Badnarik better on immigration than rumor had it

I just visited Michael Badnarik's website for his campaign for Congress, and contrary to what I'd heard about his current position on immigration, what he says on the topic sounds quite libertarian. From http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php:

    * * *

Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today, and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an already fiery debate. Let's take an objective look at immigration, borders and legitimate national security concerns.

Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain a vigorous national defense against our enemies.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested and detained or extradited.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement, doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of dire consequences to the occasional innocent refugees.

We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate meddling in the affairs of other nations. A better national defense policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders.

We must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

Immigration and border security are two separate issues.

When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of the United States.

By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for most people.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders."

The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing itself against those who would do it harm.

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.

Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry without good reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

The welfare state needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreigners invading us just so they can eat out our substance on the dole. The possibility of "safety net" abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is one of the worst enticements to illegal tresspass by foreign nationals.

    * * *

  Aside from the expected nationalist and security/fear-tinged tone of the piece (standard for most American political figures on such issues) and the dubious wisdom of putting the US government's military in charge of U.S. borders, the basic message is pretty good -- end "illegal immigration" by letting peaceful non-criminals migrate freely, subject only to a brief background check. I don't know if this is a recent change, or the rumor mill just got it wrong, but if this is in fact Michael Badnarik's position, and he is not running on anything likely to be taken for an anti-immigrant message, I may have to send him a donation after all.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Uhh...no, Cupcake, you're wrong. This is a not so carefully worded anti-immigration platform.
   
  Michael and Allen love to declare their independence from the platform after they panhandle actual anarchists and libertarians for time, money and talent. Love Michael to bits (like a brother), but some of us are really tired of the "the LP doesn't really believe in ......" nonsense.
   
  If the constitutionalists, the minarchists, and the "libertarian reformers" are so full of great ideas, let them compete without the LP label. G-d knows, they don't need the LP platform.
   
    http://thestressblog.com/2006/06/01/michael-badnarik-national-socialist-for-congress/

  Angela Keaton, who only gave 50 bucks and a banner ad.
   
                      > > x
   
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
  I just visited Michael Badnarik's website for his campaign for
Congress, and contrary to what I'd heard about his current position on
immigration, what he says on the topic sounds quite libertarian. From
http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php:

* * *

Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today,
and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an
already fiery debate. Let's take an objective look at immigration,
borders and legitimate national security concerns.

Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain
a vigorous national defense against our enemies.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and
Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable,
arrested and detained or extradited.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points
along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as
what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our
defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement,
doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of
dire consequences to the occasional innocent refugees.

We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that
keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate
meddling in the affairs of other nations. A better national defense
policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require
retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's
borders.

We must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and
treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming
under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the
equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a
suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,
no lesser response will do.

Immigration and border security are two separate issues.

When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result
is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of
the United States.

By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just
beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a
nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on
immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country
appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we
measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled
with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of
Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for
most people.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be
sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders."

The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade
the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing
itself against those who would do it harm.

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.

Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making
national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into
the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry without good
reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and
criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector
for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

The welfare state needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an
issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreigners invading us just so they
can eat out our substance on the dole. The possibility of "safety net"
abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called
safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is
one of the worst enticements to illegal tresspass by foreign nationals.

* * *

Aside from the expected nationalist and security/fear-tinged tone of
the piece (standard for most American political figures on such issues)
and the dubious wisdom of putting the US government's military in
charge of U.S. borders, the basic message is pretty good -- end
"illegal immigration" by letting peaceful non-criminals migrate freely,
subject only to a brief background check. I don't know if this is a
recent change, or the rumor mill just got it wrong, but if this is in
fact Michael Badnarik's position, and he is not running on anything
likely to be taken for an anti-immigrant message, I may have to send
him a donation after all.

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

Uhm - Cupcake(???)

Hmmmm a whole new side to you we have nevah known about. What next - Banana Muffin??? Or will it be the somewhat spicier - Cinnamon Roll???

Sinner that I already am - how could anyone resist the temptation - Walnut Scone???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Ron,

  It gets better, I'm not even fattening. 8)

      <<< starchild >>>

Uhm - Cupcake(???)

