The withdrawal of Rick Santorum from the battle for the GOP nomination brings with it new speculation over the path ahead for conservatives. Santorum’s exit from the Republican presidential sweepstakes dashes the hopes some may have harbored of casting their ballots for a Gingrich-Santorum ticket this November. On the other hand,  Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters have seized upon this development in order to argue on behalf of their candidate as the only conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

Whatever comes to pass, it will undoubtedly be an fascinating fall campaign. That’s why I urge all who are able to join me at the upcoming quarterly meeting of the New York City Indie Republicans in the Abe Lincoln Room of the 3 West Club. We’ll be discussing a host of issues-including, hopefully, the latest developments in the 2012 election-and you can ask me questions during what will likely be a lively Q&A session.

You can RSVP at the NYC Indie Republican Meetup page, where you’ll also find some information about a great liberty-oriented, independent-minded Republican organization which exists in the depths of Manhattan. Who would believe it?

Hope to see you all there!

One of the problems with modern election campaigns is that the media tend to focus almost exclusively upon mainstream political candidates, which means men like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Fortunately, the advent of the World Wide Web has allowed those with limited media exposure to disseminate their message to a much broader audience. One week ago I had the opportunity to attend a candidates’ forum sponsored by the Manhattan Libertarian Party, which was holding its annual convention in the lead-up to this year’s presidential election at the East Village Ukrainian Restaurant. None of the candidates on stage is a household name, with the possible exception of Gary Johnson-and even in his case, it’s doubtful that more than a small percentage of political wonks is aware of his candidacy. However, the openness of the Internet-at least for the time being-has allowed each of Johnson’s opponents, Carl Person, Bill Still, and RJ Harris, to bypass the normally money-intensive, press-centric channels of ingratiating themselves with prospective voters. 

However, before turning our attention to the presidential forum, let’s examine some of the issues addressed by that day’s introductory speakers. Jim Babb, libertarian activist and creator of the popular anti-TSA website We Won’t Fly, spent most of his speech exploring how members of the liberty movement could persuade the American public that ceding innate rights to agents of the state-no matter how benign the ostensible goal of government policy-makers might seem at first blush-is a recipe for tyranny. His focus, of course, was the habitual harassment of passengers and violations of civil liberties by the Transportation Security Administration in our nation’s airports, which seem to have become Constitution-free zones, excluding celebrity paparazzi. The repeated abuses of this branch of the Department of Homeland Security-whose Orwellian title belies the incompetence and ineptitude of its chief administrators-have been well catalogued. From the humiliating strip search of one of its chief congressional critics-an octogenarian WWII veteran-to the more recent detention detainment of Senator Rand Paul, to the emotionally scarring interrogation of a cancer survivor forced to remove her prosthetic breast, to the utterly humiliating experience of an elderly grandmother wearing a colostomy bag, to the mind-boggling decision to blast a mother’s breast milk with high doses of radiation, the abuses of the TSA are legion…and ongoing.

As was pointed out during the course of his speech, these intrusive, utterly demeaning experiences are the only encounters, except perhaps for an excruciating wait in a DMV office line, ordinary citizens have with the true face of state, and it isn’t pretty. The invasive searches and unconstitutional deprivation of rights airline passengers experience on a regular basis provide an opportunity for education though, because they illustrate the pervasive nature of government control while also highlighting its ultimate futility. Babb summarized this perspective succinctly with the line, “If you think the TSA is intrusive, just imagine filing an income tax return.”  This quote is valuable because it illustrates an essential truth. Namely, that these “security” measures have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring security, rather they are used as a means of control-just like the confiscation and redistribution of earned income in this country-and a way of inducing mass docility among the populace. That’s why the events organized by We Won’t Fly-which would not have generated nearly the attention they did without the Internet-are so important as an educational tool. Although Babb acknowledged there hasn’t been much progress at the federal level in rolling back the scope of TSA authority-let alone abolishing the agency altogether-there have been statewide efforts at limiting the abuses inflicted upon Americans at the hands of this horrific government agency, most likely because of the activism promoted by organizations like We Won’t Fly. That there have been Ban the Scan rallies and is growing support for protests like National Opt Out Day gives me hope that the message of resistance against arbitrary government tyranny is spreading.

