It's impossible. There will be always people claiming that libertarianism never works and that more government and regulation is the answer to all our problems. Besides, political compromise is when two politicians give something to each other, usually pork, at the taxpayer's expense.
On 12th January 2009 the Libertarian Party (UK) was criticized by No Border Network for having authoritarian and anti-libertarian policies on immigration, in particular the treatment of asylum seekers. http://noborderswales.org.uk/2009/01/12/libertarian-hmmmm/ "Anti immigration" is different from "anti illegal immigration" and "unlimited 3rd world immigration. Putting them all under the blanket label of "anti immigration" is an over generalization. It's like saying that if you want to legalize marijuanna and opium, that you also want to legalize crack cocaine, or that if you want abortion to be fully legal only within the 1st trimester, then you are "anti-abortion". You guys are conflating. I don't think many people at all, libertarian or otherwise are "anti immigration", but many, libertarians included, are "anti wholesale 3rd world immigration".
Libertarian thinking isn't "in principal" against any immigration restrictions, that's tantamount to saying that all democrats are communists, or that all republicans are right wing christian conservatives. Sure, there is some extremist pocket of the Libertarian Party that are anti immigration restriction, or nearly any law at all for that matter. However, that line of thought doesn't describe the bulk of Libertarians. I say this as someone who is a member of Libertarian organizations. In fact, most Libertarians want a drastically reduced federal government, and believe that among the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government is border security, which they have utterly failed at. As far as your comments on Paul, they absolutely untrue. A quit internet search will reveal: Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law. He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy," and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers, and subsidizes more illegal immigration. Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence. Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens. Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship. He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship," and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.
No, you make it look like I support illegal immigration which I don't. When Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate more than 20 years ago, he said "We should have no immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." This is basically the default libertarian position. Much later, he realized that the Welfare State and birthright citizenship make people to come but not to work and that's unacceptable. That's why he's opposed to amnesty and wants to abolish citizenship by birth on US soil. But... you fail to mention that Ron Paul wants also MORE legal immigration, and in fact he routinely votes in favor of more work visas for skilled workers. So basically he favors open borders as long as the immigrants don't come to live off the government's tit. He's not the border vigilante you make him to look like.
I never said he was a 'border vigilante', and very few people are. He does, however, want to beef up border security, deport illegals, and build a fence. That makes him a 'border hawk' compared to most politicians. I think anyone advocating in favor of importing skilled labor exclusively would be a critical departure from what we have now. I don't think it's necessarily stupid to allow people in with bioengineering phds, or who are rich, successful entrepreneurs, etc. I would be in favor of an immigration policy which more closely resembles our pre 1960s immigration acts. This endless wave of unskilled or moderately skilled 3rd worlders however, is insanity. Acknowledging that is enough to get my support. True enough Paul USED to have a more benign stance on immigration, but that was back before we had an epidemic with it, so I think that makes sense. Paul is also in favor of legalizing and regulating many drugs, which would help many of the border problems in and of itself.
Very simple. Eliminate the welfare state and immigration comes to a halt. Problem solved. Seriously, simply enforce existing laws. Make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants and actually ENFORCE that. Make sure there is a LEGAL process to citizenship. That means waiting lists and take your turn, not jump the fence at will. And get rid of the entitlement society we currently have. Honestly, you'll be able to hear crickets chirp at the border if you do this. The mice only come out when they smell the cheese.
We could also enforce our currently existing laws against not crossing the border illegally, and our currently existing laws which provide for removing people who are here illegally. Unfortunately our policy in no way resembles our laws. However, because the border is porous, I believe that additional border security is necessary. We do in fact have an entire army which could help us out with this problem, if they weren't busy fighting 3rd world mongrels on the other side of the world. Because we actually do have a national security threat from 3rd world mongrels here. These 3rd worlders will come here regardless of welfare, because our civilization has a higher standard of living than theirs regardless of welfare. Most people would rather live in a western civilization than a 3rd world amerindian one, regardless of welfare. Stopping welfare will not stop these people, very few of these people actually receive welfare anyhow, just as they don't receive welfare in Mexico. Yet they still chose to come here. Almost no illegals get welfare, with the exception of being able to go to an ER, yet, they are still coming... These people do not come for welfare, they come to NOT live in a 3rd world dump.
Libertarian thinking is for the most part, jungle mentality thinking. The law of the jungle, mindless evolution, and selfishness are dominant. There has never been a libertarian Utopian society. Why is that? Because human nature would not allow it. It is human nature to act on animal instinct. It is the higher reasoning faculty which is able to evolve beyond the animal instinct. In every culture we have ever seen, we have seen power wielded by the strong over the weak for the benefit of the strong...not for the benefit of the society as a whole. Our framers were a rare breed, to a great extent because they were influence by the leading philosophers of their day, who argued for the good of the society as being more important in the long run than the good of an individual. Look, the Paulites could buy some country (or actually all move to Paulville Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulville,_Texas ) and show the world how well their philosophy works in practice. Of course that will never happen... If we put the ideal of the 60's of communal living on one end of the spectrum, and the Libertarian ideal on the other end, it is easy to see that neither extreme would work unless the individual themselves were living a state of Enlightenment. What works best is a system of checks and balances against abuse of power. Our system of government is still the best going, and the problem is that the system of checks and balances has been corrupted by the influence of powerful corporations and money. Why not just fix our own system, which is the best practically designed system, and eliminate all the extremist thinkers who live in the fringe... I doubt we would find many leaders of the intellectual, philosophical, cultural and moral development of those who founded our government...because our values have shifted dramatically between genuine patriotism and love of country...and selfishness and desire for personal excess at the expense of the society as a whole.
I don't want to put myself in the middle of this argument much, but I merely would like to point out to Mav74 that what Ron Paul is saying, according to the poster before you, was what the US was like in the days of Ellis Island. At that time, you were screened for health reasons only. If you were healthy, you were in. That was a time of record immigration. Contrary to myth, and this is the only point where I'll dispute everyone in this thread, 99% of immigrants come here to work. The tiny minority who come here to take advantage of our system would be far better off going to Canada, after all. This is not unique to the US. It's how immigration has always worked, including internal migrations, such as the massive migration of blacks from the South to the North after WWII, which happened because you could get twice the money for the same work up North as you could down South. Carry on.
That's total bullshit. In the days of Ellis Island, the immigration policy specifically favored Europeans. Very few non European immigrants were allowed. The few that were were mostly groups of Chinese, and even most of them initially came as indentured servants. This historical revisionism by the far left has gotten absurd. First the myths about the Amerindians, and now immigration myths about Ellis island. How sad. If your stupid ass had read my post, you'd see that I already said that illegals, by and large, do not come here for welfare. Then again you are clearly capable of erasing history in your mind...