FW: Immigration/ICE resolution

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 2:38:22 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

Good morning, all.

First, thank you again to Susan Hogarth for writing to us.

As some of you have asked that this be made public, I got permission from Susan to make it so. We authorized public debate on this resolution, but much of that debate took place off-list. I have no issue joining Mr. Martin and Mr. Watkins in seeking that this debate be made public.

As such, I'll attempt to address points and concerns brought up by others in the debate:

• This is empty virtue signaling.

There are different types of resolutions – some are directives, and some are simply statements on public policy. While this could be re-worked to be a directive, I think there’s value in showing our position on a major issue in the news cycle. Further, I believe there is value in showing our consistent, multi-decade stance on a timely issue.

During the pandemic, the LNC issued a resolution opposing vaccine passports. Was that empty virtue signaling? I would argue no, it was asserting a Libertarian stance on a topic of great importance.
I see this as no different - we are pushing back and making our stance clear on a matter of mass importance.

If publicly affirming our opposition to vaccine passports was a legitimate use of our resolution power, then afforming our opposition to government agencies that initiate force against peaceful people is equally legitimate.

 ---

• People think we need ICE because of dangerous migrants

Libertarians often get the argument of “what about violent drug users,” “what if people don’t voluntarily fund services,” or “what about dangerous gun owners?”

Thankfully, our liberties aren’t based on the potential actions of a few, they’re based on the natural rights of us all.

The Libertarian National Convention has resolved, and renewed that resolution, calling for the abolition of ICE and the Border Patrol. We should not back down now that those agencies are being weaponized arguably more than ever before.

There are dangerous citizens and non-citizens alike. I would argue that we should not base our rights on the potential actions of a few. Someone could get drunk and shoot a person - that does not mean we should ban alcohol and firearms. A migrant could assault a person or take their property, just as a citizen could - but that does not make it moral to round up, harass, imprison, and assault people based on their citizenship. 

There are various stances of Libertarian thought as to how to best handle human migration - some support entirely open borders, and some support progressive moves there such as an Ellis Island approach. Likewise, some Libertarians (myself included) consider taxation to be theft, but others believe we need a Land Value Tax or a so-called "Fair-Tax" as a transitionary measure. 

There are multiple paths one may take in seeking a libertarian world, but all those paths must lead toward freedom and the non-initiation of force & fraud. Because of that, we would never support the existence of the IRS, even though some Libertarians support particular types of taxation as transitory measures. While we should seek what freedom we can in whatever order we can, we should always make the end-goal clear and be consistent in our principles.

There is no Libertarian case rightly calling for ICE any more than there is a Libertarian case calling for the IRS. Libertarians may differ in how to best move toward freer migration, but no libertarian solution can begin with an agency built on coercion.

The only justifiable role of government is in the protection of natural rights, not in preemptively violating those rights in the name of safety.

 ---

• We need better text / there are active threats against ICE, so we shouldn’t call for its abolition.

The IRS gets regular threats, and some have carried those threats to deadly conclusions. IRS agents have been murdered, subjected to bomb threats, and other extremist actions. One of the groups that doxed ICE agents has also threatened the same to the IRS.

Should we therefore back off from calling for the abolition of the IRS? Should we include a mandatory disclaimer of non-violence whenever we call for ending the IRS?

I would say no – the Libertarian Party opposes the initiation of violence, and also calls for the abolition of agencies that seek to use force and fraud against others. Our core principles stand against violence, just as they stand against agencies like the IRS and ICE.

Condemning an agency does not condone aggression against its employees; rather, it is an opposition to the aggression of the state itself.

 ---

• Migrants are being funded by taxpayers to replace locals.

That’s certainly not how I would characterize the situation, but even if it were the case – it doesn’t justify the actions of ICE. The solution there is to call for voluntary charity, not the initiation of force against others. No action of the state can justify the initiation of force and fraud against others.

We should seek to make all charity voluntary, and at the same time we should condemn the round-ups, forced deportations, harassment, and violence against peaceful migrants regardless of their citizenship. 

We should demand due process, fair treatment, and respect for the natural rights of everyone.

Those who are not peaceful still have the same rights as non-peaceful citizens - rights do not come from the state, they are inherent to all.

 ---

• Resolutions should be limited to only things that propose action.

Again, I would reference the LNC’s resolutions during the pandemic – these typically did not call for a particular action, they simply expressed our horror at the out-of-control power of the state being used against peaceful people.

When there are widespread violations of people’s rights, it is appropriate for the Party to solidly state its position – especially if it’s a position we’ve consistently held for several decades, as is the case with ICE. 

I fully support the LNC's resolutions against the aggression of the state during the pandemic - and would have appreciated it going further. Likewise, we should not only pass this affirmation of our principle during this crisis, but continue to show why the Libertarian Party is the only National Party that has consistently held firm on this core principle.

 ---

• Issues regarding the specific wording of the resolution, particularly its reference to Hispanics.

While other ethnic groups are impacted by ICE, the text is from the 1986 National LP platform (except for updating the name of the agency).

I would not interpret the condemnation of Hispanic round-ups to mean we are in any way supportive of abuses of other populations, but it does show the state’s long-held hostility to middle and south Americans. Our principles apply to all people, but it is striking that the state would rather target some than defend all.

The reason I used the platform plank text is to show that the LP has been consistent in its principles, that it was firm on this issue decades ago, and continues to hold the same solid Libertarian principles today. 

While we could tweak the text over and over, there’s a point to be made in holding firm on our long-held platform position. It shows that we were, and are, consistently Libertarian – that our principles do not change - that we have always, and will always, support the natural rights of everyone.

---

 

Thank you all for your consideration. I urge you all to vote yes on this (or abstain if you must) and show that the Party of Principle is consistent in its defense of human liberty no matter the decade.

In Liberty,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:13 PM
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>; Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

I second the suggestion by Mr. Watkins. We should make this thread public for the benefit of those interested in the resolution, IMHO. 

Austin 

Join the fight and support the removal of Socialism from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:19:08 PM
To: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

I'm obviously not talking about clearly disgusting messaging. 

Many of the defenders (or tolerators) of ICE think there's something dangerous that requires their intervention. They think the "let them in" crowd are composed entirely of leftists, perceive leftists as the (current) source of bloody political violence, and have watched such violence be winked at for the last several years, and a light hand on violent immigrants (real or not, it's definitely perceived). 

Just passing a resolution that says "let them in" provides no explicit context for anyone that isn't already bought in to the idea. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:09:16 PM
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

LPNH’s problem wasn’t radical messaging - it was disgusting messaging, and the deliberate conflation of the two. If you think this motion says or even hints that ICE cops should be attacked, you’re reading something into it that isn’t there. 

An ‘alternative’ to ICE is implicit and I think actually explicit in the motion - stop impeding peaceful people from coming and going like free humans. 

Susan Hogarth

919-906-2106

On Oct 21, 2025, at 7:14 PM, Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org> wrote:



We aren't New Hampshire, after all. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:13:28 PM
To: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

I’d be the first to say if the cops didn’t exist they neither could be violent nor violated. But I will hesitate to say it with the Party branding without full context and an alternative. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:08:30 PM
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

Perhaps we should be less concerned about violence toward the cops than violence from the cops:

https://popular.info/p/ice-boosts-weapons-spending-700?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

After all, violence toward cops comes from criminals - violence FROM cops comes from the state itself and represents a far greater more systemic threat to liberty. 

Susan Hogarth

919-906-2106

On Oct 21, 2025, at 6:30 PM, Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org> wrote:



The mask comment is about being out of touch with actual conditions. There is nothing wrong with masking, there is nothing wrong with abolishing ICE. But you don’t casually go “yay masking” while it’s being forced; by the same token, “yay abolish ICE” while there are active calls for & attempts at violence against them —I’m not saying don’t​ speak truth, I’m saying to make it more intelligible before it goes out and we can't take it back.  

I’m not arguing “this text or nothing” but better text​. “No particular order” doesn’t even fit much of our own base, much less those outside who just want to live free & safe and can’t yet see the folly of state intervention. 

The goon squads are already popular & tolerated. Now they're under physical attack, and those who think they're here to protect us hear their political enemies calling for their blood. Is it infrequent? Tell popular media that. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 6:11:46 PM
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Cc: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

If we wait until they (state goon squads) are popular or even just tolerated to call for their decommissioning, what would we gain then?

I get that immigrant-bashing is popular on the right at the moment, and unpopular on the left. Are we waiting for the reverse to be true? Or for everyone to hate it?

Those needing to be reached are not the people who think ICE are good guys who need to be protected, but those who think that they are a branch of a state that is rapidly growing more totalitarian. Many of those people - MOST of them, I'm guessing - are NOT excited by the violence/posturing (which, by the way, isn't much) against ICE; they're just concerned about the growth of the state and the rights and dignity of individuals. THOSE are our target audience. It's true that we can't just speak to our base - we need to be speaking to people *who would be our base* if they knew someone was taking the bold stances for freedom that can inspire them. It's exactly our base we need to grow. It's people who want desperately to see a strong principled third way who we want to activate.

I honestly don't understand your mask comment. This resolution literally calls for LESS government action; it isn't suggesting that the administration's position has any kind of merit.

Susan Hogarth

919-906-2106

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 2:49 PM Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org> wrote:

I am thinking politically, as a director of a political party. We can understand the benefits of ICE dropping what they’re doing and going home, as can the already-libertarian, herein does not lie the problem; the general public, those needing to be reached, will not understand amidst the timing and simply lump us together with the violence, or at best out of touch. This has “it’s a really good idea to wear a mask” vibes. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:38:23 PM
To: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>; Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

Thank you for your support of the resolution, Susan!

While I do understand Travis' concerns, and I certainly don't want to make the LP seem supportive of the initiation of violence.

However, I have no problem calling for the abolition of ICE any time, just as I'd have no problem calling for the abolition of the CDC, border patrol, or the IRS.

While it's true that ICE is facing hostility, that's almost entirely because they are using force against peaceful people.

The FBI and CIA are nearly constantly under some form of attack - but we should have no issue calling for their abolition. 

This is an issue where there is massive outrage against a government organization and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are in favor of real long-term cuts - they just each want control. As Libertarians, we are the only national Party that seeks to outright abolish ICE, and part of the reason for using a nearly 40 year old plank is to show just how long and consistently we've called for what is now becoming a common stance.

Thanks,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

---

From: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:35 PM
To: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

The individuals working for ICE will be much safer after returning to productive work in the private sector, so it seems like a win-win to me. It’s not as if the resolution is calling in even the FAINTEST sense for continued violence on either side. Quite the reverse in fact!

Susan Hogarth

919-906-2106

On Oct 21, 2025, at 1:08 PM, Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org> wrote:



I’m still tentatively in support although calling for ICE abolition as they’re being violently attacked (without commenting on it) seems like a bad idea. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Susan Hogarth <hog...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 12:09:12 PM
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Immigration/ICE resolution

 

LNC members,

I urge you all to vote AYE on the immigration resolution offered by Mr Thompson and others. It has the bold and clear language of the early platforms and will serve to distinguish the LP from the now hopelessly populist conservative movement represented by the Trump-complacent GOP.

Our job as a party is to be a beacon for those who are truly libertarian, and that means welcoming the free movement and labor of peaceful people.

Thanks!

Susan Hogarth
919-906-2106

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 3:12:02 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

I'll be brief:

Libertarians argue that if there is no victim, there is no crime.  Who is the victim of illegal immigrants?
The community? Same argument can be made about drugs then, as that can be as harmful to the community if not more so.  Alcohol too.
Or we stay consistent that where there is no victim, there is no crime, and the government should stop taking money from its citizens to harass and deny rights to both citizens and non-citizens.

In Liberty,

Samuel Bohler At-Large, Libertarian National Committee ‪samuel...@lp.org

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:38 AM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Travis Bost <travi...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 2:11:43 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Cc: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Immigration/ICE resolution

Responses to points I raised seem to paraphrase them just enough to be straw men; let’s please refrain from that here. 

As to the 1986 platform, as fine as it was, is a 30 year old platform the gold standard that must be quoted word for word? It was written & passed by fallible people, same as us. We can improve the statement or make it our own. 

Travis L. Bost

LNC At-Large

Travi...@LP.org

---

From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:12:02 AM