Immigration and other topics

Okay, let’s get our bearings.

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide Libertarian Party members with an “information package,” that will help them form a clearer picture of what it means to link Neal Boortz with the Libertarian Party in the public mind.

It’s clear that Mr. Boortz’s viewpoint of the invasion and occupation of Iraq diverges from the party’s stated position. It’s also becoming more clear that this isn’t just a disagreement over a single military action. Past and present statements by Mr. Boortz indicate that he also doesn’t agree with the general foreign policy of the Libertarian Party, which is strict military non-interventionism and zero taxpayer-funded foreign aid.

This larger disagreement with our foreign policy has been exhibited most recently by his attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq on purely humanitarian grounds, saying that those who didn’t support the invasion would prefer that Saddam were still in power, his tyranny over the Iraqi people still in place.

(My apologies; embedded links still aren't working out. -J.S.)

See Tom Knapp's comments and reference here:

http://www.freedom2008.com/bootboortz/archives/002571.html

Or, scroll down this link for the following quote:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01012004.html

..this is the man that Howard Dean wishes was still in power in Iraq. No ... don't give me any flack on that statement. If Dean was opposed to the action that ousted Saddam .. then that means he necessarily wishes Saddam was still in power. Sorry, Deanie Babies. You can't have it both ways. Dean is sure he wants Bush out of power .. but he says it only "might" be a good thing that Saddam has been captured. Oh .. and ditto for many libertarians, I'm sorry to say.

Boortz's view contradicts the Libertarian Party's position in two ways: He would use America's military for reasons other than the direct defense of this country, and also (in contrast to his domestic policy) provide a welfare program for Iraqis.

(It should be pointed out that the LP Platform prohibits these acts only when sanctioned by government. Private individuals should be free to aid whatever foreign cause they choose.)

In addition to his foreign policy views, Boortz has made objectionable statements in support of federal intrusion into the affairs of anti-war activists:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200311/11242003.html

The FBI is investigating the backgrounds and organizational methods of antiwar demonstrators in the US. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you. It is safe to assume that a large number of these demonstrators are out there in the streets because they want America to fail in its efforts to fight terrorism and its efforts to bring secular representative governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Translated: Many of these demonstrators are pro-Saddam and anti-US. So, who wouldn't want them investigated by the FBI?

While his questionable statements involving civil liberties have so far concerned only isolated government policies, it also seems that his feelings about the Patriot Act itself may be a bit ambiguous:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200312/12092003.html

I frequently get inquiries as to why I don't spend more time railing against the Patriot Act. Read this essay from from two University of Chicago law professors. Is the Patriot Act really the monster that some say it is? You may be a bit surprised.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004403

But now, in addition to foreign policy and civil liberties, he has also come out against the Libertarian Party's position on a third issue of high current significance, that of immigration. On Jan. 7, he had this to say:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01072004.html

It's pandering for votes time. This time Hispanic votes. Bush is going to propose some grand plan whereby people who broke the law to get in the United States, and then broke the law by obtaining employment, and then broke the law by using false Social Security cards to avoid arrest ... how these people can "earn" a legal status by signing a few documents and promising to follow the law from now on.

Arizona, Florida, California ... all key states with large numbers of Hispanic voters. If the 2004 election is close Bush is going to need these Hispanic votes ... and he's paying for them today by trashing the rule of law in America.

One may argue that the primary issue here isn’t necessarily the spirit of open immigration, but rather the technical means by which such a policy is brought about. For example, one could argue that in Bush's proposal those who have violated the law are receiving better treatment than those who have pursued citizenship while obeying the law.

Be that as it may, and although the Libertarian Party hasn’t made an official statement yet on the Bush plan, one may remember that prior to 9-11-01 President Bush was considering a plan very similar to the present one.

Steve Dasbach, the party’s executive director at the time, penned this press release, outlining the party’s view of the matter:


http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=223


Amnesty for immigrants is "a great leap forward," Libertarians say

July 19, 2001

[July 19] WASHINGTON, DC -- President George W. Bush's proposal to grant amnesty to 3 million illegal Mexican workers is "a great leap forward in immigration policy," Libertarians say, because immigration is good for America.

"Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. "Every industrious immigrant who comes here is making a statement that they want to live and work in the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth -- as so many millions of our own forefathers have. America should welcome them."

In an attempt to woo Hispanic voters and address the issue of illegal immigration, Bush has floated a controversial proposal to grant amnesty to the approximately 3 million Mexicans working illegally in the United States and create a "guest worker" program for seasonal workers.

But in response to criticism from some conservative and anti-immigration advocates, the administration has shown signs that it is retreating from that position.

"George Bush, stand your ground and defend America's proud tradition of accepting new immigrants," said Dasbach.

Here's why immigration is good for America:

* Immigration creates jobs. "Since 1962, the U.S. economy has expanded by 126 million jobs, despite hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving every year," said Dasbach. "That's because so many immigrants start businesses that employ American workers."

For example, a recent Cato Institute study found that the top five immigrant-founded firms in Silicon Valley, CA, alone employ more than 80,000 people. And an analysis of the 85 largest cities reported that those with the highest number of immigrants create jobs at twice the rate of other cities, according to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

"The fact that immigration and a record-low unemployment rate coexist indicates that immigrants create new jobs," said Dasbach.

* Immigrants stimulate the economy in general. "More workers increases the demand for all products and services, which fuels economic growth and creates a greater need for workers throughout society," said Dasbach. "That's because immigrants aren't just workers, they are consumers as well. In fact, in the 1980s, the U.S. accepted 7 million new immigrants, while unemployment fell sharply and family incomes rose. So the immigrants-are-taking-our-jobs argument just doesn't make sense."

* Immigrants provide immeasurable cultural benefits. "What would America be like without sushi, pizza, wiener schnitzel, burritos or any of the other foods brought to our shores by immigrants?" Dasbach asked. "Or imagine radio stations and concert halls devoid of salsa, flamenco, techno, or classical music, all of which originated in other nations. Or try telling sports fans that baseball would be the same without Sammy Sosa, tennis would as exciting without Monica Seles, or basketball would be as much fun without Dikmbe Mutombo.

"The point is that American culture would be more bland without our rich tradition of immigrants."

Dasbach acknowledged that many Americans are concerned that more immigration drives up welfare costs, thereby increasing the size and power of government.

"Democrats and Republicans have worked for decades to create a powerful welfare magnet, and they shouldn't be surprised when it attracts millions of Americans and non-Americans alike," he said. "The solution isn't to reduce immigration; it's to eliminate the welfare state.

"President Bush should ignore his critics, recognize that immigration is far more American than welfare -- and grant amnesty to every hard-working immigrant who comes to America in search of a better life."


Posted by Jeff Smith at January 15, 2004 04:41 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Boortz's argument generalizes. When drug prohibition is repealed, must those already sentenced remain in prison for the sake of "the rule of law"? What about the amnesty for Vietnam draft dodgers?

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 15, 2004 06:36 PM

QUOTE

While his questionable statements involving civil liberties have so far concerned only isolated government policies, it also seems that his feelings about the Patriot Act itself may be a bit ambiguous:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200312/12092003.html

I frequently get inquiries as to why I don't spend more time railing against the Patriot Act. Read this essay from from two University of Chicago law professors. Is the Patriot Act really the monster that some say it is? You may be a bit surprised.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004403

END QUOTE

You do not address the reasons given for not "railing agains the Patriot Act." Instead, you mention it as though is were the Libertarian equivalent of the race card or the child abuse card - i.e. mere mention of the Patriot Act without accomapnying vitriol is heresy and should get one branded with a Scarlet P.

Why not address WHY you believe the Patriot Act is so wrong and back it with specific quotes from the act itself showing how and where your objections are substantiated.

Boortz backed up his lack of opposition with a well-reasoned column which discussed specific parts of the act and their implications.

If you do this as well, your arguments will carry more weight.

