NationStates Jolt Archive

From "Art Olivier for Governor of California" ( http://2006gov.com/index.html ):

"Amnasty? California cannot prosper if we are forced to pay for the education and healthcare for everyone that enters our state illegally.

The current process for people to come here from south of the border is to hire a coyote to sneak them in though the desert, work in sometimes unsafe conditions and wait for the next amnesty program. This is both dangerous for those who come here illegally and unfair to those who obey the law.

It used to be people came to this country for an opportunity to work hard to better their lives. Now too many are here for the public benefits. There should be no public benefits for people who are here illegally.

After arresting someone for a crime, most law enforcement agencies do not to question a person's citizen status. This is in violation of Penal Code Section 834b(a) which states "Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws." State funding for law enforcement agencies that violate this provision should be suspended until they come into compliance with 834b."

This candidate's position seems strange in several ways.

First, he seems to equate "immigration" with "illegal." Hiring a coyote isn't the immigration process; it is a immigration process. Or does he honestly believe that everyone from south of the border is illegal?

Second, should not a libertarian candidate reject use of public benefits by anyone legal or otherwise? Why is he giving special attention to illegal immigrants alone on the issue of the welfare state? At any rate, this "they're using up all our public services" line reminds me of the sort of rhetoric behind California's Proposition 187, which was aimed at preventing use of public services, like education and hospitals, by illegal immigrants. Essentially, public services became a sort of immigration police. Keep those dirty foreigners ignorant and sick, and maybe they'll be motovated to become loyal legal citizens! Or maybe they'll just go away! Yeah! (:headbang: )

Finally, the requirements of California "Penal Code Section 834b(a)" that the candidate mentions seem to violate the principles of federalism (which is a concept I expect any Libertarian to understand). Federal authorities enforce federal (immigration) law, and local authorities enforce local law. Enforcing immigration is neither the responsibility or duty of local law enforcement. Libertarians who appear to advocate the expansion of police powers against the grain of federalist values make me somewhat...uncomfortable. And this idea that funding of police forces should be restricted unless they conduct immigration investigations is, again, no good. In addition to the issue of federalism already described above, is it really that smart to create reason for communities to distrust their local police agencies?

So, Libertarians, is this candidate completely correct, completely wrong, or what?

My conclusion: looks like I'll be voting Green this time around.

What a curious view for a Libertarian to take... We can see that the candidate is attempting to use the immigrant's safety as his reason for opposing illegal immigration. But since when did Libertarians care a jott about the safety of the workers (safety standards are, afterall, simply government meddling)?

According to the actual libertarian ideology this candidate should be proposing reducing government spending on border security, (perhaps subsidising this by encouraging people to make some charitable donations to the minutemen), and allowing enterprise to use whomever enters his state as an illegal as slave labour, most of them will find work, but those who don't will starve, as will the indiginous poor who are unable to compete... Unless they have some relevant skills adapted to begging from the millionaire sweatshop-owning elite.

In conclusion, we can probably assume that this candidate is dilluting his ideology somewhat in order to appeal to the xenophobe vote, as for letting citizens starve, that should be alright, as this is America, land of the free.

There is no single libertarian position on immigration, and anyone who tells you "this is the libertarian position on immigration" is simply defrauding you.

In a country with a libertarian government, there would still be no single position because positions on immigration tend to one side or the other of a cinflict between two rigorously held libertarian beliefs, free trade, and the responsibility of a government for national defence.

The former favours open borders, and this is the position the party takes at a national level. The latter favours checking.

That we operate in a welfare/warfare state makes things simpler.

California has a budget problem, and the consequences of this problem must eventually be borne by Californian taxpayers.

In a perfect world, the politicians would be ordered to pay the bill personally, but that won't happen.

Clearly, the entitlements are a burden on productive Californians, and should be minimised, and someone who shouldn't even be in the United States is surely not due these entitlements (to the extent that anyone could be due them). Stopping illegal immigrants will reduce the burden on Californian taxpayers who are already under excessive burdens imposed by politicians.

As to the question of cooperating with the INS, firstly, the requirement for cooperation with the INS was stipulated by California's legislature in the Penal Code, secondly, if a state wishes to accept Federal funding, it inevitably accepts Federal control. "He who pays the piper calls the tune", as the saying goes.

The solution to the threat to cut off funding is for California's politicians to grow a brain cell, and cut spending to the point where they spend less than they steal in taxation.

Second, should not a libertarian candidate reject use of public benefits by anyone legal or otherwise? Why is he giving special attention to illegal immigrants alone on the issue of the welfare state? At any rate, this "they're using up all our public services" line reminds me of the sort of rhetoric behind California's Proposition 187, which was aimed at preventing use of public services, like education and hospitals, by illegal immigrants.
.

Not every libertarian has to go to the vast extreme. Eliminating all public services is a battle no one could win anyway, in which case it looks like hes trying to fight a winnable battle. If we have to tax people for education and health ect.. we might as well give the service to the people who have paid for it :eek:

Like I have posted, I have mixed feelings as a Cuban American I support the Cuban Adjustment act and the wet foot, dry foot policy as dry foot no matter what because it helps my people, but I have to admit, it is not fair to other immigrant groups, no matter what the reasons and the laws should be abolished.

Legal immigrants are legal immigrants and all thier rights should be respected including protesting in favor of the illegals, many were illegals who became legal in the 1980 s amensty program, many have illegal relatives today.

I emigrated to the USA legally, I had to wait in Cuba for at least 5 years.

Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrant, if you were an illegal immigrant in one of my 41 NS nations, I as president would do whatever I could to send you back to your nation of origin.

The problem is if you make illegal immigrants legal and businesses keep hiring future illegal immigrants more will come illegally and expect to be made legal.

I read an article that many Mexicans in Mexico think they can still come illegally because there will be another amnesty iventually.

Fines on businesses, checking work permits, social security papers, a national id card just to check if you are legally able to live and work in the US, paying $ whatever it takes to get the jobs done, will keep illegals from coming in illegally.

The problems now are, lets say all 12 million or so illegals will be returned, how do we make those nations take them back, what if they say they wont because its too many, what will happen economically, politically and socially in these nations if they are returned and these nations are so poor?

Some have suggested it would be cheaper giving these nations foreign aid in a way that helps these nations develop and discourages their reasons to emigrate illegally.

We can support a one time path to citizenship if laws are passed or enforced not to hire future illegals, check work papers of all Americans, pay $ whatever it takes to do the jobs.

How can this man call himself a libertarian? :confused:

Good question, if he is an actual Lib, I am Ghandi. All the professed Liberatarians I've encountered tend to feel that open broders are a good thing.

As to the question of cooperating with the INS, firstly, the requirement for cooperation with the INS was stipulated by California's legislature in the Penal Code, secondly, if a state wishes to accept Federal funding, it inevitably accepts Federal control. "He who pays the piper calls the tune", as the saying goes.


Right...all of which is a gross violation of the concept of federalism, which, as far as I know, is a concept that Libertarians tend to defend rabidly. Why then is a Libertarian defending such measures?


Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrant, if you were an illegal immigrant in one of my 41 NS nations, I as president would do whatever I could to send you back to your nation of origin.

The problem is if you make illegal immigrants legal and businesses keep hiring future illegal immigrants more will come illegally and expect to be made legal.

I read an article that many Mexicans in Mexico think they can still come illegally because there will be another amnesty iventually.


I should think that a more important goal would be finding out why people are entering "illegally," so that I know how to attack the root problem, instead of attacking people. According to what I have read:


...Latino immigrants seek to make their attachment to the United States more formal. Among [National Latino Immigrant Survey] respondents, between 82 and 95 percent of each national-origin group had applied for or planned to apply for U.S. citizenship. Among respondent who had not yet naturalized, 78 percent of Cuban immigrants, 79 percent of Mexican immigrants, 93 percent of Dominican immigrants, and 81 percent of other Latino immigrant intended to apply for citizenship in the future. Among noncitizens in the NLIS, approximately 60 percent of each of the national-origin groups reported that naturalizing was "very important."
...
The [Latino National Political Survey] echoed these high rates of intent to apply for naturalization. For Mexican immigrant respondents, 73.3 percent were either currently applying or planned to apply. Among Cuban-origin respondents to the LNPS, 67.5 percent were applying or would in the future.

DeSipio, L. (1996.) Counting on the Latino vote: Latinos as a new electorate. University Press of Virgina, Charlottesville.

These data strongly suggest that, in fact, the goal of immigrants is to have legal status, naturalize, and become citizens. The question raised in my mind, then, is: why then are there illegal immigrants? DeSipio points out issues like lower levels of education, poverty, and a confusing and expensive naturalization/citizenship application process. The solution to the illegal immigration problem seems, then, to be to encourage an already strong desire to legalize and naturalize by enhancing education, alieviating poverty, and by streamlining, simplifying, and making less expensive the naturalization/citizenship application process. Denying access of "illegal" immigrants to public services will not accomplish the goals of education enhancement or poverty reduction. And, in fact, simplifying and streamlining the immigration/naturalization process seems like an excellent opportunity for a Libertarian candidate to attack the wastefullness/incompetence/etc. of the government (instead of, say, defending the expanding police state while attacking the desperately poor's attempts to survive... :headbang: )

At any rate, the data show that in reality the goal of immigrants is to become taxpaying citizens, not to "come illegally because there will be another amnesty iventually."

Right...all of which is a gross violation of the concept of federalism, which, as far as I know, is a concept that Libertarians tend to defend rabidly. Why then is a Libertarian defending such measures?

As to the funding, it was the state that decided to accept Federal funding, therefore the state must accept Federal control.

I am not defending the Californian legislature. I am simply saying that the situation with regard to having the funding is entirely the fault of the California legislature, and not of a Federal government crashing California's party. If California did not want Federal controls in place, all they needed to do was keep the state's budget less than revenue, and refuse to accept the Federal funding.

If the Californian legislature want the funding, then they should jump through the hoops set for it, the Federal government would be remiss in its duty to taxpayers if it did anything less.

As I said before, the Federal controls are entirely California's fault, and California's problem to solve.

There is no single libertarian position on immigration, and anyone who tells you "this is the libertarian position on immigration" is simply defrauding you.

In a country with a libertarian government, there would still be no single position because positions on immigration tend to one side or the other of a cinflict between two rigorously held libertarian beliefs, free trade, and the responsibility of a government for national defence.

The former favours open borders, and this is the position the party takes at a national level. The latter favours checking.

That we operate in a welfare/warfare state makes things simpler.

California has a budget problem, and the consequences of this problem must eventually be borne by Californian taxpayers.

In a perfect world, the politicians would be ordered to pay the bill personally, but that won't happen.

Clearly, the entitlements are a burden on productive Californians, and should be minimised, and someone who shouldn't even be in the United States is surely not due these entitlements (to the extent that anyone could be due them). Stopping illegal immigrants will reduce the burden on Californian taxpayers who are already under excessive burdens imposed by politicians.

As to the question of cooperating with the INS, firstly, the requirement for cooperation with the INS was stipulated by California's legislature in the Penal Code, secondly, if a state wishes to accept Federal funding, it inevitably accepts Federal control. "He who pays the piper calls the tune", as the saying goes.

The solution to the threat to cut off funding is for California's politicians to grow a brain cell, and cut spending to the point where they spend less than they steal in taxation.
Legalizing the immigrants and making them pay taxes on their incomes would be the better solution, and would most likely cost much much less.

Legalizing the immigrants and making them pay taxes on their incomes would be the better solution, and would most likely cost much much less.

Firstly, they don't make enough to be taxed. Were they the sort of people who are hired to do jobs that pay enough to be taxed, they'd be the sort of people who can (and do) enter legally.

Secondly, they tend to claim a large amount of state benefits.

Thirdly, neither they, nor their employers are interested in their becoming legal. All most are interested in doing is staying a while, making a sum of money small to us, but great to their families back home, and leaving.

Secondly, they tend to claim a large amount of state benefits.


Present data that demonstrates the truth of this statement.


Thirdly, neither they, nor their employers are interested in their becoming legal. All most are interested in doing is staying a while, making a sum of money small to us, but great to their families back home, and leaving.

False. Follow this link to find out why. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10913952&postcount=8) The survey data presented by the author I quote shows that the desire to naturalize, legalize, and become citizens is quite high.

