Gary Johnson Scary Stance On Immigration

I have been seeing alot of post about the third alternative to Trump & Clinton and honestly I hadn't done much research on the guy until now.

As immigration is a major issue for me I started there and I came across some scary stuff about Gary Johnson's stance on Immigration.

Below are some quotes from GJ regarding immigration that disturb me:

Q: Would you open the borders and make it easier to immigrate legally?

A: My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

Source Playboy Interview

"I have never been supportive of the wall," I answered. "A 10-foot wall just requires an 11-foot ladder."

Source Source: Seven Principles, by Gary Johnson, p.127 , Aug 1, 2012

Well let's just open the border even more, not have any barrier, and add to the existing problem we already have!

It looks as though GJ stance is similar to that of the Libertarian party.

We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

So they want to remove the border, remove border control, and eliminate restriction, and give full amnesty to those illegal imigrants that are already here. Sounds more like the democratic party atleast on this issue.


A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. Sounds like alot but keep in mind this only tells part of the story.

Here is the problem. llegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

So GJ wants to open things up even more and as referenced above native American tax payers will be footing the bill!

No thanks!

Libertarians are Liberals.

That's all one needs to know.

a reply to: sirlancelot
I'm with you.

I read his statement on immigration and it was a deal breaker.
Sounds like something Soros would say.

Libertarianism on that score only works if the two countries are completely harmonized in all other ways. it should be absolutely self-evident that the US and Mexico are not and could not be easily, not without dramatic social upheavel in both countries for a lot of reasons.

What Johnson wants would work much better with Canada which is a much closer cultural and economic match for the US.

Even so, I think the Canucks are happy with their national identity.

a reply to: stosh64

Exactly, it sounds like what so many were saying the Bushes and Clintons wanted to counter the EU - an economic of Mexico, the US, and Canada - with a currency called the Amero, and I imagine it would work about as well for Mexico's economy as it had for certain countries in the EU that many label the PIGS.

Eventually the entire planet will be open borders, countries are just lines in the sand created because of our primitive tribal instincts. I would love open borders and would love a home on the Mexican or French Riviera

I could care less about the costs of immigration to the tax payer. Spending trillions to protect corporate interests and topple regimes to put our own puppet masters in power all over the world is the problem.

We're ripping countries apart all in the name of democracy, which is just a cover for putting who we want in power to resource grab. That's the problem.

Gary Johnson will not get my vote based on his immigration plan. Open borders is the last thing we need at this point and anyone watching what's going on around the world should see that. Go Trump I guess, but I feel we all got robbed of a decent candidate this time around.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Here is the problem. llegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

The issue with your arithmetic above is that if people are permitted to emigrate here legally they are no longer illegal and become contributing members of society. I feel we should allow anyone who is not a criminal to come here legally. Legal immigration is good for the United States.

a reply to: amicktd


I agree that open borders is not a good idea. BUT, They are nearly open now!

From You just now, "I feel we all got robbed of a decent candidate this time around." Ummmm, Hasn't that been the case for many years now? I feel that to vote for any of these clowns gets a "Shame On You!" From Me...
People say they will vote for the lesser of two evils, I say "Shame on You!" to that.
Might as well not vote for anyone. (Like it matters anyway?) I think the voting system is and has been a Farce anyway. But that's just my opinion...(Right?!)

originally posted by: sirlancelot


Here is the problem. llegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

Then the problem isn't open borders. Do not give them welfare. Problem solved.

Even Mr. Johnson KNOWS that couldn't be done in 4 years let alone 8...

Okay, then vote for Trump or Clinton, that'll show them..

FYI- There is a wall, fence etc. betwixt Mexico/US already...

I've had the same opinion as well as can be seen in my posts in the past. I only supported Bernie based on his seemingly caring demeanor for the people. Now, that's long gone since he is standing behind Hillary.

I'd still vote for him if I were planning on voting. It's not like he has a chance in hell in winning, so why not stick it to the man by voting for him anyways? The two party system is a blistering sore on American politics.

a reply to: sirlancelot

I don't know what's so scary about this. He's backing open borders. We've been having open borders since Regan's amnesty.

Open borders for the US is just a fact that none of us can do anything about. It shouldn't even be a campaign issue anymore.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Here is the problem. llegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

The issue with your arithmetic above is that if people are permitted to emigrate here legally they are no longer illegal and become contributing members of society. I feel we should allow anyone who is not a criminal to come here legally. Legal immigration is good for the United States.

Considering the average illegal immigrant crossing the southern border has at best a 10 grade education so basically we are looking at people willing to work farm and service jobs at very little wage. Wages so low they probably wouldn't pay much in federal or state income tax. Wages so low they still would most likely need some sort of of government assistance! So if it cost more per worker then their tax earns we are paying for them to be here at the expense of many other important issue's those tax dollars could be used for.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In order to be contributing members of society, they need to be able to be gainfully employed at jobs that will support them without needing public assistance to make ends meet.

Right now, we don't have enough of those jobs for the citizens we have, let alone an influx of new immigrants.

Not to mention that the average educational level of Mexicans is generally lower. We do not have the necessary low skilled jobs that would allow them to make a living at American levels of cost of living without needing massive amounts of public assistance.

This is what I mean by not being a good idea without causing drastic social upheaval in both countries. Right now, our relative economic and social levels of development are dramatically different leaving aside their more centrally controlled economy.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Well gee... if we let just anyone in, they'll assimilate and be productive members of American society.

Either that, or America will devolve into a dictatorship with two classes - the elite and the starving.

Hmmm... which is more likely to happen, Gary?

I live closer to the border than I feel comfortable.

I have spoken with multiple Border Patrol agents and they all agree a wall would be extremely effective.

1. It makes it more difficult to cross unimpeded. A wall is always more difficult than a sidewalk.

2. It is easier to see someone with night vision and thermal vision when they are skylined instead of crawling through the bushes.

And of course they all hate the executive actions Obama has passed. Morale is very low.

This is retarded. We should just build a super bullet train back and fourth.

We can haul TONS of heroin. We can retrofit the motors to run on meth.



Not sure why there is such a big push to strip the sovereignty of the US, by the US politicians.

It is getting kinda fn sickening at this point.

Lobbying needs to go, or you know who needs to go, we are getting ruined at this rate.

The cattle are getting replaced by cheaper cattle to milk.

a reply to: Mandroid7

This ought to tell you why so many of the establishment GOP are in Gary's camp though.