Posted by: J at January 19, 2004 08:39 AM

If Neal would run for President I would vote for him. I am truly disappointed to know there are those who call themselves Libertarians who do not know the true meaning of the word. If they did, they would know Neal Boortz is the epitome of the word Libertarian. Perhaps they are Democrates in disguise!

Posted by: Dooddle at January 19, 2004 09:06 AM

I'm not sure where you people get the idea that the LP is some monolithic omni-opinion that has to toe the party platform. I am a member of the LP, and I supported the war because I love liberty. Freedom is not an American right -- it is a human right. The Iraqi people have as much right to be free as you or I, and we have failed them as humans to have sit back on our laurels and let them live in tyranny.

The party's myopic and hateful position on the war has pushed me this -)(- close to throwing out my party membership and cancelling my monthly pledge. Boortz is not a loner libertarian on this issue. If you cared about liberty for man and not simply liberty for yourself, you opinion on this war could not be as simple as you have portrayed it.

Posted by: Phelps at January 19, 2004 09:10 AM

“You do not address the reasons given for not 'railing agains the Patriot Act.' Instead, you mention it as though is were the Libertarian equivalent of the race card or the child abuse card - i.e. mere mention of the Patriot Act without accomapnying vitriol is heresy and should get one branded with a Scarlet P.”

You should read again the first paragraph of my piece. The _primary_ purpose of this blog --at least my personal participation in it-- is to provide insight into Mr. Boortz’s views _to Libertarians_, so that they can have a better idea of what it means to link Mr. Boortz with the party.

After looking over the material, they can make up their own mind.

It isn’t my primary purpose here to justify the Libertarian Party’s views on the Patriot Act, or any other issue. The party’s position is already decided.

On the other hand, if you are curious about what the party says about the Patriot Act and other issues, please read these views for yourself by visiting the party’s website and browsing through the platform, op-eds, and press releases. You will find some thorough analysis there.

www.lp.org

“I am truly disappointed to know there are those who call themselves Libertarians who do not know the true meaning of the word. If they did, they would know Neal Boortz is the epitome of the word Libertarian.”

No one owns the word “libertarian,” but the Libertarian Party’s operating principles have been clearly defined in its platform. Issues such as the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act and civil liberties in general, and immigration, involve principles that are spelled out clearly in the platform, particularly the Statement of Principles. For these three areas of concern, the platform also has individual planks that speak to these issues.

You may not agree with the platform, or the party’s basic principles, but they are what they are. Again, if you are an LP member, and Mr. Boortz’s views don’t concern you, I’m not here to change your mind.

“Boortz is not a loner libertarian on this issue. If you cared about liberty for man and not simply liberty for yourself, you opinion on this war could not be as simple as you have portrayed it.”

Again, I’m not here to change your mind. I appreciate that you’re a member of the LP. However, if you really understand our party’s platform as a whole, you’ll see that the goal is to have liberty for _everbody_. That excludes violating the rights of US citizens, by stealing their money to “liberate” another country in a war they don’t believe is justified for this country's self-defense.

On the other hand, in the Libertarian world envisioned by the LP platform, you and others who share your view would have the freedom to liberate whomever you want.

Posted by: Jeff Smith at January 19, 2004 11:45 AM

My dear Libertarians -- do you hate free speech that much that you won't let Neal Boortz speak at the national convention? I was about to renew my membership with the party, but now I think I will remain faithfully independent. Your stance on preventing a speaker who might just deviate from the party platform on some issues is likened to the Democratic Party -- famous for ensuring all Dems toe the line in their speeches.

I see the true colors of the Libertarians now and feel a bit cheated -- I really wanted to find a political home. However, it seems to me you would actually stiffel free speech, the key element of personal liberty, just to maintain a firm party line. You do not seem open to any ideas but your own.

I'm sure you will flame me for posting this -- as would the Democrats if I dared say anything contrary to one of their positions. Flame on, but take a close look at what you are doing. Not only is Neal your ONLY national voice, but he is also your most credible.

