I am not singling anyone out here so don’t get offended. I think that if we look at the history and intent of the Framers we have the answer to the subject of militias. The Framers saw standing armies as a threat -for a varity of reasons.- hence the 2nd Amendment. Where as in the past State Militias were the norm since the Spanish American war and further the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and WWI we don’t have the stucture of local controlled militias as the framers intended. I see the states as being irresponsible in not maintaining state controlled militias that are trained and Officered by the state Assemblies.
That we cannot do this for ourselves legally, and it is in the US codes we should be demanding this from our State Governments. But it should have 0 to do with the Federal Government except that the training and standards be compairable.
My problem with Ron Paul is that he would (if he got his way) end “birthright citizenship” for the children of people he calls “illegal aliens”. There are two major problems with this in my mind. First, whatever one may think of their parents (I have no problem with most of them but for the sake of debate . . . ) it is not the fault of their children that they are here and now identify with the United States as their home. Second, the long term consequences of such a policy are horrendous. Imagine, if this policy is instituted today what it will be like 20 or 30 years from now. To prove one is a “citizen or national” of the United States one would have to carry around proof that not only were YOU born in the United States but that your parents were either born here or came here legally. Someone who would advocate such a policy is either a statist, a fool or both. I want neither a statist nor a fool as POTUS. As a side note I would like to point out another reason to oppose Ron Paul. Given the harassment many of them receive from government thugs recent Hispanic immigrants (legal or otherwise) are an excellent audience for the libertarian message. People like Ron Paul who claim to be libertarians but have some problem with people crossing invisible lines without the permission of corrupt politicians or the bureaucrats they hire can potentially poison the well for such people. Imagine how much it could poison the well for these people if he got the Republican nomination.
…another mis-statement and misunderstanding of Ron Paul’s true intent. Yes, his stated policy INCLUDES ending birthright citizenship but I take it to mean as a stopgap measure UNTIL that point at which the current (as quoted) “incoherent and unfair” immigration system can be replaced. Singling out birthright citizenship is a narrow minded perspective of his stated goals:
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
…in addition, ending a state-sponsored program of allowing birthright citizenship is an anti-statist position - pecking away at it, so to speak.
From a libertarian perspective that is better than the current system of allowing that kind of state sponsorship. Sure, it does not go quite far enough for a ‘perfect’ libertarian platform, but consider the alternatives…
In order to end birthright citizenship it would be necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States. This is a very permanent step, only once in US History has a constitutional amendment been repealed. To amend the Constitution would be a long and arduous process itself. It would be easier (not to mention more pro-liberty) to end the welfare state than it would to end birthright citizenship. The problems associated with “illegal aliens” are a direct result of the welfare state, not the result of simply having more people here.
"…in addition, ending a state-sponsored program of allowing birthright citizenship is an anti-statist position - pecking away at it, so to speak. From a libertarian perspective that is better than the current system of allowing that kind of state sponsorship. Sure, it does not go quite far enough for a ‘perfect’ libertarian platform, but consider the alternatives…"I disagree. Allowing the state to deny people citizenship based upon something arbitrary is a power too dangerous to give them. It would enable the state to have citizenship as leverage, a weapon to force people into bind obedience.
"Allowing the state to deny people citizenship based upon something arbitrary is a power too dangerous to give them. It would enable the state to have citizenship as leverage, a weapon to force people into bind obedience. "
Does not the ‘birthright citizenship’ issue do the same thing? Why not get rid of it then?
No, as I am sure you are aware. It is not. All it would take to end the Welfare State is for congresscritters to obey the U.S. Constitution.
In case you do not understand why it would take an amendment to end birthright citizenship look up Amendment XIV. It begins "All persons bor or naturalized in the United States . . . "
Actually no, just ask the Navajo, the Crow, the Chrerokee, the Hawaiians etc. Also, if their parents did come here illegally the state did not choose them to come.
“Imagine, if this policy is instituted today what it will be like 20 or 30 years from now. To prove one is a “citizen or national” of the United States one would have to carry around proof that not only were YOU born in the United States but that your parents were either born here or came here legally”
Whether we like it or not, as in the days of Old Rome, citizenship gives people a little bit more protection from the state than being a “barbarian”. I want that protection granted to as many people as possible.
No, you do not have to prove your parents came here legally to be granted citizenship. All you have to prove is that you were born in the United States or a US. Commonwealth. As a side note, if you are wondering about the term “U.S. National” it refers to people from American Samoa or Swains Island. People from all other commonwealths or territories are U.S. Citizens.
EDIT: All citizens are nationals but not all nationals are citizens.
I do not agree with Ron Paul in this instance, but my reading of the Constitution indicates that this is a constitutional matter, and that it could only be overturned by constitutional amendment – not by a president or even a Congress. Secondly, although immigration is clearly a blessing in a free society, and probably on-balance a blessing even in our un-free society, as the welfare state grows, it becomes less of a blessing and more of a burden. Ron Paul wants to end the welfare state, after which, he would welcome immigration. He has said so.
Personally, I don’t see why ending the welfare state isn’t given priority over “cracking down” on immigrants. But the only candidate with whom I would agree 100% would be myself.
Birth right citizenship came about from the federal government telling the several States whom to grant citizenship to. Don’t tell me you don’t have a problem with that.
Your solution to borders might as well be a world government.
Sorry, but I don’t get the point of such revitalization?
Is there anyone banning us from forming militia? What else you need except for guns and people.
Or maybe you can have militia with bunch of farmers wielding their plows riding on threshing machines and call that militia. Then you can go ahead and fight against the invasion of Alaskans. We are losing here in Seattle.
Real minarchism does not include military element. I think that will be more related to State Nationalism.