I agree with Starchild's analysis of Olivier (see below).
Excerpt from Olivier's site, www.2006gov.com:
Taking a stance AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not considered to be a smart choice during an election, but Art knows what it means to "do the right thing". <
One of Art's embarrassing positions involves his opposition to illegal immigration. It does not inspire confidence in AO's understanding of fundamental libertarian principles.
Best, Michael
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
Individual rights.
Best, Michael
And specifically, in this case: Moving is a victimless crime.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
Positive rights are irrelevant to this issue. As Mike Acree put to you (and you have not denied): "Moving is a victimless crime."
Is there a positive right to come to New Hampshire from California?
Best, Michael
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
What an odd response! Moving doesn't entail trespassing, nor is camping
on people's front lawns one of the complaints I've heard about
immigrants.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek Jensen wrote:
well, illegal immigration certainly entails trespassing. They are
uninvited
guests, crashing the gates, and breaking the law.
First, saying that they are breaking the law in a debate about what the
law should be is pointless. Escaping slaves broke the law, too, to draw
an extreme example.
But immigrants do not necessarily trespass. If Miguel sneaks into the
country and then pays cash for the house next door to mine, what is the
problem? He has his own land, and isn't using mine. Now, if he can't
find anywhere to live, can't afford to buy or rent a home, then we have a
problem. But that's only *our* problem if taxpayers then pay for his
shelter, and that's a problem orthogonal to immigration.
Either one agrees that Americans should be the ones deciding who is
allowed
to be a guest in our country or not. I don't understand why this is even
an
issue.
Because I don't have the right to tell my neighbors what to do with their
land, including renting it or selling it to people who got to this country
after I did, and I don't have the right to tell my neighbors what to do
with their businesses, including employing or selling to people who got to
this country after I did.
~Chris, whose genes have been in North America since the 1910s (1/2), the
1700s (1/4), and the 1600s (1/4), and is glad Great Grandpa Joe could run
a business despite NINA signs.