24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Conservative and Libertarian Groups Slam Heritage Immigration Study

In what was almost certainly an unprecedented press call, top fiscal conservatives from Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the Kemp Foundation and the American Action Network took what had once been the premier conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, to the woodshed for its immigration report that sees trillions in cost and no benefits from immigration reform.

With a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, Josh Culling of ATR said that while Heritage was a “treasured ally,” its work was a rehash of a flawed 2007 study that ignored all the benefits of immigration reform. Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh was even more outspoken saying “how disappointed” he was that Heritage abandoned conservative dynamic scoring (i.e. the impact a piece of legislation’s impact on the economy). He accused Heritage of not following years of their own work, which has striven to look at the impact on behavior of changes resulting from reforming the tax code and other innovations. “They ignored GDP, they ignored productivity,” he said in reeling off the list of items in the Gang of 8 legislation left out of Heritage. Cato’s study, which did use dynamic scoring, found that immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion in growth over ten years while forcing out 11 million immigrants (the Heritage solution) would lower GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

Source: Washington Post. Read full article. (link)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CosmoBro||

    The Heritage Foundation is, and always will be, a hotbead of so-con bigotry.

  • danielfrank106||

    If you think Frank`s story is unbelievable,, last pay-cheque my girl friends mom got a cheque for $5854 sitting there in their apartment and they're best friend's step-mother`s neighbour did this for 8-months and got paid over $5854 in there spare time on-line. use the information on this site......... www.daz7.com

  • Cytotoxic||

    These are the idiots that thought up the health mandate.

  • Acosmist||

    It's like Heritage wants to mow their own lawns. Get with the program, guys! Treason Lobby ahooooy

  • ||

    The Heritage staff can mow my lawn instead, I don't mind.

  • SIV||

    Heritage doesn't love Real ID, E-verify, and "a path to citizenship" like those other groups. Jim DeMint has been makibng the point the "pro-amnesty" groups are using an arbitrary 10 years timeline to emphasize revenue increases and hide entitlement spending.

  • Calidissident||

    What? This is patently absurd. Heritage is all in favor of E-Verify

    Here are results from page 1 of a Google search "Heritage Foundation E-Verify"

    http://www.heritage.org/resear.....ortunities

    http://www.heritage.org/resear.....ep-forward

  • Calidissident||

  • Calidissident||

    Meanwhile, here are some page 1 results for "Cato Institute E-Verify"

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....-liberties

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....ap-everify

  • Calidissident||

  • Calidissident||

  • SIV||

    Cato is for the comprehensive immigration reform which contains expansion of E-verify. Heritage is opposed to the bill despite the past support by some of their scholars.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So CATO's gone full fascist now.

    For gun control and a government work ID

    Great, at this rate they'll merge with ThinkProgress next year when they endorse the fixes that will make Obamacare work.

  • smiley||

    It's ok because open borders. Derp.

    Remember the time when CATO colluded with Marco on trying to spin the Boston bombings in a way to maximize PR for shamnesty? Oh, that wacky CATO. I liked him better when he was Green Hornet's sidekick.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No you're just being insanely dishonest.

  • Calidissident||

    It's just a bit disingenuous to judge their positions on an issue by their position on a bill that contains a bunch of different things. Not to mention, CATO doesn't even take positions as an organization. Which members have explicitly stated support of this particular bill? Have any stated opposition to it? Why is Heritage opposed to the bill? (An article of theirs on the top 5 problems with the bill doesn't mention E-verify or Real ID http://blog.heritage.org/2013/.....tion-bill/)

    Also, unless it was added back in, the Real ID was dropped from the bill two months ago (and a quick Google search confirmed that yes, Heritage also supports Real ID. Your post got it exactly backwards).

    http://www.policymic.com/artic.....-from-bill

    Your post was misleading, no other way around it.

