Reminder: Olivier in SF Monday

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

I thought the Constitution said anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.
Olivier is not supporting the Constitution?

Thanks, Eric, for posting and reminding me to post my thoughts.

Art came out of the gate swinging at illegal immigrants; he made them the
focus of his opening remarks, and returned to them several other times.

As Eric said, he didn't do a good job of communicating what a Libertarian
was or believed in; one might have come away believing that AIP candidate
Noonan was a bit nuts, but there was no question that he believed in
strict Constitutionalism and that that was his party's bedrock and dogma.

Peter Camejo continues to be the strongest third-party candidate around,
for his evident passion, professionalism, and solid grasp of figures.

That said, Art is also extremely professional and well-spoken, but I feel
he doesn't play enough to his strengths. He was the only one at the table
(AFAIK) who has actually held elected office, and he only touched on the
successes he had implementing programs there once.

I also feel that Libertarian candidates are too negative too much of the
time. For example, while Art was bashing illegal immigrants, he could
have touched on the positive contributions that legal immigrants make, and
ways we can make it easier for people to immigrate legally. Bashing on
"illegals" without discussing legal migration just comes across as
xenophobic, and definitely didn't play well with the crowd in SF.

He had a very strong answer on a question about global warming, pointing
out the countereffectiveness of A.B. 32, while calling for less regulation
on dense urban development, which is both profitable and environmental.

Art also got the last word in, by virtue of alphabetical order, and left
the audience chuckling (which I hope comes through on the radio).

In short: strong presentation, message sounding hateful in places, but
otherwise good, could use more passion and positive focus.


Mike Acree wrote:

I thought the Constitution said anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.
Olivier is not supporting the Constitution?

His contention is that the 14th amendment was intended for freed slaves
and any American Indian who wanted it, but that it was not intended, and
explicitly not by at least one of its authors, to apply to children of
those here illegally and of ambassadors. He makes a strong emotional
point about citizenship tourism, where pregnant women travel to the U.S.
to have their children.

However, the Libertarian answer to illegal immigration should be the same
as to illegal drugs: legalize it.


Yikes. Amen. Thanks.