The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Paul ArchiveBlogview
Save Liberty, Shut Down the Government
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Congress ended the week by passing a continuing resolution keeping the government funded for one more week. This stopgap funding bill is designed to give Congress and the White House more time to negotiate a long-term spending bill. Passage of a long-term spending bill has been delayed over objections to Republican efforts to preserve Obamcare’s key features but give states a limited ability to opt out of some Obamacare mandates.

This type of brinkmanship has become standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill. The drama inevitably ends with a spending bill being crafted behind closed doors by small groups of members and staffers and then rushed to the floor and voted on before most members have a chance to read it. These “omnibus” spending bills are a dereliction of one of Congress’s two most important duties — allocating spending. Of course, Congress long ago abandoned another primary duty — preventing presidents from launching military attacks without first obtaining a congressional declaration of war.

The uncomfortable question raised by Congress’s abrogation of these two key functions is whether a republican form of government is compatible with a welfare-warfare state. The answer seems to be “no.”

Congress’s dysfunctional spending process is an inevitable result of the government’s growth. It is simply unrealistic to expect Congress to fund the modern leviathan via a lengthy and open process that allows individual members to have some say in how government spends their constituents’ money. The dysfunctional spending process benefits the many politicians eager to avoid accountability for government spending. The rushed process allows these politicians to say they had to vote for the spending bills. Often, these big spending bills include a promise to cut spending in the future. Like tomorrow, the promised spending cuts are always a day away.

If government continues to expand, the economy will continue to stagnate, social tensions and violence will increase, and more power will be concentrated in the hands of the president, bureaucrats, and a select few members of Congress. The only way to avoid this is for Congress to shut down most of the federal government, starting with bringing the troops home and drastically cutting the military-industrial complex’s budget. Congress must also close all unconstitutional federal agencies and programs, and wind down federal entitlement programs. A good place to start is the Department of Education. The Federal Reserve must be audited and then ended.

The root of the current crisis is neither political nor economic but philosophical. Too many have bought into the lie that government can protect us from life’s misfortunes and stamp out evil around the world without endangering our liberty, our safety, and our prosperity. Convincing a critical mass of people to reject big government is key to our success.

The breakdown of the congressional appropriations process, combined with hyper-interventionism via the Federal Reserve and foreign policy, suggest we are in the last stages of the welfare-warfare state. Whether this system’s inevitable collapse completes our descent into authoritarianism or leads to a restoration of limited, constitutional government and free markets depends on how effective those of us who know the truth are in spreading the ideas of liberty.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Government Shutdown 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. epnngg says:

    Dr. Paul is right. Our only hope as a nation is to shut down the Leviathan welfare/war state.
    Congress has indeed abrogated its responsibilities and sworn duties to faithfully represent their constituents. The one-party tyranny we have been witnessing can only come to an end when enough of the American populace wakes up from its collective bad dream and says no more to the evil cabal that resides in Washington.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /rpaul/save-liberty-shut-down-the-government/#comment-1857261
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I am in full agreement, as usual. Since this is just a syndicated column that may appear on 1000′s of other websites, I don’t count on Mr. Paul reading this. However, sometimes you just gotta say WTF:

    Ron, I really wish you had paid heed to the man that told you ( I was there) in the aircraft hangar in Feb. of 2012, in no uncertain terms: “If you want to win this state, you’ve gotta talk about illegal immigration“. You came back with a reply about upholding the law and such. I didn’t see that as blowing off the man’s question really, as I think you are one of the very few politicians who means what he says.

    However, you could have talked much more about this problem during your primary campaign that year. Though it is not your main emphasis, controlling the border does indeed fall within the purvey of the US Feral Government; in fact, it is one of the few things that does. The thing is the uncontrolled immigration invasion is an existential problem . This means that everything mentioned in this article and 100′s of others you have written will mean nothing after the country is changed, via population replacement, to one unrecognizable by our parents. A third world country with no middle class will never have even a small fraction of the amount of people required to affect any change to bring back freedoms lost.

