Bob Barr for President 2008: muddled thinking?

Former Republican representative from Georgia Bob Barr has joined the Libertarian Party and thrown his hat into the ring for president of the U.S. He's certainly the most mainstream, most sane person to run Libertarian for a long time, if not forever. He "occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association", but he's also been affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

And, his position on immigration (bobbarr2008.com/issues) shows some possibly muddled thinking. The section "Securing the Border" sounds a bit like the usual blather from the three major candidates and doesn't specify exactly what he does support, leaving me to assume that he would support some form of amnesty for current illegal aliens and/or some form of massive "guest" worker program.

He first quotes the LP's position on the dangers of a completely open border, then says:

Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity... Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

What Barr apparently can't figure out is that it's hard to fight the nanny state when the Democrats are allowed to import millions of people who will vote for the nanny state. And, no one in the U.S. provides for their own "personal prosperity", in that all of us receive some form of benefits from the government. And, that's especially pronounced in the case of illegal aliens and immigrants. No one who employs illegal aliens is paying the full and true cost of their labor, especially when one considers the non-financial costs such as reduced sovereignty and the costs associated with allowing millions to resettle their former lands.

Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton all want to "secure the borders", and all are buried in the pockets of those who want amnesty and a "guest" worker program. Barr needs to provide the details of what exactly he supports and what he opposes. Not that it really matters, since the only thing he'd do is siphon off a small percentage of McCain's votes.

Also expect to see hit pieces from James Kirchik or similar, since Barr spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) in 1998 (salon.com/news/1998/12/11newsc.html).

Comments

Barr: 'This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers...' If a restricted labor pool means limited immigration, then higher legal immigration would fix everything? Not according to Dr. Steve Camarota: The idea that a restrictive system causes illegal immigration is backward ร‚โ€” it's legal immigration that stimulates illegal entries, says Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates reducing immigration. If a restrictive system were the problem, he asks, "Why doesn't doubling the legal immigration numbers reduce illegal immigration?" His evidence: Since the United States put nearly 3 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship by granting amnesty in 1986, illegal immigration has increased nearly fivefold. "You don't just wake up one morning and say, 'I want to go and I'm going to go,' " Camarota says. "It's a person in the United States who says, 'Look, I can get you a job at the warehouse when you come.' " -------------------------- Barr: UNTIL [emphasis added] all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer. --- I take the 'until' to mean his opposition to unlimited immigration is merely conditional on the existence of a welfare state. In other words, he's philosophically in FAVOR of open borders. It reads as if there were no welfare state, he believes there would no longer be any 'duty of the federal government to secure our borders'. It's not unconditional. Philosophically in favor; practically opposed (so he says). Sounds very similar to Milton Friedman: 'As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves.'

'No one who employs illegal aliens is paying the full and true cost of their labor' Definition: An *externality* is an effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account. Classic example of a negative externality: pollution, generated by some productive enterprise, and affecting others who had no choice and were probably not taken into account. --------- Observation: 'Economic only' open border advocates NEVER mention externalities. The typical attitude is 'If I want to hire an illegal alien it's just between me and him--nobody else's business'. It's basically a privatization and individualized immigration policy. Democracy? What's that? 'especially when one considers the non-financial costs such as reduced sovereignty' By definition: If you are 'economic ONLY', you CANNOT be concerned about sovereignty. If you are 'economic only', 'guest worker' programs make perfect sense to you and you are somehow oblivious to the many downsides. As Prof. Borjas blogged: 'Finally, it's sort of ironic but I think that the people who actively support the guest worker program are thinking---gasp!---too much like economists. The wisest remark I have ever heard about guest workers was made by Swiss writer Max Frisch. Referring to the German experience, he said: "We wanted workers and we got people instead." Like everyone else, guest workers get sick, get married, procreate, etc. Many of these life events open up entitlements in the U.S. system, and some of these entitlements can be very expensive.'