A strange thing is afoot in the little libertarian corner of the Republican presidential primary: a race to the left on immigration.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, until recently something of an immigration hawk — no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no welfare benefits — has, as they say, evolved. Representative Paul was a tough critic of the Bush administration’s “comprehensive reform” (read: “surrender”) project; today, he is calling for amnesty in the form of “green cards with an asterisk.” That asterisk would merely prevent newly legalized green-card holders from collecting welfare benefits or receiving full legal citizenship until certain unspecified mandates had been satisfied. If anything, what Ron Paul is proposing now is as weak as anything contemplated by George W. Bush.
Advertisement
Prior to this change of heart, one of the key differences between Representative Paul and the general run of free-market immigration enthusiasts had been that his thinking on immigration was not exclusively economic, but cultural as well: “We cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration,” he wrote. “We rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. . . . Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.”
In his new book, Liberty Defined, Paul instead praises the “superior” work ethic of immigrants and cites anti-Hispanic prejudice as the source of immigration hawks’ energy, giving fits to former fans such as Tom Tancredo. His objections to multiculturalism seem to be waning.
What’s got into Ron Paul? The best guess is: Gary Johnson.
Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, has joined the Republican primary race, too, and he’s out to out-libertarian the libertarians’ poster boy.
Johnson is not claiming credit for Representative Paul’s new outlook. “Did he change his views?” he asks cooly. “Well, the thing about politics is that you end up changing the world a little bit when others recognize that what you’re saying is a good thing.”
In effect, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are in a race to the left in a Republican party — and a country — that is in an energetically restrictionist mood, especially when it comes to illegal immigrants. A Southwest Voter Research Institute poll found that 69 percent of Hispanics in Texas favor deploying additional federal forces to secure the border, and more than half support a national identification card; Pew found Democratic voters nearly evenly split on Arizona’s immigration reforms.
I was once one of those open borders libertarians, until I went to live in Eastern Europe for 13 years.
When I visited the Baltic countries I realized these people live every day with the knowledge a hiccup of history could wipe them out as a nation - forever.
They, like us, inhabit a nice place to live, and have a huge population of neighbors who'd like to live there.
They don't want any more Russians moving in, and they'd very much like the ones that are there to go home.
In Lithuania they are always aware that ethnic Lithuanians are a minority their own capitol city, outnumbered by Poles and Russians.
After living in the Baltics and Yugoslavia, all I can say is, I'm considerably less enthusiastic about the benefits of diversity.
For some unknown reason, I have always associated libertarianism with largely intellectual issue positions. So much for that misconception...
Illegal immigration imposes tremendous long-term costs and cultural problems that can be easily dealt with today. But, by all means, let's cover our eyes until it becomes a crisis like every other federal issue.
As more information about the candidates comes out, there are fewer of them that I consider to be worthy of voting for. Previously, I had high hopes for Paul, but see he is well on his way to evolving into a run-of-the-mill Bush neoconservative. Maybe it's better to keep Obama in the WH; a Republican congress will strike down his every move, so nothing will be accomplished. 'Standing athwart history and yelling,"stop!"', if you will. Far better than a RINO WH which pushes through progressive agendas with the Republican stamp of approval from congress.
Do not believe everything you read. Pick up Dr. Paul's books or google the man, and you will find that he DOES NOT support amnesty in any shape or form. He wants to secure our borders. He does want to allow people to continue to come in the legal way. He is entirely against illegal immigration. Look at the man's voting record or his youtube speeches. Don't listen to this dribble.
Libertarianism is, actually, largely intellectual. The problem is that it has become too intellectual--read: isolated from reality.
The L philosophy makes perfect sense... in a nicely-traditional, homogeneous Anglo-Saxon-style society founded on (you guessed it) libertarian traditions.
Where it spectacularly fails is to take into account the fact that different, non-libertarian cultures can, by their influx, water down the intellectual utopia they envision.
To expect that libertarianism would still be libertarianism in a future when 50% of the population comes from Islamic theocracies, Asian totalitarian states, Spanish-American autocracies and the like, is plain foolishness.
It's like stipulating that by mechanical determinism, the "human spirit yearns for individual freedom." Let's look at the Middle East and see how that is going...
Although I agree with about 90% of the L philosophy, the remaining 10% is so unrealistic and wishful as to destroy its appeal for me. And talk to a self-professed "true Libertarian," and you'll have the impression you are talking to a fundamentalist of sorts.