    You should have listened, as you may have gotten so much support that the lyin’ press wouldn’t have been able to push you to the side, as they did. We are all at a loss in that you are not in a high office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Well, actually the Constitution does not give powers over immigration to Congress, but only powers over naturalization. A lot of people think they're the same thing, but they're not, as we can see in that we have foreigners legally living in the country who are not citizens. Per the tenth amendment, the laws regulating immigration that aren't directly connected with naturalization should fall to the states, not the central government.
  3. KenH says:

    Of course, Congress long ago abandoned another primary duty — preventing presidents from launching military attacks without first obtaining a congressional declaration of war.

    The Congress is worthless. Only a few feeble voices were raised over Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional firing of cruise missiles at the Syrian air base. Everyone else not named John McCain, Lindsey Grahamnesty and Marco Rubio knew that to do so would put them in hot water with AIPAC.

    All Congress seems to do is pass gargantuan spending bills and give interviews for FOX and CNN. Since Congress has abdicated much of its power to the executive branch, the imperial judiciary and unelected bureaucrats the time has come to dissolve that body and save the taxpayers oodles of money.

    The Republicans are so paralyzed by political correctness and loyalty to top donors that they’re practically useless to their constituents.

    Read More
  4. jtgw says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I am in full agreement, as usual. Since this is just a syndicated column that may appear on 1000's of other websites, I don't count on Mr. Paul reading this. However, sometimes you just gotta say WTF:

    Ron, I really wish you had paid heed to the man that told you ( I was there) in the aircraft hangar in Feb. of 2012, in no uncertain terms: "If you want to win this state, you've gotta talk about illegal immigration". You came back with a reply about upholding the law and such. I didn't see that as blowing off the man's question really, as I think you are one of the very few politicians who means what he says.

    However, you could have talked much more about this problem during your primary campaign that year. Though it is not your main emphasis, controlling the border does indeed fall within the purvey of the US Feral Government; in fact, it is one of the few things that does. The thing is the uncontrolled immigration invasion is an existential problem . This means that everything mentioned in this article and 100's of others you have written will mean nothing after the country is changed, via population replacement, to one unrecognizable by our parents. A third world country with no middle class will never have even a small fraction of the amount of people required to affect any change to bring back freedoms lost.

    You should have listened, as you may have gotten so much support that the lyin' press wouldn't have been able to push you to the side, as they did. We are all at a loss in that you are not in a high office.

    Well, actually the Constitution does not give powers over immigration to Congress, but only powers over naturalization. A lot of people think they’re the same thing, but they’re not, as we can see in that we have foreigners legally living in the country who are not citizens. Per the tenth amendment, the laws regulating immigration that aren’t directly connected with naturalization should fall to the states, not the central government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, JT, and I've read the document in question. However, large numbers of people crossing the border unwanted constitute an invasion. Even if you go back to times during which the US Constitution was taken seriously, you can see that nobody begrudged the navy or army (when it was formed) power to repel an invasion. Going way back, do you think Americans would not have wanted the Federal army or navy to stop groups of British citizens from crossing the Rio Grand or beaching near New Orleans during the War of 1812 times?

    I agree that the several states should have the power to stop any immigration they don't desire, most especially from Massachusetts.

    Would you agree that the southern border wall would fall under "common defense"?

    Then, there's this from Article I, section 9:


    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
     
    So, after 1808, it IS within Congress's powwer to decide who shall be admitted, am I right?

    Did you read this part?

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Again, your comment would be quite correct, were it 1807 right now. You're off by 210 years, and I don't know how in the hell you got on the internet back then. Wild, wacky stuff.

    Sorry to be snarky, JT, that's just me. Do you agree or am I reading this section wrong?
  5. @jtgw
    Well, actually the Constitution does not give powers over immigration to Congress, but only powers over naturalization. A lot of people think they're the same thing, but they're not, as we can see in that we have foreigners legally living in the country who are not citizens. Per the tenth amendment, the laws regulating immigration that aren't directly connected with naturalization should fall to the states, not the central government.