Posted by: Guy Jones at January 19, 2004 11:56 AM

I was attracted to the Libertarian party, in part, because some of Boortz's views differ with that of the mainstream of the LP, and yet he remains a powerful spokesman for the LP. Other parties demand ideological purity on some key issues (Democrats are pro-choice, pro-labor... Republicans are... who knows). The LP, I thought, demands mostly that you think things through. If you can provide a reasoned defense if your position, and believe in a few basic principles you're probably going to get along fine as a Libertarian. Even if from time to time you don't place those principles in the same order as another member of the LP, you at least share a basic respect for individualism, capitalism, and the rule of law that can probably at least get you seeing the other side.

As it is, if Boortz is Booted, I'm probably back to being Independant with a capital "I". Not because I'm more loyal to Boortz than the LP, but because I can't be a part of a party that is intolerant of the power of individual thought. If the war is most important issue to you, so important that you demand Boortz be booted, I suggest you look seriously at throwing your vote behind Dean or Kucinich.

Posted by: Naginata at January 19, 2004 01:24 PM

Two reasons I won't join the Libertarian Party (not that anyone's heart will be broken, I'm sure):

1. The LP cannot recognize the fact that "direct defense" need not mean waiting around to be attacked.

2. The distinction between immigration (which is good) and ILLEGAL immigration (which is a drain) apparently means nothing to the LP.

Fair enough. Apart from that, though, if you aren't here to change people's minds and if the term "libertarian" doesn't belong to any specific person, why not let Neal speak?

G.

Posted by: Gondorff at January 19, 2004 04:47 PM

. . . we have failed [the Iraqis] as humans to . . . let them live in tyranny.

Do you think the U.S. has a moral obligation to be constantly at war in one place or another until there is no tyranny on earth?

That's not a rhetorical question or an attempt at a reductio. I would like to have a discussion on this point.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 19, 2004 05:07 PM

" . . . do you hate free speech . . .?"

As I've pointed out before, such remarks presuppose a leftist distortion of the idea of free speech.

Is free speech being denied to all the billions of people who were never considered for an invitation to speak?

You do not seem to be open to any ideas but your own.

Are you aware that Boortz has been challenged to debate the war issue? He has ignored the challenge as far as I know.

I'm sure you will flame me for posting this

Why? Can you point to an example of a Boortz supporter who has posted on this blog, been civil (as you have been) and not received civility in return?

This is a convenient occasion to mention that all the Boortz supporters on this thread so far have been uncharacteristically civil. It is noted and appreciated.

Not only is Neal your ONLY national voice . . .

Come again? Boortz is not a spokesman for the LP. The libertarian movement has national voices, such as the Cato Institute.

I don't consider Boortz a voice for anyone, including himself. He is an entertainer playing a character, and has admitted as much.

. . . he is also your most credible.

No. He has zero credibility, for the reason already given and many others to be found on this blog.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 19, 2004 05:49 PM

Guy:

I have no intention of “flaming” you. In fact, I appreciate your honest comments.

“My dear Libertarians -- do you hate free speech that much that you won't let Neal Boortz speak at the national convention?”

The right of free speech also includes the right of members within a non-governmental organization to influence the way in which said organization is presented.

“I was about to renew my membership with the party, but now I think I will remain faithfully independent. Your stance on preventing a speaker who might just deviate from the party platform on some issues is likened to the Democratic Party -- famous for ensuring all Dems toe the line in their speeches.”

Guy, this is a bit ironic. Isn’t it quite often Democrats who, through government force, want to tell private individuals and groups how to behave? Isn’t this how we got from the original intention of the Bill of Rights, (that only acknowledged the limitation on federal authority over states and individuals), to a situation where the federal government now _uses_ the Bill of Rights to enforce its version of ethics on states and individuals?

What I mean is, free speech is whatever individuals, or groups voluntarily banding together who are not otherwise violating the rights of other people, want to make it.

Does free speech require that Mr. Boortz allow me to respond on his show to everything I disagree with? No, because it's _his show_.

Please look in the archives and read my little piece “The Petition and Free Speech.” Mr. Boortz was kind enough to leave it posted on Nealz Nuze for four days, starting Jan. 1st, in response to a letter that raised the “free speech” issue.

