The Immigration/Amnesty (Executive Order) Thread

[mrjarrell]

Sheldon Richman makes the case that Obama was correct in his action, but that he really didn't go far enough. Interesting. Have to say I agree with him, overall, as it is a matter of free markets in labour and not tearing apart the families of children, (many of whom are American citizens).

Unjust Immigration Law Is Not Law - Reason.com

 

[Dead Duck]

Really? Waaaaaa

 

[cobber]

Sheldon Richman makes the case that Obama was correct in his action, but that he really didn't go far enough. Interesting. Have to say I agree with him, overall, as it is a matter of free markets in labour and not tearing apart the families of children, (many of whom are American citizens).

Unjust Immigration Law Is Not Law - Reason.com

Government interference with the right to move is a violation of the natural law and of individual liberty. It does not matter that such interference was enacted by a majority of both congressional chambers and signed by a president. It is illegal, and even an isolated refusal on the part of a president to enforce an unjust "law" is to be applauded.

I didn't hear Obama endorse this point of view at all. Rather, he wants Congress to pass immigration reform. IE another law. Which by your author's definition would be unjust ab initio, whatever the application.

Is Obama, or is Obama not, the hero of libertarians? First he was for immigration reform and no unilateral action, then he was for it, but only as a temporary measure.

First he was against gay marriage, then he was for it.

First he was for closing Gitmo, then not so fast, then...

First he was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then...

First he was against the expansion of the executive as allegedly practiced by Bush, and then...

His positions vis-a-vis DPRK, Iran, Syria, etc. likewise.

If he flip-flops enough, I guess INGOtarians will find something to praise. As long as the result is pleasing to them.


I am struck, however, that how can one recognize private property rights and liberty simultaneously where there is unequal distribution of the former?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Meh...The underlying premise of this article is but one of the reasons I and 98% of the rest of the country will never don the mantle of libertarian.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I really don't see how even a Libertarian can endorse an immigration policy which, at its base, is intended as a tool to continue the redistribution of property from the "haves" (e.g. those who worked for it) and the "have nots" in order to gain political power for those who would continue the practice of redistribution. Perhaps that's the definition of "libertarian suicide."

 

[Expat]

Meh...The underlying premise of this article is but one of the reasons I and 98% of the rest of the country will never don the mantle of libertarian.

They seem to have these principles that sound good but never look at the consequences. We have a huge welfare system. You can not have open borders, with poor neighboring countries, when you have a welfare state. It is simply going to bankrupt us.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They seem to have these principles that sound good but never look at the consequences. We have a huge welfare system. You can not have open borders, with poor neighboring countries, when you have a welfare state. It is simply going to bankrupt us.

It sounds good on paper but in reality it will never be achieved. In theory, it would be a wonderful world if people could flow to wherever they wanted to, they could follow the jobs, seek out opportunities and the like. But as long as we have a welfare state and as long as we have people wanting to come in and destroy the country and other countries are not participating/cooperating, this open borders stuff is fantasy.

 

[88GT]

Government interference with the right to move is a violation of the natural law and of individual liberty.

I cannot even fathom how someone can reconcile this statement with anything close to reality.

 

[mrjarrell]

They seem to have these principles that sound good but never look at the consequences. We have a huge welfare system. You can not have open borders, with poor neighboring countries, when you have a welfare state. It is simply going to bankrupt us.

Then you should lobby your republican congress people to get rid of the welfare system as libertarians have been saying since the 70's. Don't hear much about it from team stupid.

 

[johnwhite]

Some are questioning exactly how "legal" the President's threats to issue Executive Orders on amnesty/immigration are.

