I would be a lot more sympathetic to your position if there were any other countries that would extend a right of mobility to our people. Unfortunately, it’s a one way street and until other countries reciprocate, we need to protect our workers from having the market flooded.

Lastly, I know Jim was probably poking fun at that point, but it’s a common area between liberals and many libertarians that is too commonly sincerely held. I think that both of you underestimate the amount of damage that our economy, totally unaccustomed to the danger of terrorism, unlike Israel’s, would face in the wave of a free-for-all.

Pray tell, where is it written in the US Constitution that there is a constitutional right for foreigners to come to and live in the United States? How is the cause of liberty served by libertarians sitting around with their thumbs up their behinds, not proposing the minimum protection while our enemies propose the maximum?

See, I’ve noticed that you open borders types have a real problem with freedom of association when collectively exercised. Why can’t a free society say to a barbaric, backward country like Saudi Arabia that we do not wish to associate with their culture, when it holds values like this: http://www.digg.com/world_news/Saudi_Schoolbook…>

There is no example in our history of such a violent, hateful culture integrating into a liberal society. This is not about deporting all Muslims, but identifying a handful of very severely screwed up Islamic countries who seem to have a major problem with living at peace with those different from them. Views like yours will spell the death knell of libertarianism in this country if there is a major attack and libertarians continue to cling to outmoded notions like culture and ideas don’t have a direct bearing on how well foreigners can adapt to a new society, or whether they can even be trusted in a new society at all.

I would be a lot more sympathetic to your position if there were any other countries that would extend a right of mobility to our people. Unfortunately, it’s a one way street and until other countries reciprocate, we need to protect our workers from having the market flooded.

Lastly, I know Jim was probably poking fun at that point, but it’s a common area between liberals and many libertarians that is too commonly sincerely held. I think that both of you underestimate the amount of damage that our economy, totally unaccustomed to the danger of terrorism, unlike Israel’s, would face in the wave of a free-for-all.

That said, it would be incumbent on all immigrants, on track for citizenship or not, to obey US law. A non-citizen could be subject to expulsion under this model (although since they could likely just return without our noticing, prison would seem more suitable).

I agree my position is extreme and politically untenable. I also acknowledge that it poses severe security risks in an age of terrorism. But the economic cost of not having open borders is overwhelmingly high. I don’t view my position as libertarian so much as free-market.

Pray tell, where is it written in the US Constitution that there is a constitutional right for foreigners to come to and live in the United States? How is the cause of liberty served by libertarians sitting around with their thumbs up their behinds, not proposing the minimum protection while our enemies propose the maximum?

See, I’ve noticed that you open borders types have a real problem with freedom of association when collectively exercised. Why can’t a free society say to a barbaric, backward country like Saudi Arabia that we do not wish to associate with their culture, when it holds values like this: http://www.digg.com/world_news/Saudi_Schoolbooks_Christians_and_Jews_are_apes_and_pigs

There is no example in our history of such a violent, hateful culture integrating into a liberal society. This is not about deporting all Muslims, but identifying a handful of very severely screwed up Islamic countries who seem to have a major problem with living at peace with those different from them. Views like yours will spell the death knell of libertarianism in this country if there is a major attack and libertarians continue to cling to outmoded notions like culture and ideas don’t have a direct bearing on how well foreigners can adapt to a new society, or whether they can even be trusted in a new society at all.

The simplest solution, is unfortunately the one that Bush would never do because it would require some cajones and no new federal powers: deport all foreign nationals from the nations that have large representation in terrorist groups that are acting against us. That wouldn’t amount to a “deport all Muslims” order, but it would mean that we’d have to say to the Saudis that they are personae non gratae because of their extreme anti-Americanism and popular support for Wahabi Islam (which by default translates into some sort of support for terrorism).

The simplest solution, is unfortunately the one that Bush would never do because it would require some cajones and no new federal powers: deport all foreign nationals from the nations that have large representation in terrorist groups that are acting against us. That wouldn’t amount to a “deport all Muslims” order, but it would mean that we’d have to say to the Saudis that they are personae non gratae because of their extreme anti-Americanism and popular support for Wahabi Islam (which by default translates into some sort of support for terrorism).

The term I have always liked for this is a slippery slope, and I am afraid we could be in for quite a ride, unless somebody hits the brakes, like real quick.

The term I have always liked for this is a slippery slope, and I am afraid we could be in for quite a ride, unless somebody hits the brakes, like real quick.