Try not to make the easy mistake of assuming all people who want a secure border must therefore be ‘anti-immigration’.
What does “secure” mean?
Actually, as the post you’re responding to infers, the term libertarian was originally employed by socialist anarchists in the late 19th century. It didn’t come to have more of a “right-wing” and market-oriented meaning in American politics until a mere number of decades ago, perhaps around the 1950’s at best. So arguably “we” stole the term from “them”.
Difficult to cross? The real problem is not the actual border - however - it is the taxpayer funded social services that incentivize illegal immigration (and understandably so). I would rather see these programs cut than see a wall built because the former would save money and the latter would cost more.
If someone gives you something for free that was stolen, I don’t think your to blame for that. The general (false) notion is that the US government takes care of people. It isn’t stealing, it is “lending a hand”. So who do I hold responsible for what was taken from me, the theif or the person that “may not understand the full implications”?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I would never trust a government that wanted to disarm me to take care of my security. I wouldn’t want a government that felt there were legitimate reasons for trampling on my rights so that I can be that kind of safe.
I agree that we need to remove the artificial incentives (government services) to come across. However, I don’t see why the border should be “difficult to cross”. Why should the government care where someone was born if they want to shop at an American Wal-Mart?
What is actually gained from our immigration laws aside the creation a black market (of labor)?
I understand the laws regarding citizenship… as long as we have a “democracy” (hopefully not forever, we can’t allow the whole world to be able to vote away taxpayers’ money. Again, though, the solution is to end elections, not shut the border!
I am all for immigration, but the idea that so many people can enter the US totally freely and anonymously scares me. Maybe its just because 9/11 showed how much harm can be done by so few (and I’m sure I’ll get crap for bringing that up – I’m no neocon trust me), but a totally open border scares me.
Do not think that the gov’t should do background checks on people coming into our country? I do see benefits to background checks, and these are impossible with a totally open border, no?
Wow. Here’s the thing - how fair do you think justice systems are, worldwide? Here’s my answer - they aren’t. So what does a background check show us? In many countries, it might help us to keep anyone out who thinks like a libertarian, since the justice system would target them for false accusations.
I’m really not interested in legislating to make you feel safer. Sorry.
You must realize that:
-
The passengers could have stopped the hijacking, and
-
An American born citizen can just as easily cause harm as a foreigner.
Is it not a proper role of the government to protect the lives of the citizens? Doesn’t border control fall under the category of national security?
Haha. I think we both know that background checks are concerned with things far more important than if someone is a libertarian.
Actually, I don’t think it is, but I realize that most here do. But no, I don’t think border control can fall under the rubric of protecting the lives of the citizens any better than seatbelt laws can.
Yes, it shows convictions. For example, a person in China might be convicted of inciting a riot and treason, which would keep him out if we did a background check. That person might have been demonstrating against Mao. Or, maybe he was just known as a dissenter, and so they framed him for murder.
Oh, but that could NEVER happen HERE!
So perhaps you think that our background check rules are too harsh/strict? I’ll give you that, but that’s not a reason to eliminate background checks completely
Should we have background checks for people in this country and ship them out if they fail?
Looking at my example, it would seem you’d have to eliminate murder to address my complaint. I don’t know why you’d bother doing a background check at that point.
Do you honestly not see the danger in having a completely open border and allowing all immigrants enter freely and anonymously?
I’ll ask again… should we do background checks on American citizens and ship them out if they fail?
No. But that is not a reason to have no screening process whatsoever for people entering the country
Where is the consistency? If the government should use deadly force to prevent a convicted criminal in Canada from shopping at my business in the United States, why should it allow a convicted criminal within the country to shop at my business?