Libertarians generally believe that it's wrong to:
a. deprive people of liberty unless they've committed a crime
b. deprive people of liberty without being convicted in a fair trail
c. wrest the power from individuals to decide who they associate with, and put it in the hands of a small number of centralized bureaucrats
d. dictate to other people who they can invite on their own property
e. dictate to other people who they can hire
f. dictate to other people who they can trade with
Of course, I worry about how immigrants might vote. I also worry about people who read Marxist literature. Or Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons who raise their children to believe religious nonsense. Or Southerners who are--as a class--less educated, more criminal, and poorer than the rest of the country.
But I don't think my fears justify stripping those people of their right to write/read what they want, or raise their children in their preferred religion, or deny them the right to travel where they please.
I think the fatal conceit applies to bordertarians as much as it does to other statists, and that a small number of Washington bureaucrats can't possibly have the information to make better decisions about who to associate with than each individual citizen deciding for themselves.
Current immigration suppression laws (which you support) are based primarily on the geography of one's birthplace. Of course, it's not _really_ birthplace that bothers you, it's the race/culture of the people from those locations that you dislike, and you fear that if they're allowed to move here, they'll behave in ways harmful to you, such as, among other things, change the culture, vote Democrat, and commit crimes.
If immigration suppression laws banned travel across state lines for people from the South, I don't think you'd have much difficulty attributing such bans to bigotry towards Southerners and their culture.
https://www.facebook.com/nash.yielding/posts/10162921898450346
#immigration
a. deprive people of liberty unless they've committed a crime
b. deprive people of liberty without being convicted in a fair trail
c. wrest the power from individuals to decide who they associate with, and put it in the hands of a small number of centralized bureaucrats
d. dictate to other people who they can invite on their own property
e. dictate to other people who they can hire
f. dictate to other people who they can trade with
Of course, I worry about how immigrants might vote. I also worry about people who read Marxist literature. Or Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons who raise their children to believe religious nonsense. Or Southerners who are--as a class--less educated, more criminal, and poorer than the rest of the country.
But I don't think my fears justify stripping those people of their right to write/read what they want, or raise their children in their preferred religion, or deny them the right to travel where they please.
I think the fatal conceit applies to bordertarians as much as it does to other statists, and that a small number of Washington bureaucrats can't possibly have the information to make better decisions about who to associate with than each individual citizen deciding for themselves.
Current immigration suppression laws (which you support) are based primarily on the geography of one's birthplace. Of course, it's not _really_ birthplace that bothers you, it's the race/culture of the people from those locations that you dislike, and you fear that if they're allowed to move here, they'll behave in ways harmful to you, such as, among other things, change the culture, vote Democrat, and commit crimes.
If immigration suppression laws banned travel across state lines for people from the South, I don't think you'd have much difficulty attributing such bans to bigotry towards Southerners and their culture.
https://www.facebook.com/nash.yielding/posts/10162921898450346
#immigration