Hmmmm a whole new side to you we have nevah known about. What next - Banana Muffin??? Or will it be the somewhat spicier - Cinnamon Roll???

Sinner that I already am - how could anyone resist the temptation - Walnut Scone???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

From: Angela Keaton <theliberatedspace@...>
To: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>; LPSF Discussion List <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; grassrootslibertarians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2006 7:24:50 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Badnarik better on immigration than rumor had it

Uhh...no, Cupcake, you're wrong. This is a not so carefully worded anti-immigration platform.

Michael and Allen love to declare their independence from the platform after they panhandle actual anarchists and libertarians for time, money and talent. Love Michael to bits (like a brother), but some of us are really tired of the "the LP doesn't really believe in ......" nonsense.

If the constitutionalists, the minarchists, and the "libertarian reformers" are so full of great ideas, let them compete without the LP label. G-d knows, they don't need the LP platform.

http://thestressblog.com/2006/06/01/michael-badnarik-national-socialist-for-congress/

Angela Keaton, who only gave 50 bucks and a banner ad.

<image.tiff>

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

I just visited Michael Badnarik's website for his campaign for
Congress, and contrary to what I'd heard about his current position on
immigration, what he says on the topic sounds quite libertarian. From
http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php:

* * *

Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today,
and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an
already fiery debate. Let's take an objective look at immigration,
borders and legitimate national security concerns.

Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain
a vigorous national defense against our enemies.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and
Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable,
arrested and detained or extradited.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points
along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as
what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our
defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement,
doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of
dire consequences to the occasional innocent refugees.

We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that
keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate
meddling in the affairs of other nations. A better national defense
policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require
retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's
borders.

We must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and
treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming
under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the
equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a
suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,
no lesser response will do.

Immigration and border security are two separate issues.

When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result
is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of
the United States.

By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just
beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a
nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on
immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country
appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we
measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled
with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of
Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for
most people.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be
sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders."

The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade
the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing
itself against those who would do it harm.

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.

Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making
national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into
the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry without good
reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and
criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector
for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

The welfare state needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an
issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreigners invading us just so they
can eat out our substance on the dole. The possibility of "safety net"
abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called
safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is
one of the worst enticements to illegal tresspass by foreign nationals.

* * *

Aside from the expected nationalist and security/fear-tinged tone of
the piece (standard for most American political figures on such issues)
and the dubious wisdom of putting the US government's military in
charge of U.S. borders, the basic message is pretty good -- end
"illegal immigration" by letting peaceful non-criminals migrate freely,
subject only to a brief background check. I don't know if this is a
recent change, or the rumor mill just got it wrong, but if this is in
fact Michael Badnarik's position, and he is not running on anything
likely to be taken for an anti-immigrant message, I may have to send
him a donation after all.

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

<image.tiff>

Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

• Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild;

Yeah right Mr. Carbo-hydrate.

Now about your possible mis-interpretation of the Boris Badenov position on immigration as hypothesized by Badnarik - what about that???

And don't foget Natasha Fatale's stance on KBG infiltration through the porous Tex-Mex border near Nuevo Laredo.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Ron,

  Well, when we left our story last time, some of the nation's smartest geniuses were turning into complete idiots. It was all the fault of a mean little man from a mean little country.

  <ding!> Thank you for playing!

      <<< starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

Yeah right Mr. Carbo-hydrate.

Now about your possible mis-interpretation of the Boris Badenov position on immigration as hypothesized by Badnarik - what about that???

And don't foget Natasha Fatale's stance on KBG infiltration through the porous Tex-Mex border near Nuevo Laredo.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2006 9:12:28 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Cupcake

Ron,

It gets better, I&#39;m not even fattening\.   8\)

        &lt;&lt;&lt; starchild &gt;&gt;&gt;

