Steve G.

Victims of the Bob Barr/Ron Paul Immigration Policies

In Libertarian on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Ultimately, a massive bureaucratic immigration policy as advocated by both Barr and Paul (and numerous folks from both of the old parties) has a number of victims.

First, you’ve got people who want nothing more than an opportunity to sell their labor, as a commodity, in the United States.  Efforts to block them from selling their labor are good old fashioned protectionism, no different than banning or limiting the sale of Korean cars, Japanese electronics, or French cheese.

Secondly, you’ve got the entire country as a whole, who pay higher prices for lower quality labor due to deterioration in competition.  When one is guaranteed a job through government intervention and protection from competition, quality suffers and costs increase.  You’d think libertarians would understand this.

And finally, you’ve got a frightening number of cases like this one:

Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was convicted with her husband in December on a 12-count federal indictment that included forced labor, conspiracy, involuntary servitude and harboring aliens.

The trial provided a glimpse into a growing U.S. problem of domestic workers exploited in slave-like conditions.

The victims testified that they were beaten with brooms and umbrellas, slashed with knives, and forced to climb stairs and take freezing showers as punishment. One victim was forced to eat dozens of chili peppers against her will, and then was forced to eat her own vomit when she couldn’t keep the peppers down, prosecutors said.

The poor women in this case were exploited not only by Sabhnani, whose light sentence is shocking, but by the government itself.  These women sought nothing more than to clean houses for profit — selling their most basic commodity, their labor, in a competitive free market.

Instead, they got forced into slavery by a system that says they cannot exist.  Recourse to law enforcement was difficult, since they’d be deported and their economic status completely destroyed.

Ultimately, those advocating a hard-core anti-immigration pogrom are protectionists who are willing to place millions of hard-working free market competitors in harm’s way by destroying their ability to compete in a free market.

Call it what you want — but it’s not “libertarian.”

  1. “Ultimately, those advocating a hard-core anti-immigration pogrom are protectionists who are willing to place millions of hard-working free market competitors in harm’s way by destroying their ability to compete in a free market.”

    Well this does not apply to Ron Paul since he is not advocating a hardcore anti-immigration policy.

    Here are some actual Ron Paul votes in Congress, but of course if you did your homework you’d already know this.

    (1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border: 2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546 2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205 1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.

    (2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.

    (3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),

    (4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 – “Enforcement Only” Bill).

    (5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.

    Ron’s concern is and always has been stopping the expansion of the welfare state and keeping out criminals, as well as stopping the movement towards world government. He is not an anti-immigration zealot and has said on numerous occassions that if we had a real free market (as in no welfare/warfare state) that immigration wouldn’t be much of a concern.

  2. Ron Paul’s campaign for president was decidedly an anti-immigration campaign.

    He advocated the creation of a massive border control bureaucracy, with universal visas for all entrants and immediate deportation of anyone whose papers were out of order.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

    Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa

    No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally.

    End birthright citizenship.

    And the kicker:

    current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

    So is Ron Paul an advocate of visa restrictions, immigration quotas, and a massive increase in the federal immigration bureaucracy?

    He is if you believe his own campaign web site.

    Last, but not least, he calls all of these statist proposals “Border Security.”

  3. Ultimately, those advocating a hard-core anti-immigration pogrom are protectionists who are willing to place millions of hard-working free market competitors in harm’s way by destroying their ability to compete in a free market.

    Agreed.

    And that’s why the anti-immigration view coming from Ron Paul — as the world’s leading advocate for free-market capitalism — is so troubling.

    But hey, didn’t you support George Phillies?

  4. The difference being that George supported (and continues to support) a liberalization of the present immigration regime, while Paul supports a constricting of it.

    One doesn’t have to eliminate all border controls immediately to recognize that moving towards that goal entails liberalization.

    The criticisms of Phillies on this issue were dishonest, because they didn’t recognize that he was taking a transitional approach towards liberalization. The defense of Ron Paul is similarly dishonest, because Paul is advocating tightening the rules and restricting entry — a completely different approach from Phillies.

  5. the world’s leading advocate for free-market capitalism

    Huh?

    I’d place many, many private sector individuals in that role legions before any politician.

  6. Individuals who wish to contrast the Barr/Paul campaign positions on immigration to the Phillies campaign positions should be welcome to do so:

    Barr:
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

    Paul:
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

    Phillies:
    http://www.choosegeorge.com/immigration

  7. “Brian Miller Says:

    June 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
    Ron Paul’s campaign for president was decidedly an anti-immigration campaign.”

    So you are forced to IGNORE Ron Paul’s ACTUAL VOTES in Congress so you can hear what you want to hear so it fits your agenda.

    Ron said several times on the campaign trail that if we end the welfare state and have a free market economy and then immigration would not be a concern.

  8. What part of “ILLEGAL” don’t you understand? You can’t have a welfare state and open borders! It will CRASH civilization as we have known it. That may seem cool to some of you, but I guarantee it won’t be cool to the “PHONY” libertarians that lose their forced taxpayer funded government related salary when the bottom falls out.