On a more philosophical level, Carl Oberg, of the Foundation for Economic Education, emphasized the need to expose youths to a message of classical liberalism as they grow up. Castigating both the system of public education and private schooling, Oberg described the difficulties of conveying a message of free market ideas and choice within an institutional framework where even the concept of capitalism as a potential economic and social solution is anathematized. In addition to public speaking engagements to high schools and colleges across the country, he cited the distribution of works such as I, Pencil, the capitalist manifesto written by FEE founder Leonard Read, and The Freeman, FEE’s flagship publication, as means of educating the general public about the ideas espoused by his foundation. Whether political education is a more efficacious means of turning people into libertarians than political activism-or merely a complement-remains to be seen.

The capstone of the evening, the candidates’ forum, touched upon many of the subjects brought up by earlier speakers, but also focused on a broad array of issues that mainstream presidential candidates have debated in the past few months. The most interesting dynamic at play from my perspective was the clear division between some of the candidates on stage. Perhaps I should have expected discord-at least on policy matters-from a party that’s notorious for its difficulties in finding a unifying presidential candidate, but the spirited back and forth, especially between Gary Johnson and Carl Person, was a relief. The latter spent much of his time attempting to discredit the record of the former while touting his own record of creating jobs. Person repeatedly emphasized the necessity of connecting with an electorate that is searching for long term plans for economic growth and job creation, not merely a regurgitation of libertarian talking points, no matter how necessary the changes proposed by more ideological candidates like Gary Johnson might be. Person also implicitly criticized the notion of nominating a former high-ranking elected official in one of the major parties in order to appeal to a broader electorate, correctly pointing out that the last time this was attempted, with former Republican congressman Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party not only failed to increase its share of the vote but in the process alienated many deeply committed LP members who supported party activist Mary Ruwart.

Johnson defended his record by recounting his work as an handyman in New Mexico, an experience which eventually led to the creation of a multimillion dollar construction business that provided the seed money for a successful run for the governorship of the state. He framed the issue facing the President as one of whom to fire, not hire, and asserted that he would submit a balanced budget upon taking office-vowing to cut entitlement spending drastically while at the same time drawing down on overseas commitments, although not to the extent promised by libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Perhaps the most surprising element of his pitch to the audience was his support for the Fair Tax, an idea that has been condemned by some libertarian economists as being a stalking horse for the introduction of a VAT and an added revenue stream for a federal government seeking to supplement the income tax, a la the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Bill Still, yet another presidential aspirant, focused almost exclusively upon monetary policy during his speech to those assembled at the East Village Ukrainian Restaurant. Going beyond the aims of the  End the Fed movement inspired by Ron Paul, which has gathered steam as a result of Occupy Wall Street, Still argues for the complete abolition of fractional reserve banking, even praising populist Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan in his closing remarks. Of course, this elicited guffaws from some of the anarcho-capitalists in the audience.

RJ Harris was perhaps the most conventionally libertarian candidate on stage, repeatedly emphasizing his commitment to civil liberties, including his opposition to the NDAA and SOPA. He also touted his previous experience running for office in his home state of Oklahoma, including a congressional campaign that garnered the endorsement of Senator Rand Paul. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Harris’s candidacy is that he is supporting another presidential candidate this election cycle. Namely, Ron Paul. His rationale for running is that there needs to be a liberty candidate on the ballot should Congressman Paul lose the GOP nomination, and in fact, his dedication to the libertarian cause manifested itself during his speech, which he concluded by urging members of the audience to contribute to any of the candidates he was sharing a stage with, including his opponents.

Perhaps the most intriguing point of dispute between the four candidates revolved around the subject of immigration. While most people view the Libertarian Party as monolithically supportive of open borders-an impression that’s no doubt reinforced by the position espoused by libertarian mouthpieces such as Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute-the four presidential candidates vying for the LP nomination differed sharply on the questions of border security and immigration controls. Gary Johnson reiterated his well known opposition to any restrictions on immigration and rejected the very notion that a fence or wall could serve as an effective deterrent to border crossers-prompting a humorous interjection from an audience member who asked him why people in East Germany weren’t aware of this incontrovertible fact. RJ Harris,while not in the same open borders camp as Johnson-in fact, averring that those National Guard troops now policing the AfPak border should be patrolling our own southern border-still emphasized the necessity of having an extremely generous immigration policy, sans the existing welfare state model that promotes dependence upon the state by newly arrived immigrants. On the other hand, Carl Person emphatically stated his support for states rights on this matter, denouncing the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Governor Jan Brewer and the people of Arizona, and in a nod to federalism declaring that laws like SB 1070 should not be subject to federal intervention. Finally, Bill Still unequivocally rejected the immigration plank of the LP platform, replying to a question about this issue by asserting that he was in favor of “sovereignty.”

This exchange, perhaps more than any other, demonstrated the wide variety of opinion that exists within the Libertarian Party, and signaled that perhaps the gulf between those in the immigration enforcement and reform movement and ideological libertarians is not as wide as it appears at first glance, a subject that we’ve explored recently on this very website. In any case, the upcoming presidential race will provide an opportunity for all of these candidates to compete for the affections of libertarians and-considering the fact that the Libertarian Party will be on the ballot in all 50 states-American voters.

Later today I’ll be heading out to the Manhattan Libertarian Party Convention. Throughout the day I’ll be sharing my thoughts on Twitter and bringing you news about a political party that just might have  a decisive impact upon the coming election. Will former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson be able to unify libertarians, even those who view him with some measure of skepticism? Will RJ Harris say that someone not named Ron Paul is best qualified to be President of the United States? Will Danny Panzella and Ron Moore disagree on general election strategies for libertarian voters?  Will the subject of immigration come up? Chances are, since I’ll be in attendance, it will. However, if you want answers to the rest of those questions you’ll just have to tune in to my no doubt riveting reportage and analysis of today’s event. 

Months of strenuous campaigning, millions of dollars in political advertising, and countless days of retail politicking will culminate in just a few hours, when a select few will decide who will be awarded the first presidential delegates of the 2012 Republican race for President of the United States. Although not always an accurate gauge of who is ultimately nominated by the Republican Party-a fact pointed out rather inelegantly by Jon Huntsman-the Iowa caucuses do have a significant impact upon the results of future contests, particularly the New Hampshire primary.

That’s why it’s important that we scrutinize the words and deeds-and in some cases, rather extensive voting records-of those who seek the GOP nod to face President Obama this November. Specifically, from the perspective of the immigration enforcement and reform  movement. There are a number of recent polls, from Insider Advantage to Rasmussen Reports, which all show more or less the same dynamics at play. Namely, a battle for the top spot between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, a surging Rick Santorum, a rejuvenated Rick Perry campaign, and a large percentage of undecided voters who’ve yet to make up their minds. While Fox News has provided a helpful primer on the state of play in Iowa on the eve of the caucuses, it’s important that we take some time to ponder the implications of today’s vote, vis-a-vis sensible immigration policy. 

We start with a candidate  American Rattlesnake has neglected to cover this primary season, mostly because his support among Republican voters amounted to a rounding error, notwithstanding some noteworthy endorsements by conservative political organizations and evangelical Christian activists. However, times have changed for Rick Santorum, who now finds himself third among Republican presidential candidates in most Iowa polls. This rise allows us to examine Santorum’s record on immigration and border security issues, which is a mixed bag, at best. While his overall record is absolutely atrocious, if we’re going to judge him by his Numbers USA scorecard-which is as good a barometer of fitness as any in this regard-then the former senator from Pennsylvania is near the bottom of the pack in terms of potential GOP nominees. Roy Beck gives a harsh, but fair, analysis of Santorum in an overview for Numbers USA that I suggest you all read. 

His record in the U.S. Senate and Congress was respectable, as Beck readily acknowledges, and got significantly better the longer he served-he was a strong “no” vote against the DREAM Act during the lame duck session of Congress convened by Senator Harry Reid. What’s more, he has tried to woo us during this primary-going so far as to condemn the sanctimonious scroungers at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who have turned societal pardon of illegal aliens into an official sacrament. That said, his record on E-Verify, probably the most effective immigration enforcement tool we currently have at our disposal-and a perfect wedge issue, as Mickey Kaus points out-has been positively abysmal, with his past votes and statements regarding legal immigration being a greater disappointment, although not an anomaly in this field, regretfully. 

Santorum’s presidential candidacy reflects the essential dichotomy of the Republican field’s relationship to the subject of immigration. While almost every one of the candidates abjures the term “amnesty,” sometimes comically so, and is in a sense an improvement upon the the Republican Party’s previous presidential nominees, and certainly the previous occupant of the White House, almost all of them have serious limitations and flaws with respect to national identity, sovereignty, and the impediments to progress that our current policy of unfettered, mass immigration represents. The reflexive paeans both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney heap upon the disastrous H1-B visa program is but one example of the weakness of the top tier of Republican presidential candidates. Even Ron Paul, who has made admirable strides to highlight pivotal issues such as the insanity of extending birthright citizenship to the children of illegals and subsidizing those in this country who are trespassing, has regressed during this campaign. 

Ironically, the wholly antagonistic nature of the Obama administration, which has effectively declared war on large swathes of the American population, presumably comprising  a portion of the electorate he can safely discard, has actually served to enhance the profile of a crop of candidates that has a conspicuously dovish position on the subject of immigration. For even the disingenuousness of a Rick Perry or harebrained, semantic sophistry by a Newt Gingrich doesn’t approach the unremitting hostility this administration has displayed towards enforcing immigration law. From executive edicts that flagrantly defy the law, to implicit sanction given to localities that flout federal directives on immigration enforcement, to politically-driven witch hunts undertaken against those who have the temerity to enforce the law, President Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for  American citizens who don’t profit personally from the illegal alien industry. 

So in that sense, any Republican candidate-now that open borders libertarian Gary Johnson has officially abandoned the GOP-would be better than the current resident of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate would promote good immigration policy once elected to the presidency. Particularly disappointing has been the flagging campaign of Michele Bachmann, who at one point seemed poised not only to become a prime challenger to Mitt Romney, but also to put the issue of illegal immigration at the forefront of this presidential election. Unfortunately, like the presidential campaign of intrepid congressman Tom Tancredo, Bachmann’s candidacy does not look like it will garner much traction beyond the Iowa caucuses. The fact that Sarah Palin has consigned her to the realm of the Huntsmans of this race certainly does not bode well for her candidacy. 

However, that doesn’t mean that the attention she -and even the abortive campaign launched by Herman Cain-gave to the subject of our misguided immigration policy-and the intentional recklessness of this administration in disregarding its duty to protect and defend our borders-did not have an impact on the dimensions of the Republican race. Nor does it mean that this issue will be forgotten any time soon, as the Supreme Court hearing regarding the appeal of an injunction against SB 1070 during the height of the 2012 presidential race ensures. Our porous borders and the devastating consequences of illegal immigration during a prolonged recession will be election issues, regardless of the attractiveness of the eventual GOP nominee. It is our job, as citizens and activists, to push whoever that candidate is in the right direction, and to demand that he make the contrast with President Obama on these issues explicitly clear. Our country can’t afford a return to the days of Obama v. McCain, or Bush v. Kerry…and neither can we. 

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

I’ll try and live-tweet significant portions of the debate, which you can read here.

Speaking of Michele Bachmann, she’s released a comprehensive immigration plan that would incrementally deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. In addition to implementing a policy of enforcement through attrition, she would construct a border fence along the Mexican-American border, mandate that English be this nation’s official language, and do away with birthright citizenship. In a must-listen interview with Laura Ingraham, she also takes Newt Gingrich to task for his amnesty lite plan, which couldn’t differ more starkly from the Bachmann platform.

 In disturbing news, the House of of Representatives has rubber stamped a bill that would exacerbate one of the most damaging aspects of our current immigration policy, i.e. chain migration. While the useful idiots in the mainstream media have attempted to portray this bill as benefitting high-skilled immigrants from China and India who want to remain in the United States, the true beneficiaries of this-should it be enacted into law-will be thousands of distant relatives from countries like Mexico sponsored by newly minted American citizens. Any time you hear the word “bipartisanship” your attenae as American citizens should go up, and this is no different. When the leader of the National Immigration Forum-one of the legal and political spearheads of the open borders movement-and Chuck Schumer support something, it’s usually a good idea to oppose it. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Republican-led Congress did, and we’re so much the worse for it.

In a shameful example of the depths to which the fifth estate will stoop in order to promote their open borders agenda, the tragic suicide of a young man named Joaquin Luna is being manipulated by the mainstream media in order to promote the DREAM Act, which has been repeatedly and emphatically rejected by Congress since it was first introduced over a decade ago. The good folks at Newsbusters have an astute analysis of the despicable manner in which just one media outlet-in this case, CNN-has attempted to politicize this personal tragedy.

One of the real tragedies of the immigration debate-such as it is-that we’re having in this country is the distortive effect the media has when it comes to prioritizing issues. Instead of focusing on the potential illegal alien recipients of taxpayer largesse, why aren’t we discussing the amount of carnage illegals are cumulatively inflicting upon our society? Jim Kouri has a must-read piece highlighting a buried government report that examines the damage they have caused by creating some of the most destrutive forest fires in our country’s southwest, particularly Arizona. It’s rare that I compliment John McCain, but I agree with The Blaze’s assessment that the GAO report vindicates previous public statements he’s made on this matter.

