’t trade labor with other nations by law or treaty. Not since the slave trade, anyway. We trade widgets. We don’t trade people for widgets, either”

    “We” don’t trade anything with any other “we.” Individuals trade with other individuals, whether the commodity is widgets or labor.

    “To equate free trade as immigration is to make people the same as goods–PROPERTY–and last I checked, that practice was ended around 1866.”

    Now we’re wandering into the area where you obviously know you’ve stranded yourself knee-deep in bullshit and don’t want to admit it. People aren’t property. People’s LABOR is property — THEIR property, to dispose of as they please, including hiring it out to any willing employer. Michael Seebeck’s approval or disapproval of that exchange is irrelevant unless he’s one of the parties to that exchange. To say otherwise is to do exactly what you’re accusing me of doing — advocating chattel slavery in which people’s labor belongs to that there mythical “We the People,” just like it belonged to the plantation owner 145 years ago, with politicians acting as the overseer.

    “Meanwhile, Thomas, you go ballistic on labor pools and labor theory, yet you have not (and cannot) address the property rights issues at all…”

    What property rights issues? If someone is trespassing on private property, they’re wrong regardless of whether they were born in Minot or Mexico City.

    If you’re talking about “public property,” then instead of bitching about it being used, get busy getting rid of it and getting it into private hands. While it exists, it should be open on an equal basis to anyone who’s willing to pay the user fees.

    Buddy, I am an old union guy, and I’ve heard all the bullshit labor protectionist arguments. None of them survive scrutiny from the perspective of either libertarian ideas or common sense.

  73. Steve LaBianca says:

    Mr. Badnarik stayed with me for the Virginia State convention in ‘04 and I had a chance to speak extensively with him, about . . . well everything. He was not a closed borders advocate. I think that certain influences during the latter part of the campaign, and pressure to pander to the New Mexico voters regarding immigration (shameful I agree) is the reason IMHO why things “changed”.

    L. Neil Smith, Victor Milan and I talked with Badnarik at length (from about 10:30 AM till about 5PM) following the 2003 LPNM State Convention in June of that year, in Albuquerque. Victor and Neil have a running disagreement on whether to engage in political activity — Neil is OK with it, Victor sees nothing good coming from such endeavors. Yet Badnarik left all three of us with very favorable impressions — at that time, he made no mention of the border “issue.”

    As for Barr pandering to the New Mexico voters, there seems to be a small group in the LPNM that think like that. I suspect the votes he’s going for are the Ron Paul crowd, who are overwhelmingly supportive of some sort of border lockdown, no matter how ill-conceived, impractical, asinine, etc., it turns out to be.

    On the “racism” aspect of the border “issue,” one of the Ron Paul acitivists in Albuquerque is ___ __________, who is hispanic, yet still calls for this idiotic lockdown. In 2004, the LPNM had its State Convention in Las Cruces, down by El Paso and the Mexican border. There, we had a panel on the immigration issue. One of the lockdown advocates was a hispanic Republican (former) county commissioner named Leo Gonzales, from the Carrizozo area. And this is NOT unique to the Ron Paul groups here in New Mexico — there are quite a few hispanic Republicans (and probably some Democrats) here that favor this insane lockdown.

    To me, it’s like the old joke —

    Q: How do you keep the ________________ [insert minority group here] out of the country club?
    A: Let one in — he keeps the rest out.

  74. Michael et al,

    Thank you for motivating me to go ahead and get up a position paper on immigration.

    Teaser/opening statement:

    “Know-Nothingism” is a perennial trend in American politics. It’s a convenient tool for drumming up baseless fears and turning those fears into money and votes. Unfortunately, even a few Libertarian candidates for public office have yielded to the temptation to exploit it.

    Unlike my opponent, US Representative Todd Akin, I decline to cater to the politics of fear. I support the most “open border” policy possible. Peaceful individuals should be able to cross the border “through the front door” at any port of entry with no more scrutiny than you or I receive when we board a bus or enter a bank (which, if you think about it, is considerable scrutiny — surveillance cameras are endemic to American society now and facial recognition software linked to databases of known criminal suspects is becoming more and more common).

    The facts are indisputable. Let’s talk about the things the fearmongers don’t want you to know.

  75. [...] irritating than typical hypocrisy is Team Barr’s fundraising rant about “BORDER SECURITY.” Yes, they used all caps for this boogeyman. The substance of [...]

  76. The age-old pesky U.S.-Mexico border problem has taxed the resources of both countries, led to long lists of injustices, and appears to be heading only for worse troubles in the future. Guess what? The border problem can never be solved. Why? Because the border IS the problem! It’s time for a paradigm change.

    Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism, and without threatening U.S. sovereignty or basic principles.

    Click the url and read about the new paradigm for U.S.-Mexico relations.

  77. […] While the campaign site wasn’t exactly inspiring, neither did it have anything particularly damning in terms of deviations from the libertarian line. Until now — the campaign recently released this fundraising letter. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: