The 2020 election is just over a year away, but there is already a long list of candidates running on the Democratic ballot. In June next year, the DNC will hold their primary debates in Milwaukee with over 20 candidates participating. Those who lean anti-establishment have had their eyes on Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, but it’s easy to forget that they are both polling below 2%. At the top are still Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and at the very top with 27%, Joe Biden.
Jack Parkos | United States
Many modern libertarians are proponents of open borders with little to no restriction on immigration. But is this stance appropriate for libertarians? Just because other right wingers support closed borders, does not mean they are anti-immigration. Rather, they seek restrictions on it. It isn’t “anti-libertarian” to support secure borders. Even Ron Paul was not an open border libertarian.
We live under a massive welfare system, which balloons because the US government has caused massive destabilization all over the world. This causes mass immigration, and sometimes even state importation of refugees and immigrants. Refugees will leech off the welfare state at the expense of taxpayers. This does not seem like the stance a presumed libertarian would take. It could easily be said that open borders are just as statist as closed borders. Many libertarians believe that the only borders should be one’s own property. But we must understand that the federal government has power over the border, and it likely will not give up this power anytime soon. Thus, libertarians must choose the position that will best protect our liberty, and it isn’t to open the borders.
Open border libertarians argue that the welfare state argument isn’t an argument against immigration but an argument to end the welfare state. In truth, it is an argument for both. But how does placing more people on welfare and thus expanding the welfare state, help reduce it? Libertarians should be trying to reduce the number of people on welfare. By allowing more people in who may not have skills desired by the markets, we only expand the welfare state and harm the immigrants who want to enter legally and join the workforce.
A study done by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that 62% of illegal immigrants receive welfare of some kind. Los Angeles County spent 1.2 billion dollars on welfare benefits for illegal immigrants in just two years. These are people who are getting free government handouts at the expense of the taxpayers. Even if the welfare state is reduced, it could easily be voted back up.
A solution to this could be to have a vetting process based on value to the job market. Immigrants who want to work should be welcomed into the country. Perhaps this system could be similar to an Elis Island system.
Immigrants tend to vote in support of big government to get benefits. Democratic politicians use immigrants to gain votes. Of course, many people already vote for larger government, but we do not need more people voting for this. Obviously, it is impossible to regulate people coming in based on political ideology. But reducing it to peaceful workers will decrease the likelihood of people voting for welfare, and thus weaken the Democratic party.
US foreign policy has been a disaster. The policy of destabilizing regions based on the drug war and war on terrorism must stop. But in the meantime, there is a lot of danger going on in the world and we shouldn’t put the American people in harm’s way, thus we should ideally be isolated from the conflict.
In Latin America, the drug war has created violent cartels and gangs like MS-13. The war on drugs should be ended, but that does not mean we should let gang members in. A proper vetting system could prevent criminals from getting in and allow peaceful people to enter.
Then we get to the Middle East, which becomes more complicated. It is no lie that US foreign policy has created the terrorist problem we see today. But is it smart to import people from countries that hate the United States and the West in general? The answer is obviously no.
There is a refugee crisis in the world. But this does not mean we should not import them all into the country. There are too many security concerns with this. To better understand why this is dangerous we must look at Europe.
Europe has taken a very open borders stance and has paid heavily for this. In the past years, there have been several terrorist attacks in Europe. Even on top of that, crime rates have skyrocketed since these policies began. as an example, an estimated 77% of rapes in Sweden are committed by the Muslim Male population. Muslim males make up 2% of Sweden’s population. This does not mean all Muslims are rapists and evil, but this stat shows the danger of letting everyone into the country without a proper vetting process. Many of these refugees are unemployed and are subsidized by the government.
Open borders lead to more authoritarianism, so an ideology based on preventing such authoritarianism should respond appropriately.
How could the border and immigration issues be addressed?
- End the welfare state. This will take a while likely, so reduce it as much as possible.
- Stop welfare incentives for people to enter solely to live off welfare.
- Create a proper vetting system for South and Latin America (As well as other nations in Europe, Asia, etc). to vet out those who will work, and those who would only live off of welfare. Those with clean records should be allowed to enter legally and become citizens.
- Try to stop illegal immigration into the country.
- Allow peaceful illegal immigrants an easier path to citizenship.
- Deport illegal immigrants found guilty of a violent crime.
- End the war on drugs that has destabilized Latin America.