In news closer to home, a New Jersey judge has ordered the deportation of a woman who is allegedly being targeted by a Guatemalan gang called Valle del Sol while allowing her sister to remain the United States indefinitely. The extent of gang influence in Latin America is staggering, demonstrated once again by the open declaration of war on American and Mexican authorities recently issued by Los Zetas, perhaps the most feared narco-cartel in the country of Mexico.

In a case eerily similar to Operation Fast and Furious, the United States government is now facing calls for investigation into a money laundering operation undertaken by the Drug Enforcement Administration in an attempt to find patterns among Mexican drug trafficking criminal syndicates.

Staying in Mexico, we find a claim by Mexican authorities that they’ve foiled an international conspiracy by one of the late dictator Mouammar Kadhafi’s fugitive sons to escape Libya through illegal passage into Mexico. This story would be worthy of mockery if the impact of Mexican illegal immigration-facilitated by the Mexican government itself-weren’t such a grave matter.

In yet more news of immigration fraud that endangers our nation, a woman living in Rancho Cucamonga  has been arrested for bringing in unauthorized foreign students to train at her flight school under fraudulent visas. For those of you who are regular followers of American Rattlesnake, this story will sound very familiar. Apparently, our government has learned very little from September 11th.

In contrast, the government of Israel seems to be learning very rapidly how much damage an open door policy can inflict upon a nation’s sovereignty. That’s why Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai has come out publicly and stated that African economic migrants-from predominately Muslim nations like Eritrea and Sudan-will no longer be welcomed with open arms by the Jewish state. The national identity of Israel may very well be imperiled by overly generous asylum policies, a lesson that we in North America  have yet to absorb.

Last but not least, we’re pleased to bring you another incisive, amusing take on the skewed priorities of our federal government, courtesy of Anthony Bialy. Even as this administration waves the white flag on illegal alien border jumpers, it continues its war against hippie drug paraphernalia. Only in America, and only under the Obama administration.

Reminder: You can read the live tweet of the RevPac fundraiser here. 

The RevPac event I attended on Monday night was an quite an experience. First of all, the choice of setting seemed designed to highlight some of the recurring themes in Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. While most of his primary opponents have held Manhattan fundraisers targeting donors in this city’s ever-dwindling, yet still potent, financial services sector, the rigidly anti-corporatist, free market dogma of the Paul campaign-highlighted by the appearance of bearish Euro Pacific  CEO Peter Schiff-lent a new dimension to what would otherwise have been a routine campaign fundraiser.

The optics of the event were pleasing, which I suppose was by design. Even on an ordinary day, the South Street Seaport, bordering the nearby Financial District,  is one of the pleasing parts of New York City. But on the cusp of Christmas, one of the more beautiful historic districts in Manhattan really comes to life.

The South Street Seaport Museum is a beautiful reminder of New York’s proud naval heritage. The Peking, pictured below, is a four-masted barque that was built in Hamburg, Germany. The evening’s host, professor of finance at Ramapo College and New Jersey Republican and Libertarian candidate Murray Sabrin, utilized the opportunity provided by the location in order to compare Ron Paul to a captain who would right a ship-in this case, the United States-veering off course. Although the analogy was a bit labored, the sentiment it expressed seemed to be well received by the audience. 

Before the evening’s official schedule began I was able to chat with some Ron Paul supporters, mostly about the dire economic situation the United States is facing. The staggering corporate misfeasance by former MF Global head Jon Corzine was a topic of particular interest to some of the investors RevPac was courting that night, although I also overheard some attendees discussing the career of Bret Favre. Unfortunately, that is one topic that probably won’t go away, regardless of who is elected POTUS a year hence. 

Dr. Sabrin set the tone for the evening, using his introductory remarks to counter what he felt were unjustified, inaccurate attacks leveled against Ron Paul by his critics. He set aside for specific condemnation the leaders of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who’ve decided to exclude Paul from an upcoming presidential forum, and conservative evangelical leaders such as Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, who’ve dismissed the Paul campaign in the past. I must admit, one of the more surprising elements of the RevPac fundraiser was the emphasis some of the speakers gave to issues of faith-including several strong religious references-an element I hadn’t antcipated in this type of setting. 