    Yeah, I see where you’re coming from, JT, and I’ve read the document in question. However, large numbers of people crossing the border unwanted constitute an invasion. Even if you go back to times during which the US Constitution was taken seriously, you can see that nobody begrudged the navy or army (when it was formed) power to repel an invasion. Going way back, do you think Americans would not have wanted the Federal army or navy to stop groups of British citizens from crossing the Rio Grand or beaching near New Orleans during the War of 1812 times?

    I agree that the several states should have the power to stop any immigration they don’t desire, most especially from Massachusetts.

    Would you agree that the southern border wall would fall under “common defense”?

    Then, there’s this from Article I, section 9:

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    So, after 1808, it IS within Congress’s powwer to decide who shall be admitted, am I right?

    Did you read this part?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    We were at war with Britain; we're not at war with Mexico. Peacetime immigration restrictions didn't appear until the 1880s, and had to be declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, since many argued, rightly, that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate immigration in peacetime. The precedent was the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s, whose constitutionality had certainly been challenged but which were repealed before they could be tested in court.

    Of course, I absolutely agree that nobody should be allowed to invade someone else's property unwanted. But the thing is that clearly many Americans do want immigrants on their property. What right do other Americans have to deny them their right to freely and peacefully associate with whomever they will? At the very least, what right do Arizonans have to tell Californians that they may not invite foreigners? That is the corollary of the right of Arizonans to not invite foreigners. The problem with our centralized immigration policy is that if the federal government wants immigrants but Arizonans don't want immigrants, the Arizonans are still forced to accommodate immigrants. Similarly, if the federal government doesn't want immigrants but Californians want them, Californians are not allowed to invite them. Does that seem fair to you?

    I believe states have powers to regulate immigration from foreign countries. I don't think they have a right to deny entry to US citizens, whether from Massachusetts or anywhere, since the Constitution is quite explicit on that.

    Article I section 9 is about importation of slaves, not immigration of free persons. You don't charge import duties on free people.
  6. @jtgw
    Well, actually the Constitution does not give powers over immigration to Congress, but only powers over naturalization. A lot of people think they're the same thing, but they're not, as we can see in that we have foreigners legally living in the country who are not citizens. Per the tenth amendment, the laws regulating immigration that aren't directly connected with naturalization should fall to the states, not the central government.

    Again, your comment would be quite correct, were it 1807 right now. You’re off by 210 years, and I don’t know how in the hell you got on the internet back then. Wild, wacky stuff.

    Sorry to be snarky, JT, that’s just me. Do you agree or am I reading this section wrong?

    Read More
  7. jtgw says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, JT, and I've read the document in question. However, large numbers of people crossing the border unwanted constitute an invasion. Even if you go back to times during which the US Constitution was taken seriously, you can see that nobody begrudged the navy or army (when it was formed) power to repel an invasion. Going way back, do you think Americans would not have wanted the Federal army or navy to stop groups of British citizens from crossing the Rio Grand or beaching near New Orleans during the War of 1812 times?

    I agree that the several states should have the power to stop any immigration they don't desire, most especially from Massachusetts.

    Would you agree that the southern border wall would fall under "common defense"?

    Then, there's this from Article I, section 9:


    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
     
    So, after 1808, it IS within Congress's powwer to decide who shall be admitted, am I right?

    Did you read this part?

    We were at war with Britain; we’re not at war with Mexico. Peacetime immigration restrictions didn’t appear until the 1880s, and had to be declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, since many argued, rightly, that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate immigration in peacetime. The precedent was the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s, whose constitutionality had certainly been challenged but which were repealed before they could be tested in court.

    Of course, I absolutely agree that nobody should be allowed to invade someone else’s property unwanted. But the thing is that clearly many Americans do want immigrants on their property. What right do other Americans have to deny them their right to freely and peacefully associate with whomever they will? At the very least, what right do Arizonans have to tell Californians that they may not invite foreigners? That is the corollary of the right of Arizonans to not invite foreigners. The problem with our centralized immigration policy is that if the federal government wants immigrants but Arizonans don’t want immigrants, the Arizonans are still forced to accommodate immigrants. Similarly, if the federal government doesn’t want immigrants but Californians want them, Californians are not allowed to invite them. Does that seem fair to you?

    I believe states have powers to regulate immigration from foreign countries. I don’t think they have a right to deny entry to US citizens, whether from Massachusetts or anywhere, since the Constitution is quite explicit on that.

    Article I section 9 is about importation of slaves, not immigration of free persons. You don’t charge import duties on free people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    States clearly did not then, nor do they now, have plenary power to naturalize non-citizens. That power was always reserved for the federal government so it stands to reason that they would also have power to set immigration policy. But I suppose one could infer that states were to play a larger role since the original Constitution didn't specifically address it. That is until the numerous SCOTUS rulings that finally put the matter to rest and ruled that the right to regulate immigration is a right inherent to the federal government.

    If you are arguing that states did or should have powers to set their own immigration law I don't see the point since states can't naturalize those (non-citizens/foreigners) they allow into their state. Fifty states, each with a separate immigration policies would be a disaster waiting to happen. Some states would game the system to increase their representation in the House of Representin' (sic).

    Then once the state with a liberal, mass immigration policy naturalizes those foreigners they could live anywhere in the U.S., much to the chagrin of people in states who don't allow nor want any immigrant inflows. Again, it would be a total disaster and many would have their rights and wishes trampled on to satisfy the gods of libertarianism.

  8. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    We were at war with Britain; we're not at war with Mexico. Peacetime immigration restrictions didn't appear until the 1880s, and had to be declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, since many argued, rightly, that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate immigration in peacetime. The precedent was the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s, whose constitutionality had certainly been challenged but which were repealed before they could be tested in court.

    Of course, I absolutely agree that nobody should be allowed to invade someone else's property unwanted. But the thing is that clearly many Americans do want immigrants on their property. What right do other Americans have to deny them their right to freely and peacefully associate with whomever they will? At the very least, what right do Arizonans have to tell Californians that they may not invite foreigners? That is the corollary of the right of Arizonans to not invite foreigners. The problem with our centralized immigration policy is that if the federal government wants immigrants but Arizonans don't want immigrants, the Arizonans are still forced to accommodate immigrants. Similarly, if the federal government doesn't want immigrants but Californians want them, Californians are not allowed to invite them. Does that seem fair to you?

    I believe states have powers to regulate immigration from foreign countries. I don't think they have a right to deny entry to US citizens, whether from Massachusetts or anywhere, since the Constitution is quite explicit on that.

    Article I section 9 is about importation of slaves, not immigration of free persons. You don't charge import duties on free people.

    States clearly did not then, nor do they now, have plenary power to naturalize non-citizens. That power was always reserved for the federal government so it stands to reason that they would also have power to set immigration policy. But I suppose one could infer that states were to play a larger role since the original Constitution didn’t specifically address it. That is until the numerous SCOTUS rulings that finally put the matter to rest and ruled that the right to regulate immigration is a right inherent to the federal government.

    If you are arguing that states did or should have powers to set their own immigration law I don’t see the point since states can’t naturalize those (non-citizens/foreigners) they allow into their state. Fifty states, each with a separate immigration policies would be a disaster waiting to happen. Some states would game the system to increase their representation in the House of Representin’ (sic).

    Then once the state with a liberal, mass immigration policy naturalizes those foreigners they could live anywhere in the U.S., much to the chagrin of people in states who don’t allow nor want any immigrant inflows. Again, it would be a total disaster and many would have their rights and wishes trampled on to satisfy the gods of libertarianism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Actually states did exercise powers of regulation over residence in their own jurisdiction. They also even allowed those were not US citizens to vote in their own elections:

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    Of course, being allowed to vote in one state did not confer an automatic right to vote in other states; creating a uniform law of naturalization for the whole US is an important role of Congress.

    It is true that SCOTUS ruled that only the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration, but that is a weak argument to use against an originalist like myself. SCOTUS has ruled in many ways that clearly contradict the original meaning of the Constitution, e.g. Wickard vs Filburn and the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

    You indirectly point to the real problem, which is not immigration itself but its potential as a tool for abusing federal authority. The real problem is federal authority itself, that it is too broad, and I think there's plenty of evidence that it has been abused and can be abused regardless of who is immigrating. The New Deal happened during a time of record low immigration, and I take it you are not a fan of FDR and the New Deal.
  9. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    States clearly did not then, nor do they now, have plenary power to naturalize non-citizens. That power was always reserved for the federal government so it stands to reason that they would also have power to set immigration policy. But I suppose one could infer that states were to play a larger role since the original Constitution didn't specifically address it. That is until the numerous SCOTUS rulings that finally put the matter to rest and ruled that the right to regulate immigration is a right inherent to the federal government.

    If you are arguing that states did or should have powers to set their own immigration law I don't see the point since states can't naturalize those (non-citizens/foreigners) they allow into their state. Fifty states, each with a separate immigration policies would be a disaster waiting to happen. Some states would game the system to increase their representation in the House of Representin' (sic).

    Then once the state with a liberal, mass immigration policy naturalizes those foreigners they could live anywhere in the U.S., much to the chagrin of people in states who don't allow nor want any immigrant inflows. Again, it would be a total disaster and many would have their rights and wishes trampled on to satisfy the gods of libertarianism.

    Actually states did exercise powers of regulation over residence in their own jurisdiction. They also even allowed those were not US citizens to vote in their own elections:

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    Of course, being allowed to vote in one state did not confer an automatic right to vote in other states; creating a uniform law of naturalization for the whole US is an important role of Congress.

    It is true that SCOTUS ruled that only the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration, but that is a weak argument to use against an originalist like myself. SCOTUS has ruled in many ways that clearly contradict the original meaning of the Constitution, e.g. Wickard vs Filburn and the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

    You indirectly point to the real problem, which is not immigration itself but its potential as a tool for abusing federal authority. The real problem is federal authority itself, that it is too broad, and I think there’s plenty of evidence that it has been abused and can be abused regardless of who is immigrating. The New Deal happened during a time of record low immigration, and I take it you are not a fan of FDR and the New Deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Regarding 19th century liberalism towards aliens, it's critical to remember that in virtually all state Constitutions it was required that a would be citizen be a "free, white person". And at the time "declarant alien voting" was permitted most states were sparsely populated and needed white, Europeans immigrants to begin settling the land. The "aliens" eligible to vote after declaring for citizenship were exactly like the founding racial stock and weren't from radically different racial and cultural backgrounds as today's immigrants are.

    From your linked article:

    Declarant alien voting eventually died out in the 1920s as new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were deemed insufficiently "white" and the anti-immigration policies became more popular for a variety of reasons. Anti-German hysteria during World War I, for example, was one cause.
     
    Are you arguing that these state practices should continue to the present day when the U.S. is now teeming with 330 million people and a disproportionate number of immigrants are dependent on government assistance and the vast majority are truly alien in every sense of the word? Today's immigrants are anti-libertarian and vote for political candidates who promise big government at the expense of liberty.

    At some point common sense should trump blind faith to an ideology.
  10. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    Actually states did exercise powers of regulation over residence in their own jurisdiction. They also even allowed those were not US citizens to vote in their own elections:

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    Of course, being allowed to vote in one state did not confer an automatic right to vote in other states; creating a uniform law of naturalization for the whole US is an important role of Congress.

    It is true that SCOTUS ruled that only the federal government had the authority to regulate immigration, but that is a weak argument to use against an originalist like myself. SCOTUS has ruled in many ways that clearly contradict the original meaning of the Constitution, e.g. Wickard vs Filburn and the abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

    You indirectly point to the real problem, which is not immigration itself but its potential as a tool for abusing federal authority. The real problem is federal authority itself, that it is too broad, and I think there's plenty of evidence that it has been abused and can be abused regardless of who is immigrating. The New Deal happened during a time of record low immigration, and I take it you are not a fan of FDR and the New Deal.

    Regarding 19th century liberalism towards aliens, it’s critical to remember that in virtually all state Constitutions it was required that a would be citizen be a “free, white person”. And at the time “declarant alien voting” was permitted most states were sparsely populated and needed white, Europeans immigrants to begin settling the land. The “aliens” eligible to vote after declaring for citizenship were exactly like the founding racial stock and weren’t from radically different racial and cultural backgrounds as today’s immigrants are.

    From your linked article:

    Declarant alien voting eventually died out in the 1920s as new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were deemed insufficiently “white” and the anti-immigration policies became more popular for a variety of reasons. Anti-German hysteria during World War I, for example, was one cause.

    Are you arguing that these state practices should continue to the present day when the U.S. is now teeming with 330 million people and a disproportionate number of immigrants are dependent on government assistance and the vast majority are truly alien in every sense of the word? Today’s immigrants are anti-libertarian and vote for political candidates who promise big government at the expense of liberty.

    At some point common sense should trump blind faith to an ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I don't actually care so much about restricting the vote to white men or restrictions on voting in general, since there is no natural right to vote. Natural right to invite others onto your property, or exclude them, is something else. Natural right to offer employment to anyone you choose, or to deny employment to anyone you choose, is also something else. So when we talk about immigration policy, we talk about policies that regulate the dispensation of privileges, like voting, versus policies that restrict the natural right to freely associate with anyone you wish, like policies restricting the rights of Americans to rent or sell property to foreigners or to employ foreigners.

    I'm not saying states have to give the vote to foreigners; I'm saying they should be allowed to if they wish, since it isn't the business of the federal government to interfere in their local administration that way. Yes, I know the federal government already interferes in state governments in innumerable ways, but I am also against that and I don't think one wrong excuses another.

    I'm not really convinced by the argument that immigration is going to make us less libertarian, since there is plenty of evidence that we are quite capable of growing the government with or without high immigration. The expansion of federal regulatory powers during the Progressive era happened at a time of high immigration, but the greater expansions of the federal welfare state under FDR took place a decade after drastic reduction in immigration. The Great Society programs that set off the explosion in inner city crime took place right before immigration started picking up again. I think immigration is a red herring if what you really care about is shrinking government and growing liberty.

  11. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    Regarding 19th century liberalism towards aliens, it's critical to remember that in virtually all state Constitutions it was required that a would be citizen be a "free, white person". And at the time "declarant alien voting" was permitted most states were sparsely populated and needed white, Europeans immigrants to begin settling the land. The "aliens" eligible to vote after declaring for citizenship were exactly like the founding racial stock and weren't from radically different racial and cultural backgrounds as today's immigrants are.

    From your linked article:

    Declarant alien voting eventually died out in the 1920s as new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were deemed insufficiently "white" and the anti-immigration policies became more popular for a variety of reasons. Anti-German hysteria during World War I, for example, was one cause.
     
    Are you arguing that these state practices should continue to the present day when the U.S. is now teeming with 330 million people and a disproportionate number of immigrants are dependent on government assistance and the vast majority are truly alien in every sense of the word? Today's immigrants are anti-libertarian and vote for political candidates who promise big government at the expense of liberty.

    At some point common sense should trump blind faith to an ideology.

    I don’t actually care so much about restricting the vote to white men or restrictions on voting in general, since there is no natural right to vote. Natural right to invite others onto your property, or exclude them, is something else. Natural right to offer employment to anyone you choose, or to deny employment to anyone you choose, is also something else. So when we talk about immigration policy, we talk about policies that regulate the dispensation of privileges, like voting, versus policies that restrict the natural right to freely associate with anyone you wish, like policies restricting the rights of Americans to rent or sell property to foreigners or to employ foreigners.

    I’m not saying states have to give the vote to foreigners; I’m saying they should be allowed to if they wish, since it isn’t the business of the federal government to interfere in their local administration that way. Yes, I know the federal government already interferes in state governments in innumerable ways, but I am also against that and I don’t think one wrong excuses another.

    I’m not really convinced by the argument that immigration is going to make us less libertarian, since there is plenty of evidence that we are quite capable of growing the government with or without high immigration. The expansion of federal regulatory powers during the Progressive era happened at a time of high immigration, but the greater expansions of the federal welfare state under FDR took place a decade after drastic reduction in immigration. The Great Society programs that set off the explosion in inner city crime took place right before immigration started picking up again. I think immigration is a red herring if what you really care about is shrinking government and growing liberty.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS