AFP: The unspoken issues of the 2004 presidential elections are the antiquated and useless policies of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Most Americans believe both major political parties are pandering for future Hispanic votes while avoiding the politically sensitive issues of immigration. If homeland security and the threat of foreign terrorists are such a major concern, why can’t we control immigration on the Mexican-U.S. border?Badnarik: “Let’s be realistic: The U.S. has more than 95,000 miles of border and coastline, and the current immigration regime encourages people to slip through without the formalities. With millions of immigrants dodging our Border Patrol every year, it’s time to say ‘enough – this isn’t working.’
“My goal is to encourage legitimate immigration – people coming to the United States to live free and work hard – while defending the nation against enemies who come here to harm it and parasites who come here to live on government largesse.
“I advocate open immigration for individuals who are willing to enter at a Customs and Immigration station and submit to a quick background check to ensure that they aren’t criminals or terrorists. And except for extreme cases such as Cuban and Haitian boat refugees who don’t have much control over where they land, I advocate treating people who cross the borders elsewhere as what they are: invaders.
“A more open immigration regime, coupled with the elimination of welfare incentives, would greatly reduce the resources needed to provide real border security. And the proper agency for that security is the armed forces – once we’ve brought them home from Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan …”
Interesting. The Libertarian Party presidential candidate is for harsher border control than either the Republican or the Democratic candidate, neither of whom dare to mention the issue, still less do anything about it. Badnarik’s position is certainly not what most people imagine when they hear that libertarians support open borders.