Rand who has proclaimed that he is in favor of states' rights has suddenly flip flopped on the issue.
[W]e have not had a president, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to enforce immigration law. Now we have whole cities and states who stand up and say, ‘We just don’t care. We want these people here at all costs, and we’re not going to do anything about it.’ And I think the time’s come for that to end. But it’s not going to end until you have an executive in the White House who says, ‘I will enforce immigration laws.’
So much for Rand on states' rights, and, by the way, with this statement he doesn't come close to a libertarian perspective on immigration.
It's pretty clear to me that Rand has no strong principles when it comes to states' rights or anything else.
Why is that some libertarians support this guy?
-RW
And for anyone who's read Hayek, there should be a concern over Rand's ad hoc methods of choosing political positions. He only took this position based on the hysteria Trump has drummed up and the shooting in San Francisco. He'd most likely govern the same way. Rand believes the Iraq War was a mistake, but to paraphrase Lew Rockwell, it's easy to be against the Vietnam War 20 years after the fact. If president, would Rand stand up to the neocons if there were a terrorist attack and the political winds were blowing in their direction? Probably not. He can't even stand up to a few commentators criticizing his website for listing his dad's books.
ReplyDeleteI thought immigration was a federal issue in accordance with libertarian Constitutionalist thinking?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "libertarian Constitutionalist thinking".
DeleteIt is an oxymoron.