Return to the Home Page


Badnarik for or against Minutemen?

I don’t completely understand this…

Badnarik claims his opponent wants to restrict the rights of the Minutemen to patrol against illegal immigrants. Does that mean Badnarik supports cracking down on illegal immigration? Or at least, supports the Minutement project?

The LP’s official platform includes statements like: “The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States.”

I’m not poking at Badnarik, I’m just really curious where he stands on this. Does he break from the official party line on this issue? Are the Minutemen patriots or xenophobic immigrant bashers?

14 Responses to “Badnarik for or against Minutemen?”

  1. esso Says:

    Badnarik is a nut to begin with…I wouldn’t expect an ounce of consistency from him.

    The Minutemen take a bit of an extreme approach, but their concern IS understandable. In a sense, they also benefit the illegals, many of whom might otherwise die from starvation or exposure in the open desert. Being reported by a Minuteman is the least of their problems.

  2. George Phillies Says:

    Badnarik is a right-wing constitutionalist of a particular sort, as witness his claims that you do not need a driver’s license or to pay income taxes, the President is not commander in chief of the military in peacetime, and is not a libertarian at all, as witness his belief that as President of the United States he can have the UN building blown up because he dislikes the UN.

  3. Joe Says:

    I did not vote for Badnarik but agree with him about drivers’ licenses and the United Nations. I am a Minute Man and a patriot.

  4. Otto Kerner Says:

    Incidentally, the Libertarian Party shows a real tin ear on the immigration issue here. I’m strongly in favor of immigration, but I completely understand why people would be concerned about it. And they are concerned about it, so it’s politically dumb to lay into them as “xenophobic immigrant bashers”.

  5. Tim West Says:

    the big problem is that 9-11 has totally shown that the old LP stance on open borders is 100% crap. And nobody wants to admit it.

    The project I am working on is going to attempt to fix this, but giving our candidates a reasonable cover position that does not seem like lunacy after 9-11 yet maintains a decent libertarian position is a fine balancing act.

    Technology and the intellegent usage of same is the only answer. We have a immigration system I know of first hand, as my ex wife immigrated here from Canada, so I have first hand knowledge of what one must go through.

    It’s going to be hard to figure where the line is where voters will go for it but LP members wont attack it.

  6. esso Says:

    Legal options could be made more attractive to immigrants by making legal immigration more possible…ie, holding consulates more accountable, raising quotas, etc…increasing the number of legal immigrants coming in for jobs and the like.

    That would make enforcement a lot easier and at the same time, cause a net increase in our level of security. The people who would immigrate legally would be more likely to be coming in for legit reasons, and those who didn’t bother would more likely have more sinister motives…so, we could more easily isolate the terrorists and have more people to investigate them.

  7. Mike N. Says:

    Timmy West,

    You STILL haven’t figured out that you are NOT a libertarian and that you should join the Republocrats, which is where you belong? You give libertarians a bad name. Go away already. Your attempt to instill socialism into the Libertarian Party should and will fail.

  8. undercover_ararchist Says:

    A policy of open borders is not “crap.” The borders are artificial creations of the state which has no authority to exist itself. The state’s existence promotes the abuses that the Minutemen (racists, not patriots) obstensibly seek to mitigate: Welfare and “terrorism.” The state’s existence and antagonism of foreign peoples and states is what is a danger to us. The terrorists seek to harm the state, and we are just collateral damage.

  9. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Who did you vote for in 2004? (for President, I mean)

  10. Mike N. Says:

    I will have to agree with undercover….

  11. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I ask you the same question then, did you vote for Badnarik?

  12. Mike N. Says:

    Austin,

    Of course I did.

  13. Austin Cassidy Says:

    And yet he supports the racist Minutemen militia? I don’t completely follow the logic here…

  14. joe average Says:

    read the post, guys… he’s against the government taking control of it.

    and Mike N. what kind of libertarian are you that you suppress the free will of other party members.

    conformist.

Leave a Reply