- Stop the war on terror overseas and focus on domestic issues.
- Temporarily stop all immigration from the Middle East until hostilities cool down a bit and we can have a proper vetting system.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
By Owen Heimsoth | USA
The Republicans will never see the Presidency after 2024 unless they have a policy shake-up.
First off, it is clear that Republicans are already headed left, but is it on the right issues? Recently we’ve seen a change in their gun policy and some switch on healthcare policy.
Obviously, their gun policy has changed quite a bit. For example, Florida Governor Rick Scott is supporting a sweeping gun control bill after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida, Are Scott and other Republicans moving simply to save face? This can appeal to moderate voters, but more importantly, they are alienating their base.
But are Republicans making the right policy moves? Probably not.
If the state of Texas turns blue, it could end the party’s success. Let’s look at the facts.
First off, they are already losing their grip on the state. Donald Trump won the state by about 10% in 2016, but Mitt Romney took over 15% in his 2012 losing effort.
Second, the Mexican population is about to be the majority in the state. This group voted over 65% for Hillary Clinton in 2016 according to this New York Times exit poll.
Ted Cruz looks a likely Republican win in 2018 Senate Elections and 2020 is probably safe for the Republicans. Yet, as soon as 2024, the state could start to lean blue. This NPR Politics article from 2013 predicts a 42% Hispanic plurality in the state by 2023. This could mean a Democratic lean just in time for the 2024 election.
There are very similar trends in all border states. This trend could cause Republicans to lose Arizona and Texas, as well as make New Mexico solid blue. If that were to happen, winning rust belt states would no longer matter. This would be disastrous for future Republican campaigns. If you add Texas and Arizona to Obama’s 2012 win, he could’ve been near a 400 EV total.
Of course, this is assuming that Republicans can’t make some small ideological tweaks and recruit a huge Hispanic voting base.
A Pew Hispanic study showed that 32% of Latino registered voters view themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 28% as liberal. Why isn’t this voting group at least a battleground for political parties? Immigration policy.
The same study reveals that the majority of Hispanics believe that Democrats have “more concern” for them than Republicans. Republicans could likely fight for a majority of Hispanics if they simply softened on immigration policy. Without a doubt, this is one of the most important issues for Hispanic voters.
It is worth noting that whites will become the minority around 25 years from now. That turning point could be the end of the Republican party if their policies keep up. To keep any power at all, they must appeal to Hispanics by that time. While black Republicans have been slightly growing, especially among younger African-American voters, only 8% of black voters went for Trump in 2016. This is a voter block that will take a long time if ever, to go Republican. Republicans did see an 11% gain in Asian voters in 2016 from 2012 so they may be the next minority group to target as a potential voting block.
All and all, unless we see a policy change that attracts minorities, the Grand Old Party could be irrelevant as soon as 2024. A growing minority population is simply bad for the R’s as their current platform stands.
By Ethan Suquet | USA
Just recently in a pro-life policy shift, the Trump administration has rescinded a letter sent to many states by the Obama administration. This letter was a warning to the states that if they dared to practice any form of discretion when it came to their Medicaid dollars funding heinous acts of abortion they could face legal penalties from the federal government.
This perverse letter was a clear demonstration of how radical the left has become on the issue of abortion. Not only are the members of the Democratic party able to defend late-term abortion but they are also able to justify forcing states to use the taxpayer dollars of their constituents to fund this shameful practice.
Luckily, even one of the least consistent Republicans on the issue of life, Donald Trump, who has defended planned parenthood realized that this sort of repugnant extremism in favor of abortion had no place in American politics and made a correct judgment call by rescinding the letter.
After Trump rescinded the letter, we can only hope that more states take the courageous step of saying that no Medicaid dollars should go to funding abortions. Even if the people of a state are incredibly pro-choice, there is no need for them to force their neighbors who may believe that abortion ends innocent lives to fund this practice.
Through incremental but essential steps such as these, we can finally work as a nation towards ending the brutal practice of ending unborn lives. The next step in this fight is to elect a strong Republican majority senate for 2019 that is capable of moving the house passed pain-capable unborn child protection act which would ban abortion after 20 weeks.
As President Trump is nowhere near as conservative as many of the other Republicans, conservatives cannot always trust that he will make the right decision on critically valued issues, but this is a situation in which conservatives should applaud President Trump.
Image from Wall Street Journal.