None of these people have actually lived here and understand the problem. I challenge them to leave their security details behind and move with their families to an isolated ranch house in southern Arizona for six months. I guarantee they'll want far more than a moat and alligators.
Frankly I'm disgusted with people who think they have have all the answers but don't even have a clue as to what they don't even know.
"Yes, there are welfare services being provided that I don’t think should be provided, but these are issues that are relatively easily dealt with"
Really? "Relatively easily dealt with"? Then why isn't it being dealt with?
Libertarians live in a happy little world. Unfortunately for them, it isn't this world.
Way to look at one issue in a vacuum. The other positions taken by Paul and Johnson would probably result in an expanding economy and preserved individual freedom. Without the burden of government regulation, the need for workers will be tremendous. Without the insane war on drugs, why would people bring them across the border? Without the welfare available to illegals, ie prison, schools, emergency rooms etc, the resulting illegals would show up for jobs. without spending trillions on foreign entanglements, we could utilize our own energy resources. In a choice between a Paul or Johnson and someone like Pawlenty, Romney, Newt or Cain, if you choose one of the latter, you better build a big wall, because you will get bigger government, more foreign wars, more internal wars on drugs, terror, more debt and more problems at the border. Good luck to big government repubs, how has it worked out for you lately?
Apparently, the pseudo "intellectualism" of the "L Philosophy" makes no allowance for the quaint ideals of national sovereignty or self-determination.
If we cannot control who enters our country, we cease to be sovereign; we forfeit our right to be self-determining.
OF ALL THE CONCEPTS on which to be so "laissez faire"! A more upside-down view of liberty could not be thought up, no matter how "intellectual" the "L Philosophy" may be otherwise.
In the end, the "L" boils down to **libertine**. As my country's very existence is at stake, the big "L" vaults even further up on my very short enemies' list.
Thorough ignorance of the concept of civic virtue forms the mouth of the wide river of division between me and the "L" make-believe philosophes. Its delta is an utter lack of appreciation for what it means to be a nation.
With such marked confusion on such things, it seems the "L" crowd committed themselves to dimmer light bulbs well before our government mandated we switch.
No matter who is elected in 2012, in 2016 there almost certainly is still going to be a welfare state, a war on drugs, wars, and regulation."
Kevin, you are correct, there is no way for all those misguided Washington brainchildren to be eliminated. However, with most of the big government repub candidates signing on to Ryan's plan from on high, you can look forward to the 2017 congress voting on an increase in the debt limit from 19.5 trillion to 22.2 trillion at the request of president pawlenty, romney, gingrich, bachmann, cain.
First of all amnesty in this situation is not really amnesty -- it's far worse. We don't just forgive the illegals for their crimes -- we reward them with their ill gotten good (residence) and legal title.
I thought 2 of the planks of libertarianism were property rights and the rule of law. These so-called libertarians have violated both of these planks.
I have now winnowed my search for a candidate by two. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican field is little better on this issue.
"What’s got into Ron Paul? The best guess is: Gary Johnson."
I don't think this is the best guess at all. He has been moving to the left for a while now. His foreign policy, which was initially focused on reasonable arguments about costs and folly of nation-building, gradually evolved into siding with everyone but the USA and fetishizing "international law" and diplomacy.
More and more, he is pandering to the college left through anti-Americanism rather than trying to appeal to any conservative constituency. With his views of immigration, specifically suggestions that Americans are racists while immigrants are noble and hard-working, he is just pushing it further in the same direction. While Johnson supports the same policies, at least his rationale is not anti-American.
Thanks for bringing this up and I hope this gets publicity it deserves. Once upon a time I was his supporter. Now I believe he needs to be stopped in the tracks.
What if we just enforced the laws regarding hiring illegals and stopped giving them welfare? What if? What if? What if?
Perhaps then this would be a more manageable problem.
And even if Ron Paul isn't perfect, 99% of the rest of the field are BIG GOVERNMENT lovers and therefore don't see government for what it is - the problem...
KW, thanks for the article. These two did okay in the televised Fox News debate, but they obviously don't see illegal immigration as an existential threat. Johnson talks about mere immigration as though that was the issue, when it's primarily the illegal invasion of our southern borders that has people up in arms. We have been invaded and are being plundered, and our leaders are wringing their hands over how to stop our complaining without annoying the invaders.
I skew libertarian, but I think the fate of our country as a nation is more important than ideology. I have no plan, unfortunately. The problem has gotten too bad, and there seems to be no antibiotics for this affliction. Perhaps amputation, our very own two-state solution. Oh, that'll go over well....