“I see the true colors of the Libertarians now and feel a bit cheated -- I really wanted to find a political home.”

Which Libertarians? There are many who feel Boortz should be allowed to speak at the convention. I hope I’ve addressed the free speech issue for you. The party is not obligated to provide a highly-publicized podium from which to express views other than its own.

“Flame on, but take a close look at what you are doing. Not only is Neal your ONLY national voice, but he is also your most credible.”

That says a lot about why some of us are troubled by his speaking at the convention. We _don’t want_ his voice and views to be the primary ones associated with the LP. As far as what views are “credible,” he has done a great deal to make sure our views on a few major issues, like the invasion of Iraq, will _never be_ credible, to millions of people.

Please read Tom Knapp’s “Boot Boortz” article, and perhaps my own short “Boortz and LP Purity, pt. II” piece, for more insight into why we don’t favor Mr. Boortz as our public face at this time.

Naginata:

Very nice comments. Thanks for posting them.

“As it is, if Boortz is Booted, I'm probably back to being Independant with a capital "I". Not because I'm more loyal to Boortz than the LP, but because I can't be a part of a party that is intolerant of the power of individual thought. If the war is most important issue to you, so important that you demand Boortz be booted, I suggest you look seriously at throwing your vote behind Dean or Kucinich.”

First, it is no longer likely (to me anyway) that Boortz will be “booted” entirely from the program. Personally, helping a bit with the petition, and providing a source of information and opinion on this blog, are all I’m willing to do in opposition to his appearance.

I continue to post here because I’d like to see more awareness and thought on the issue, also in a belief it may influence future situations; but that’s the extent of my ambition.

As far as Dean and Kucinich:

Dean is not opposed to foreign intervention on principle, only situationaly. It’s not at all clear how he will address future world situations, or if he will reassess those major aspects of this country's ongoing foreign policy that essentially stay the same, no matter who is in office. Lastly, he has no problem with taxpayer-funded economic aid to foreign countries.

Kucinich comes closer to the LP’s military policy, but he is practically a socialist. That means that he favors the initiation of force against anyone who dissents from his collectivist economic and social vision. This may not be as obvious as military force, but it’s still an unjust use of force, from a Libertarian perspective.

I'll be happy supporting whoever gets the LP's nod to run for President.

Gondorff:

“The LP cannot recognize the fact that "direct defense" need not mean waiting around to be attacked.”

I don’t think that’s really true, although the party’s position does sometimes come off that way. The issue is more what constitutes an imminent, credible threat.

“The distinction between immigration (which is good) and ILLEGAL immigration (which is a drain) apparently means nothing to the LP.”

I concede that the distinction essentially does not exist, in the party’s official and ultimate vision of “how things should be.” There is a great deal of debate however, among individual members, on how we get there from here.

“Fair enough. Apart from that, though, if you aren't here to change people's minds and if the term ‘libertarian’ doesn't belong to any specific person, why not let Neal speak?”

As stated above, he very likely _will_ speak, and I am not currently part of any initiatives, other than the petition and this blog, to oppose that happening.

If you read my above comments, along with the references, maybe you’ll better understand the strategic reasons why his speaking has been opposed.

Different people want to draw the line, defining what is sufficiently Libertarian to represent the party, in different places. Some want to draw it according to a very broad definition; others favor a more narrow interpretation.

I’d appreciate it if people in the “broad definition” camp realized that _they too_ are drawing a line; one that will also, by necessity, exclude those who disagree with their interpretation.



Posted by: Jeff Smith at January 19, 2004 07:07 PM
Do you think the U.S. has a moral obligation to be constantly at war in one place or another until there is no tyranny on earth?

You'll have to define "at war". Do I think that we should invade the rest of the world serially until we depose every dictator? No. Do I think that we should exercise unending vigilance against tyrannies, always weighing the moral issue of when a dictator has gone too far? Absolutely.

There are things that I would like to do to relieve that duty from the state (like repealing the laws preventing Americans from fighting in foriegn wars), but until then, we are stuck with fighting economically, fighting rhetoricly, and fighting militarily. We fought Saddam economically (both with the free market, something that is bringing China down and with Embargos -- but that is really a military solution), we fought him with rhetoric that was meaningless to the few of his people who heard it. We had no option left but to remove him from power.