    For almost two decades I held firm to the Party policy, no more! Again, holding firm to the hardline principles puts the LP in the minority of society. Barr/Root are inline with the vast majority and could gain many votes from their stance. With these two candidates at the top of the ticket it would be a great time downticket to push hard to end the welfare state. Win that battle (a solid LP policy) then you will have more general public support for open borders. The top-tier Ds are working hard to put as many of these on welfare and give them citizenship, as possible so they will be future voters and supporters. I have watched libertarians fight the wrong battles at the wrong time for years. Always fight BESIDE the majority when you can to move libertarianism forward. There are more than enough battles left against the majority, take the advantage of having them on your side whenever you can. Get the illegals off welfare by ending the FAILED welfare state! A LP policy that will help all mankind!

    No, Barr’s and Root’s policy isn’t libertarian (however they won the convention), but it isn’t a deal breaker. Take this opportunity to fight the welfare state part of the problem. That will gain ground for the LP.

    The middle class is facing extinction, again that’s cool to some. It’s not cool. I have opposed force and fraud for most of my life, let this society collapse and you will see true FORCE and FRAUD in action. Most won’t have to see it for long because they will be DEAD. I’m a survivor, are you? You better learn to be, as starving people can get mean when they are scrambling to feed themselves and their family. A governmentLESS society means you have to DEFEND yourself 24/7. Are you ready to do that? Let another 30-40 million flood in and continue to swamp the welfare state and YOU WILL be defending yourself 24/7!

    Peace…i hope

    Infowars.com, you can listen 24/7. Every american needs to listen to Jones three hours a week for a month. The world would never be the same…Fascism is already here friends…

  9. I think I demolished this on another thread already.

    Sorry, Brian, I think your anti-Paul bias is showing again, and I’m not going to bother with any more responses on this.

  10. People’s brains tend to shut down when their sacred cows are slain, I guess, Michael.

    If we’re not willing to examine our own role in the problems we create, we cannot lecture others based on our principles. We have to follow them ourselves before demanding others consider them.

  11. No, I just don’t feel the need to repeat myself.

    And you ARE anti-Paul, Brian. That much has always been obvious.

  12. “What part of “ILLEGAL” don’t you understand? You can’t have a welfare state and open borders! It will CRASH civilization as we have known it.”

    Then as long as we have a welfare state, we apparently can’t have any freedom at all. We can’t legalize drugs because dopeheads might leech off the welfare state. We can’t allow immigrants in because they might leech off the welfare state. We can’t allow gambling, because addicts might turn to the welfare state when they lose all their money. And so on.

    So all the government has to do is create a welfare state, and then we are all instantly obligated to surrender our freedoms and liberties, to prevent that welfare state from growing any bigger. Right?

  13. Brian – With respect to Dr. Phillies, his early immigration platform was nativist and know-nothing-like. He championed immigration restrictionism from an economic protectionist standpoint. This is not and has never been Ron Paul’s perspective, which, although I disagree with it, has merit. Ron Paul’s problem is that he’s actually too “liberal” on the issue; he’s not willing to let immigrants crash the welfare state as I would be happy to see them do.

  14. “What part of illegal do you not understand?”

    This is the worst kind of statist non-logic. If the government made a law against gun ownership unless you paid a stiff licensing fee, got training, and endured a three-year waiting period, would that still be your line? “We’re not against gun ownerhsip, we’re against ILLEGAL gun ownership.”

    When the government law tries to defy the laws of nature, the economic law of supply and demand, government law is not legitimate; any more than it can pass a law saying it’s illegal to be subject to gravity.

  15. And you ARE anti-Paul, Brian.

    This coming from Seedick, the anit-Paul Barf supporter?

  16. “In a year, ten thousand children caught crossing the border unaccompanied are not immediately deported, but rather detained in the US. Countless ones are kept for long periods of time, are subjected to concrete cells, harsh conditions with no oversight, beatings, poor medical care, no meaningful legal counsel, and a criminal justice system that treats them like they’re adults. Many of them, of course, don’t speak English. Read the story.

    This is how inhumane the federal war on illegal immigration is now, and they aren’t even really trying to seal the border. They only catch a small percentage of those coming across. Again, our only hope for clarity on this issue is in focusing on the state. The more the market and not the state is free to determine the movement of people, the better. ”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021725.html

  17. Good find disinter. Brian obviously fail to critisize the welfare system and do not want to start by ending the system by advocating it to illegal immigrants. How “libertarian” is that? He also fail to critisize the fact that while it is easy for an illegal immigrant from Mexico to gain access to the US while it is extremely difficult for many foreigners from other countries to obtain visa’s. I have read and heard there are several cases/examples how it is almost impossible for a legitimate foreigner from say Russia to immigrate to the US, for instance a potential foreign bride. And once they would finally can get a visa, they get no welfare: big inconsistency. Brian is probably very much anti-Paul and anti-Barr because they are both religious and also pro-life.

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

%d bloggers like this: