you and I are a lot closer on this issue than you might realize. I am NOT for Open Borders, per se, I am for liberalizing the requirements for entry. I still advocate for "requirements for entry."
As I have said on many occasions in the past in many different venues, my grandfather worked at the Windsor Star (a newspaper) as a typesetter. He lived in Detroit. There were little to no problems with him, each day, crossing the international border to go to work or return home.
Entrance into this country, at one time, was as simple as having a legitimate reason for entry - e.g., a skill or job. If your family owned a business in this country, you could legitimately immigrate here to work within that family business. After coming here, you could seek citizenship...
I served in the military with a man who was not a citizen, but was seeking citizenship (I think he was from Haiti - he was black with a French name that now escapes me). We had no problem with that at the time.
Now it seems that there is no legitimate reason for Mexicans or OTMs (other-than-Mexican) to enter legally. The immigration policy of the U.S. is "keep the bums out." I run into a majority of conservatives who, while claiming not to be xenophobic, make all kinds of disparaging remarks about Hispanics who already live in this country LEGALLY.
Jason, Libertarians would not back the execution of unarmed civilians by military forces that you are endorsing here. I can only believe that you are being facetious, as reasonable men would never endorse a policy of the mass murder of unarmed people, whether they are criminals or not.
The military's only function should be to protect against invading ARMIES, not impoverished people coming to work in another country, even illegally. If we can not at least agree on something as fundamental as that, then surely you will never convince me to return to conservatism.
Parent