Saddam has killed tens of thousands in straight political executions. He has killed hundreds of thousands in real wars of aggression. He has used chemical weapons on his own people. If there has been an enemy of liberty -- that is what brings us together isn't it, liberty? -- in our generation, that enemy was Saddam Hussain.

At some point, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. At some point, someone like Saddam must be fought, and that isn't just a fight for the Iraqis under him. It is a fight for humanity.

We fight about things like the PATRIOT Act here, and complain about plane searches. Those are violations of liberty, and we should remain vigilent against them, but we must maintain perspective. There were people being "disappeared" on a daily basis in Iraq based on the whim of a tyrant. If you can abide that and rest easy in your soft life here, then you are no friend of liberty.

Iraq is not the end. Iran, the Palestinian Authority, China -- these are all states that must be changed fundamentally. Some of them are already bowing to economic pressure (China), some of them are bowing the rhetoric (Iran), and some of them are so poisoned that they are likely to answer to nothing but brute force (PA.) If you are a friend of liberty, then you will do whatever it takes to bring freedom to these places -- no more, and no less.

Posted by: Phelps at January 20, 2004 03:02 AM

. . . always weighing the moral issue of when a dictator has gone too far . . .

So, you have carefully studied the human rights records of the dictators of North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan, weighed the moral issue, and concluded that none of them have gone too far?

We fought Saddam economically . . . we had no option left.

Economic sanctions usually fail even to change a government's policies, let alone bring one down.

Some observers think the blockade strengthened Saddam's position within Iraq.

If you can abide that and rest easy in your soft life here, then you are no friend of liberty.

And have you given up your soft life to fight against one of the world's remaining tyrannies? ( Of course tu quoque is a logical fallacy, but I didn't want to let this bit of self-righteous rhetoric go by.)

I think most Americans have earned the lives they live, and are under no obligation to sacrifice them to improve the lives of strangers.

I also doubt that such a sacrifice would be effective. Most of the "liberated peoples" will be under a new tyranny sooner or later. It might emerge from their own political culture, or be imposed by an American government whose own motives are more geo-political than idealistic. Meanwhile the U.S. itself would become a militarized garrison state. This is the course against which we were warned by John Quincy Adams.

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 23, 2004 11:05 AM

Naginata:

[Boortz] remains a powerful spokesman for the LP.

The wording implies (perhaps unintentionally) that Boortz is somehow authorized to speak for the LP. I don't think this is true.

Boortz is a poor spokesman for just about anything, except perhaps for rudeness, nastiness, and anti-intellectualism.

The first time I heard Boortz speak, my reaction was dismay that he had latched on to libertarianism as the pretext for his ugly corner of the entertainment business.

I can't be a part of a party that is intolerant of the power of individual thought.

This is laughable. The power of thought is not displayed by hurling childish insults, nor by making up lies out of thin air.

Our concern about Boortz is not the power of his thought, but the lack thereof, and our unwillingness to be publicly associated with it.

Again I point out that Boortz has ignored the challenge to debate. Who fears the power of thought?

If the war is most important issue to you

What issue do you thing is more important to the future of our Republic?

look seriously at . . . Dean or Kucinich.

Dean is interventionist for the most part, including support for the occupation "now that we're there". Kucinich has no more chance of getting elected than an LP candidate.


Posted by: David Tomlin at January 23, 2004 12:36 PM

Gondorff:

. . . waiting around to be attacked.

The liberal tradition has long recognized the right to pre-emptive war, when a threat is open and imminent. That is different from preventive war, against a threat that is remote and possibly imaginary.

. . . immigration (which is good) and ILLEGAL immigration (which is a drain) . . .

If that is what makes the difference, wouldn't the problem be solved by making all immigrants legal?

. . . why not let Neal speak?

Have you read the petition? I'm guessing not, since your post doesn't address the issues it raises.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 23, 2004 12:56 PM
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

design by blogstyles.