How Lawless is President Obama's Executive Amnesty? - Conn Carroll

Boehner Stiff-Arms Obama On Amnesty | The Daily Caller

Can?t wait: Ted Cruz wants Obama?s Attorney General nominee to answer this question | Twitchy
How lawless is Obama?s executive amnesty? Katie Pavlich knows where to find out | Twitchy

Please post further news/releases regarding the President's actions on Immigration/Amnesty in this thread.

well since bush did it and got away with it it really does not matter how legal it all is now does it.to be perfectly honest he should have been impeached a long time ago aside from being blatantly unqualified for the position he has endangered the security of this nation on numerous occasions. also his utter lack of anything resembling BALLS has put us in a position of having to square off with Russia yet again

 

[cobber]

Sheldon's case is that it doesn't matter whether the illegals or their kids are American citizens or not, since movement of labor is a basic human right.

And whether the Dems and GOP followed the Libertarian lead in calling for welfare reform (since the 70s), this country would still draw millions of people seeking better wages and living standards.

If we're just going to open the door wide, with no restrictions, how long until the lifeboat sinks.

And if labor can freely move, how does the LP feel about freedom of capital (eg outsourcing) to move to better markets?

 

[mrjarrell]

Sheldon's case is that it doesn't matter whether the illegals or their kids are American citizens or not, since movement of labor is a basic human right.

And whether the Dems and GOP followed the Libertarian lead in calling for welfare reform (since the 70s), this country would still draw millions of people seeking better wages and living standards.

If we're just going to open the door wide, with no restrictions, how long until the lifeboat sinks.

And if labor can freely move, how does the LP feel about freedom of capital (eg outsourcing) to move to better markets?

Labour and capital should be free to move as and where they please. It's part and parcel of a truly free market. I've never heard of the LP or libertarians in general say otherwise. If you actually believe in such a thing, (which I think many INGO'ers do not, despite what they may say).

 

[johnwhite]

Out of curiosity, what about the kids of illegals who were not born here, but know no other life other than as an American?

not my monkeys not my circus. we can not afford to take care of the whole world we are barely able to take care of our country as is. we are broke. we are not the greatest country in the world anymore, and a lot of it is due to unchecked immigration

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sheldon's case is that it doesn't matter whether the illegals or their kids are American citizens or not, since movement of labor is a basic human right.

And whether the Dems and GOP followed the Libertarian lead in calling for welfare reform (since the 70s), this country would still draw millions of people seeking better wages and living standards.

If we're just going to open the door wide, with no restrictions, how long until the lifeboat sinks.

And if labor can freely move, how does the LP feel about freedom of capital (eg outsourcing) to move to better markets?

Our last LP candidate for governor was a big union supporter. I bet he wouldn't be for that--I know some his fellow union supporters aren't too wild about labor moving in and taking their jobs at substantially lower wages.

 

[cobber]

Labour and capital should be free to move as and where they please. It's part and parcel of a truly free market. I've never heard of the LP or libertarians in general say otherwise. If you actually believe in such a thing, (which I think many INGO'ers do not, despite what they may say).

Sounds like a prescription for disaster. American corporations flee to low wage countries. Meanwhile the world rushes in to serve Hillary dinner.

Somehow I bet that when China scores all the US corporations, they're not going to buy Sheldon's (or the LP) argument in favor of free movement of labor though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Somehow I bet that when China scores all the US corporations, they're not going to buy Sheldon's (or the LP) argument in favor of free movement of labor though.

That's why this is a fantasy. Even those that claim to be all free-markety find excuses to support net neutrality.

 

[Expat]

Then you should lobby your republican congress people to get rid of the welfare system as libertarians have been saying since the 70's. Don't hear much about it from team stupid.

Only stupid people think that actually getting rid of the welfare system is even open for discussion in this country. The American people are just not there, not even close. I would hope they can reform it, but with Obama having to sign any bill passed, I doubt even going back to the Clinton era reforms will even be possible.

 

[pudly]

Well, this should help with the lawsuits:

[video=youtube;9ZOFbDUHJnE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOFbDUHJnE[/video]

 

[88GT]

Yep. I saw that too. Funny, but I was pretty sure EOs couldn't change existing law.

 

[actaeon277]

Yep. I saw that too. Funny, but I was pretty sure EOs couldn't change existing law.

They can do whatever they want when no one stands up.