The subjects addressed by each speaker fell roughly into three broad areas: warfare and diplomacy, budget and economy, and constitutional limitations. Dr. Alieta Eck, president of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, focused on the latter two, exploring why Ron Paul’s opposition to PPACA-and promise to sign a repeal of Obamacare into law should he become President-was essential to improving the health care delivery system. She described the difference in approach between  Newt Gingrich, who lobbied for changes in government policy that would benefit his health care clients, and  Paul, who has recommended policy changes like negative outcomes insurance, health savings accounts, and a reduction in the scope of FDA regulatory authority.

Kevin Gutzman, Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, used his speech as a platform to synthesize the foreign policy and economic critiques voiced by Ron Paul into a broad Constitutional argument supporting his presidential candidacy. He attempted to make the case that both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had no genuine regard for upholding the Constitution, and viewed the document-like most politicians-more as a totem than an actual check on Executive or legislative authority. He cited as examples the notorious reply of Elana Kagan during her Senate confirmation hearings to a question posed by Senator Tom Coburn about the extent of authority of Congress, as well as the American-led, NATO intervention in the Libyan civil conflict, which was a  non-defensive military operation that in his view flagrantly disregarded the admonition by the Founders not to become enmeshed in foreign military entanglements.

Gutzman touched upon the catalogue of Constitutional breaches responsible for our current structural problems, highlighting what he saw as the Supreme Court’s rendering of the Commerce Clause effectively moot, the apotheosis of which is Wickard v. Filburn, perhaps the biggest realignment in individual rights in relation to the state effected by the Supreme Court during the 20th century. The peroration of his speech being, of course, a summary of why Ron Paul was the only candidate capable of and willing to reverse course on these issues. 

Jim Grant, an economic author and former writer for Barron’s, spent the bulk of his speech attacking the Federal Reserve, emphasizing a chief theme of the Paul campaign. It was framed by the assertion that there had been no progress in economic thinking since 1914, i.e. the year in which the Federal Reserve was created. His speech was in keeping with the spirit of the event in the sense that it was a radical, libertarian critique of the fiscal and monetary system we’ve had in place for the better part of a century.  He advocated a return to the concept of double liability and repeal of federal deposit insurance, as well as the reintroduction of the Gold Standard and the end of what he described as the “socialization of risk,” epitomized by programs like TARP.

Michael Scheuer was the penultimate speaker, and his speech was one of the more interesting-which is to say odd-of the evening. Professor Sabrin introduced him as the creator of President Clinton’s extraordinary rendition program-which elicited surprisingly few cheers from the libertarian crowd-and the former head of the CIA unit tasked with finding and capturing the late Al Qaeda emir and FBI most-wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. Although most of his talk was taken up with an extended lecture on how our foreign policy has inspired enmity among the Muslim world, primarily through our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, he reserved a section of his speech to address criticisms of Ron Paul made by some Jewish organizations and public figures.

The wisdom of trying to refute these accusations, which prominent Jewish supporters of Paul’s presidential campaign have addressed in the past, in the context of a fundraiser is itself a dubious proposition. However, Scheuer’s decision to analogize the attacks against Rep. Paul to what he described as the defamation of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee during World War II was a baffling decision, to say the least. Leaving aside the historical debate over how sympathetic Lindbergh was to the aims of Nazi Germany, the fact that he held and voiced anti-Semitic views should have been enough to give Michael Scheuer pause before embarking on this train of thought. 

The keynote speaker of the evening was Euro Pacific Capital CEO and libertarian activist/talk show host Peter Schiff. Perhaps appropriately, the capstone of this event was a campaign pep talk, focusing upon the necessity of Ron Paul supporters doing their part to help their preferred candidate win the upcoming Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary. After outlining how his forecasts of an imminent housing bust/recession had been predated by Ron Paul’s equally pessimistic but prescient predictions in Congress, Schiff claimed that the current frontrunners in the Republican field-especially Newt Gingrich-were as evanescent as the real estate boom that preceded our current, prolonged recession. 

Whether Schiff’s political prediction holds true remains to be seen, but his speech unquestionably inspired those in attendance. Overall, the atmosphere seemed optimistic, possibly because of the weakness of the Republican field and/or the favorable polling coming out of Iowa. Personally, I’m still not convinced that Ron Paul has the momentum to win the GOP nomination, but from a purely intellectual standpoint, he’s probably the most logical alternative for those primary voters seeking the “anti-Romney” at this point in time.