As I said before, the Federal controls are entirely California's fault, and California's problem to solve.

Again, right. And the position of the Libertarian candidate in question is not going to do much to solve this problem. In fact, it will make the problem much worse. Regardless of who's fault it is, it is still contrary to federalism, and therefore not a position I expect a Libertarian to take. I expect a Libertarian to say exactly what you wrote and conclude that "we need to reject federal funding and restore federalism" not "we pretty much need to continue with this course."

(instead of, say, defending the expanding police state while attacking the desperately poor's attempts to survive... :headbang: )

but that seems to be a common 'libertarian' position on lots of things. more cops, more prisons. hell, they'll even take more wars. and unions? outlaw the fuckers.

Legalizing the immigrants and making them pay taxes on their incomes would be the better solution, and would most likely cost much much less.

How are they going to be able to pay taxes when they are unemployed? Because two minutes after they become legal and file their paperwork, their current employer is going to have to let them go because (for the first time) they will have to dish out new money and pay the employer's share of Social Security taxes for all of their employees and show on their own tax return forms the real cost of their own employees, and then one minute after that, the newly legal immigrant will find that he/she has been fired/released and a new illegal worker (of any kind) will take the jobs of the previously illegal immigrants...

more cops, more prisons.


To be honest, I am all for both of those. Those prone to violence and the violation of other's rights belong in a cage as far as I am concerned. That said, if I were in charge, the prison population in this country would probably actually decrease greatly when we let the drug users, sellers, and other non-violent non-criminals out to make room for people who actually need removal from society.


hell, they'll even take more wars.


"Because the U.S. has many more thousands of nuclear weapons than are currently required, beginning the process of arms reduction would not jeopardize American security. We call on the U.S. government to remove its nuclear weapons from Europe. If European countries want nuclear weapons on their soil, they should take full responsibility for them and pay the cost. We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.
...
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime.
...
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#milipoli )

Doesn't sound like warmongers to me.


and unions? outlaw the fuckers.

"We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

Solutions: We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

Transitional Action: Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners and management by keeping government out of this area. Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers and innocent bystanders."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#uniocoll )

Acknowledgement of the right of individuals to voluntarily form unions and engage in collective bargaining, acknowledgement of the right to individuals to engage in peaceful boycotts, strikes, and other forms of direct action, and rejection of government interference in the entire process. Seems to be pretty consistant with the (anarchist) socialist position, actually. One may disagree with the specifics of implementation, but surely "outlaw the fuckers" is a bit of a mischaracterization.

Again, right. And the position of the Libertarian candidate in question is not going to do much to solve this problem. In fact, it will make the problem much worse. Regardless of who's fault it is, it is still contrary to federalism, and therefore not a position I expect a Libertarian to take. I expect a Libertarian to say exactly what you wrote and conclude that "we need to reject federal funding and restore federalism" not "we pretty much need to continue with this course."

The position he is taking is not intended to solve the problem, it is intended to make the problem less worse, the problem being the excessively large budget.

I think the current political climate of California makes a solution impossible, at least in the short to mid term.

...

sure, i'm not saying that lp officialdom is holding such views, only that i hear them from a lot of people that self-identify as 'libertarians'.

particularly the pro-war thing. there has been a bunch of noise in libertarianland for years now about a sizeable minority that took up cheerleading for invasions, and whether they weren't actually libertarians or were just failing to grasp the basics. check it out, a collection of articles (http://www.anthonygregory.com/prowarlibertarians.html) on the topic.

sure, i'm not saying that lp officialdom is holding such views, only that i hear them from a lot of people that self-identify as 'libertarians'.


Yes, of course, you're right. In fact, I thought of these folks (http://www.aynrand.org) when I was writing my reply.

Unfortunately, for some reason "libertarians" are considered closer to the "conservative" right than they are to the liberal left, which, having read some of the classical liberals (especially Adam Smith), is an idea that I do not understand at all. And, at the moment, the "conservative" right is infected with warmongers and the such. I'd be more inclined, however, to consider their claims of "libertarianism" to be lies, rather than think that there are "libertarians" who are pro-war, police state, etc.