> Uhm - Cupcake(???)
>
> Hmmmm a whole new side to you we have nevah known about. What next -
> Banana Muffin??? Or will it be the somewhat spicier - Cinnamon Roll???
>
> Sinner that I already am - how could anyone resist the temptation
> - Walnut Scone???
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> From: Angela Keaton <theliberatedspace@...>
> To: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>; LPSF Discussion List
> <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; grassrootslibertarians@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2006 7:24:50 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Badnarik better
> on immigration than rumor had it
>
> Uhh...no, Cupcake, you're wrong. This is a not so carefully worded
> anti-immigration platform.
>
> Michael and Allen love to declare their independence from the platform
> after they panhandle actual anarchists and libertarians for time,
> money and talent. Love Michael to bits (like a brother), but some of
> us are really tired of the "the LP doesn't really believe in ......"
> nonsense.
>
> If the constitutionalists, the minarchists, and the "libertarian
> reformers" are so full of great ideas, let them compete without the LP
> label. G-d knows, they don't need the LP platform.
>
> http://thestressblog.com/2006/06/01/michael-badnarik-national-
> socialist-for-congress/
>
> Angela Keaton, who only gave 50 bucks and a banner ad.
>
<image.tiff>
>

>
>
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
>
> I just visited Michael Badnarik's website for his campaign for
> Congress, and contrary to what I'd heard about his current position on
> immigration, what he says on the topic sounds quite libertarian. From
> http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php:
>
> * * *
>
> Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today,
> and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an
> already fiery debate. Let's take an objective look at immigration,
> borders and legitimate national security concerns.
>
> Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain
> a vigorous national defense against our enemies.
>
> Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and
> Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable,
> arrested and detained or extradited.
>
> Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points
> along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as
> what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our
> defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement,
> doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of
> dire consequences to the occasional innocent refugees.
>
> We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that
> keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate
> meddling in the affairs of other nations. A better national defense
> policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require
> retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's
> borders.
>
> We must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and
> treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming
> under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the
> equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a
> suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,
> no lesser response will do.
>
> Immigration and border security are two separate issues.
>
> When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result
> is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of
> the United States.
>
> By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just
> beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a
> nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on
> immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country
> appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we
> measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled
> with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of
> Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for
> most people.
>
> This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be
> sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders."
>
> The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade
> the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing
> itself against those who would do it harm.
>
> 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.
>
> Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making
> national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into
> the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry without good
> reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and
> criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector
> for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.
>
> The welfare state needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an
> issue or not.
>
> We should not have to worry about foreigners invading us just so they
> can eat out our substance on the dole. The possibility of "safety net"
> abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called
> safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is
> one of the worst enticements to illegal tresspass by foreign nationals.
>
> * * *
>
> Aside from the expected nationalist and security/fear-tinged tone of
> the piece (standard for most American political figures on such issues)
> and the dubious wisdom of putting the US government's military in
> charge of U.S. borders, the basic message is pretty good -- end
> "illegal immigration" by letting peaceful non-criminals migrate freely,
> subject only to a brief background check. I don't know if this is a
> recent change, or the rumor mill just got it wrong, but if this is in
> fact Michael Badnarik's position, and he is not running on anything
> likely to be taken for an anti-immigrant message, I may have to send
> him a donation after all.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different.
> Just radically better.
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> • Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>
Ron,

It gets better, I&#39;m not even fattening\.   8\)

        &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; starchild &gt;&gt;&gt;

<excerpt>Uhm - Cupcake(???)

Hmmmm a whole new side to you we have nevah known about. What next -
Banana Muffin??? Or will it be the somewhat spicier - Cinnamon Roll???

Sinner that I already am - how could anyone resist the temptation
- Walnut Scone???

Ron Getty

SF Libertarian

From: Angela Keaton <<theliberatedspace@...>

To: Starchild <<sfdreamer@...>; LPSF Discussion List
<<lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; grassrootslibertarians@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2006 7:24:50 PM

Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: [GrassrootsLibertarians] Badnarik better
on immigration than rumor had it

Uhh...no, Cupcake, you're wrong. This is a not so carefully worded
anti-immigration platform.

Michael and Allen love to declare their independence from the platform
after they panhandle actual anarchists and libertarians for time,
money and talent. Love Michael to bits (like a brother), but some of
us are really tired of the "the LP doesn't <bold><italic>really
</italic></bold>believe in ......" nonsense.

If the constitutionalists, the minarchists, and the "libertarian
reformers" are so full of great ideas, let them compete without the LP
label. G-d knows, they don't need the LP platform.

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>http://thestressblog.com/2006/06/01/michael-badnarik-national-socialist-for-congress/</></fontfamily>

Angela Keaton, who only gave 50 bucks and a banner ad.

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

</excerpt>

<excerpt>

<bold><italic>Starchild <<sfdreamer@...></italic></bold>
wrote:

I just visited Michael Badnarik's website for his campaign for

Congress, and contrary to what I'd heard about his current position on

immigration, what he says on the topic sounds quite libertarian. From

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php:

* * *

Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today,

and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an

already fiery debate. Let's take an objective look at immigration,

borders and legitimate national security concerns.

Coupled with reasonable immigration for the peaceful, we must maintain

a vigorous national defense against our enemies.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and

Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable,

arrested and detained or extradited.

Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points

along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as

what they are: invaders against whom we must respond. As long as our

defense forces restrain themselves to reasonable rules of engagement,

doing this will much better guarantee our security with little risk of

dire consequences to the occasional innocent refugees.

We must reject the foreign-adventurist concept of national defense that

keeps American troops overseas covering for nationalist and corporate

meddling in the affairs of other nations. A better national defense

policy would be one which, lacking any real attack which might require

retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's

borders.

We must work to either replace or reclassify the Border Patrol and

treat border issues as what they are: national defense issues coming

under the mission and scope of our defense forces. In an age where the

equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a

suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,

no lesser response will do.

Immigration and border security are two separate issues.

When immigration and border security are jumbled together, the result

is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of

the United States.

By any reasonable measure, properly-regulated immigration is not just

beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a

nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on

immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country

appropriately is not just an option. It's a benchmark by which we

measure whether or not we're living up to the American ideal. Coupled

with a benign foreign policy, it is what makes America the beacon of

Liberty in what was once and would be again an otherwise dark world for

most people.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be

sacrificed to some naive conception of "open borders."

The privilege of entering the United States is not the right to invade

the United States in contest with its legitimate interest in securing

itself against those who would do it harm.

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.

Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making

national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into

the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry without good

reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and

criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector

for also bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

The welfare state needs to be eliminated whether immigration is an

issue or not.

We should not have to worry about foreigners invading us just so they

can eat out our substance on the dole. The possibility of "safety net"

abuse is not a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The so-called

safety net is not a solution for the plight of poor immigrants, it is

one of the worst enticements to illegal tresspass by foreign nationals.

* * *

Aside from the expected nationalist and security/fear-tinged tone of

the piece (standard for most American political figures on such issues)

and the dubious wisdom of putting the US government's military in

charge of U.S. borders, the basic message is pretty good -- end

"illegal immigration" by letting peaceful non-criminals migrate freely,

subject only to a brief background check. I don't know if this is a

recent change, or the rumor mill just got it wrong, but if this is in

fact Michael Badnarik's position, and he is not running on anything

likely to be taken for an anti-immigrant message, I may have to send

him a donation after all.

Yours in liberty,

<<<<<< starchild >>>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

Sneak preview the
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>all-new
Yahoo.com</color></underline>. It's not radically different. Just
radically better.

<fixed><bigger>SPONSORED LINKS</bigger></fixed>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

<fixed><bigger>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</bigger></fixed>

<fixed><bigger>• Visit your group
"<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>lpsf-discuss</color></>"
on the web.

• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

</color></underline>

• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>Yahoo! Terms of
Service</color></underline>.

</bigger></fixed>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

<fixed><bigger>SPONSORED LINKS</bigger></fixed>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

<fixed><bigger>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</bigger></fixed>

<fixed><bigger>+ Visit your group
"<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>lpsf-discuss</color></>"
on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

</color></underline>

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>Yahoo! Terms of
Service</color></underline>.

</bigger></fixed>

</excerpt><<image.tiff>

<excerpt>

</excerpt>

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild;

And children - continuing our story the complete idiots were locked up in a really neat place called the Capitol Building and the White House where they could do no harm to themselves or anyone else. And they were carefully watched over by the Voters to be certain the complete idiots did exactly as the Voters told them to do.....

And children - like most stories this turned out to be a complete fairy tale....

Children this story was brought to you by Mother Goose.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian