From: Ellen K. 

Actually I said "open immigration", not "open borders".
 Obviously the BORDERS have to be secured.  What I meant by "open
immigration" was doing away with quotas etc, IOW letting in as many as
want to come PROVIDED there would be rigorous security vetting and they
couldn't get any public benefits.  (Since the latter will never happen,
this would really require a magic wand.)

I didn't say "just white people", and I didn't say those would be the
*only* ones the "authoritarian" folks would like to let in, if you look
again you will see that I was talking about which countries would be given
preferential quotas.  But FWIW, the person with whom I have most frequently
argued about this thinks we should only let in people from groups
documented to have a high average IQ.  He probably would be perfectly happy
to let in an unlimited number of Japanese.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:00 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
:

>I don't agree that libertarians favor open borders.  At least not open
>borders in the sense that there is open flow of uncontrolled and illegal
>immigration.  If you meant libertarians would be in favor of letting people
>in legally on a controlled basis to compete for jobs, etc., then that may be
>true.  The most prominent libertarian I know is Neal Boortz and he
>definitely does NOT favor our current border situation.  He wants the
>borders sealed.
>
>I also don't agree with the implications in your post that non-libertarian
>republicans want to just let white people in.  I think that is an unfair
>characterization and stereotype.  They want legal immigration as necessary
>to meet the needs of our country's economy.  They and the libertarians
>believe you can't have any kind of immigration policy if you don't have
>borders.
>
>As Reagan aptly put it, a country that doesn't control its borders isn't
>really a country.
>
>Gary
>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:p1h8m1hvag45v36sgf6r5igbl7hn95kpc9{at}4ax.com...
>> The border issue has a built-in divisiveness in that generally
>> libertarian types favor open immigration while the other flavor of
>> Republicans (some call them "authoritarian" but I bet
they don't like
>> that label) would like to even reduce legal immigration and also go back
>> to giving preference to certain countries' nationals (which definitely
>> would not include any from the Western Hemisphere other than Canada).
>>
>> Personally I am very concerned about the security issues of lax border
>> control (I'm sure plenty of Islamist militants are coming in from Mexico
>> because it's so easy to get in that way), but assuming that could be
>> separated (yes, I know, huge assumption), regarding immigration per se I
>> would like to be able to wave a magic wand and say anybody can come in
>> but they can't get any public benefits and (except for public school)
>> neither can their children below the age of majority.   IOW let in the
>> ones that want to work, BUT couple this with extensive security vetting.
>>
>> Unfortunately it would really take a magic wand to accomplish that.
>> :(
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:24:27 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote in
>> message :
>>
>> >
>> >"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>> >news:asp5m1l753qsstbceo4lafn6mf5i9h4h40{at}4ax.com...
>> >> Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is even
dividing his own party now.
>> >
>> >Hmm, Lott stands on his own two feet, you blame Bush for what
he said and
>> >where he ended up? Sounds like "Bushdementia" to me.
>> >
>> >Too, I wouldn't risk too much money on that division bet John.
Sure, some
>> >are pissed off at his lack of seriousness about the border (me for one),
>> >some others didn't like Miers (me too again), yet others have
issues with
>> >him on this policy or that (me yet again, on a variety of issues), but
>> >never, *ever* confuse those disagreements by any of those groups with a
>> >fantasy that any of them would ever support a Democrat in an election
>> >agree that Bush thinking he could unite people like Kennedy, Durbin,
>> >Schumer, Daschle (whoops Reid) with anyone, anywhere, anytime was a
>foolish
>> >thought, they're not interested>
>> >
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5