Seeking Co-Sponsors on Condemning and Abolishing I.C.E. Resolution

I honestly don't see why this is even debatable. As libertarians, we should agree that freedom is paramount. Freedom to do as we please, and especially freedom to live where we choose. Immigration is how this country was founded. If you disagree with that, MOVE!! We are all immigrants in this nation.
 
I will say this. You people who have issues had 2 weeks and Nolan asked for workshopping this. So maybe you all should pay more attention to the forums BEFORE it is just a vote. This place is here for us to work on things together not just flipping vote.
 
Amanda Gibbs said:
I will say this. You people who have issues had 2 weeks and Nolan asked for workshopping this. So maybe you all should pay more attention to the forums BEFORE it is just a vote. This place is here for us to work on things together not just flipping vote.
Click to expand...
*ahem* I did in fact suggest making the resolution more targeted, which Nolan responded to, but apparently a further “workshop” resulted in making it long again. This is exactly how Congress works. 😅
 
Y'all please watch the "everybody who disagrees with me is wrong" (stupid, evil, doesn't belong here, whatever) language. We do this parliamentary stuff precisely to hash out differences between our individual perspectives and relative values. What matters is where the vote lands, and then we move on.
 
Andrew Amelang said:
Y'all please watch the "everybody who disagrees with me is wrong" (stupid, evil, doesn't belong here, whatever) language. We do this parliamentary stuff precisely to hash out differences between our individual perspectives and relative values. What matters is where the vote lands, and then we move on.
Click to expand...
Apologies, y'all.
I am a bit fiery on this subject.
I respect all your opinions, I just know mine is right.
Peace, Love, and Liberty, my friends.
 
I honestly wanted to refrain from commenting, but I have to very blunt here.

As Amanda pointed out, I started a workshop for this motion two weeks ago, and wanted input and suggestions. Only a few people made suggestions and wanted to help, which I appreciate.

I get that there are people here who are not too fond of this motion.

When it comes to my personal view of immigration, I’m a Ludwig von Mises guy. A more open available immigration is a benefit for our economy, but I also believe in having a system like that of Ellis Island. A checkpoint with check-in. Those who want to be here peacefully and/or work peacefully should be able to come and stay or come and go without issue.

I am not for our country’s current system. It has more problems and too many agencies that extends the problems.

I for one believe that keeping ICE and CBP are waste of money being stolen out of our pockets and if we are for limited government, is it necessary to just condemn these agencies? Absolutely not!

Why have multiple agencies and departments handling immigration when it can just be one department! Just 1 Department of Immigration!

To be honest, I’m not too thrilled with what I have read on here. I gave people a chance to work with me on this. As I said, some gave me suggestions. I get life gets busy, but I do my best to check the forums every day.

I’m not the most active on the forums, but I do check them!

I can’t thank those who helped me enough for the motion I put in, but I’m not thankful for some of the people here making this so damn divisive over if we should or should not get rid of multiple agencies wasting money taken from us over people who want to come here to work and/or live here!

Are we Libertarians or not? Do we want limited government power or not? Those answers should be easy to answer, but yet, there’s the buts added when there shouldn’t be.

This will be my final post on this thread for now.
 
Nolan, I can appreciate your frustration and your passion for the people you're trying to stand up for. That said, I want to remind everybody again that language of the "everybody who disagrees with me is [insert derogatory language here, in this case 'a non-libertarian who doesn't want to limit government']" sort actually works against you. This is the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, and it replaces constructive parliamentary debate with divisive emotional appeals and purity tests. Let's raise the bar together.
 
Voted yes, but wish it were better. While I think it is politically good strategy to call out the abuses, a lot of people who are considering libertarianism are going to get hung up on abolishing the government agencies, especially the border patrol. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against abolishing them because I'm damn sure not counting on the government to keep me and my property safe and would be more than happy if the entire government were demolished. But I also understand that the goal of a political party is to get people elected so saying things that might turn off a huge chunk of voters is not in our best interest overall. But I also understand we would never release anything if each of us waited on the perfect resolution to be formed.
 
I changed my vote from yes to abstain after reading some of the discussion here.

I fully support the motion and its intent, but I think it focuses only on our abolitive stance and leaves out our affirmative one. Ending any government agency is almost always a net benefit for society, and I strongly support us speaking for abolition of these agencies. The only issue is that the public often doesn’t understand what comes next, or how we would address the problems some people believe these agencies prevent.

It reminds me of when Ron Paul spoke in favor for full drug decriminalization and was accused of “supporting heroin use” at the Republican Convention debates when he was running for president. The same misunderstanding could potentially apply here, and if our resolution also showed our affirmative position, such as grounding criminality in violations of property rights, it would be stronger and answer those concerns directly.

I’ve unfortunately been very busy lately and missed alot of this discussion to offer my input earlier, so that’s my fault and I apologize for jumping in late. Overall, it’s a fine resolution, and I agree with Mr. Joe Burnes that holding out for the perfect one would be worse than just moving forward. We can always clarify our position of property rights later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top