Up until this point:
  
   Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently
> located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to
> ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals, and reasonable
> consideration of the nation's ability to assimilate them. Unreasonable
> restrictions and quotas should not leave potential productive citizens
> with no options other than to remain destitute elsewhere or to place their
> lives at risk by attempting to cross the border at remote and dangerous
> locations; this, often under the guidance of ruthless "coyotes" who are as
> likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and then only to
> lead embarrassingly criminal lives of fear of detection, detention and
> deportation.

  It all sounds very good. I want to know why it is that we should support a central planning system that determines whether we can "assimilate" immigrants. How are we to determine if the immigrant is coming for a few weeks to work, or for a lifetime (along with family and so on.) What happens when government determines we can't assimilate more immigrants, but there's still a strong demand for their labor - which is exactly the problem we have now?
  
  Badnarik, like so many, falls into the standard socialist thinking that the society of the US is somehow greater than the sum of it's individuals. That somehow "it" can determine how much "it" needs when it comes to immigration.
  
  I can agree with most of his proposal, but we must remove all restrictions on peaceful activities of foreigners in the United States. If they want to come for 2 weeks or 6 years, if they want to enjoy property they own, or get a job or spend their trust fund, it's not the job of government to restrict that.
  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to