  • Calidissident||

    And lastly:

    http://www.cato.org/events/imm.....-verify-no

    It's hilarious, given how much you attack certain libertarians or libertarianish people over the slightest deviation from orthodoxy (not that there aren't times where it's deserved. Levy deserves to be hammered over his support of the gun control bill, for example), and yet you'll shill for a group that is openly and explicitly not libertarian, including lying about their own position (and the position of the "COSMOTARIUNS" you're comparing them to) to make them seem more libertarian

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you're rejecting anything they have to say out of hand, because their stinky SoCons?

    Hmmm, sounds just like another politico-religious cult.

  • Calidissident||

    Where did I say that? I'm calling out SIV for his hypocrisy. He's the king of playing No True Scotsman and attacking people who don't meet his yokeltarian purity test on the most specious of grounds, yet he has no problem defending openly unlibertarian conservative people and groups. I'm not saying Heritage is wrong because they're conservative (though any study promoted by an ideological think tank, whether conservative, liberal, or libertarian, that confirms the ideology of that group should be treated with a skeptical eye). I wasn't even saying they're wrong. My post was about SIV, not them.

  • smiley||

    Actually I think SIV just has a minor beef with overt ideological mendacity. Just like yours truly.

    Shorter CATO: We hate E-Verify and behemoth big gov bills, with an exception for our 900 page comprehensive open borders bill that contains E-Verify.

  • SIV||

    Yep

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's in the same vein as libertarians 'hating' the welfare state. Except for expanding it to provide benefits for illegal immigrants, because of fairness, or something.

  • Calidissident||

    I wouldn't really call it "minor," at least in SIV's case. And he has a history of attacking writers and organizations with strawmen. If he wanted to attack people at CATO for the reason you gave, I have no problem with it (although, as I asked above, who at CATO specifically is supporting this particular bill? If anyone is, are there others opposing it? I couldn't find anything on this specific bill on CATO's website and I don't watch news on TV, so I haven't seen any of their members talk about it). As I've said, Levy deserves all the criticism he's gotten for his position on gun control. But SIV's defense of Heritage, to the point of inverting the position of the two organizations on issues, is also mendacious and worthy of criticism.

  • ||

    overt ideological mendacity

    Like repeatedly asserting that Cato supports a bill, when Cato doesn't endorse specific policy proposals?

  • SIV||

    Cato "officially" doesn't take positions but they had a conference cal with other pro-comprehensive immigration reform "conservatives" to go after Heritage, hard, because they dare to point out the newly legal immigrants will consume welfare at a higher rate than the native born and are net tax consumers.

  • Calidissident||

    1) That doesn't mean they support this particular bill (this is exactly the kind of dishonesty of yours that is really tiresome) and 2) They're disputing the results of the study. CATO has done research of their own that contradicts Heritage's assertion that immigrants are a drain on the economy

  • SIV||

    The bill is up for debate right now and Cato is colluding with supporters in attacking the legislation's free market opponents.

  • Calidissident||

    Certain members of CATO are colluding. Why do you assume everyone at a libertarian institution has to have the exact same opinion on anything. And as said, attacking Heritage's analysis of the economic effects of amnesty doesn't mean one supports the bill in Congress.

    "the legislation's free market opponents."

    Heritage isn't very free-market on this issue. They also thought the insurance mandate was a great idea. Once again, you're shilling for a blatantly unlibertarian organization while at the same time standing atop your throne scolding people for being insufficiently libertarian. If you want to criticize CATO, Reason, etc. for not being libertarian enough and insinuate that they're not really libertarian, go ahead. But don't turn around and then offer these kind of (dishonest) defenses of organizations like Heritage.

  • smiley||

    Like repeatedly asserting that Cato supports a bill, when Cato doesn't endorse specific policy proposals?

    Oh, I don't know. Considering their loud reaction to Heritage today, they sound awfully invested in that shamnesty bill passing.

    Then there's this:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....s-big-time

    Ellis’s email was in response to an email conversation she had with Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh and ATR’s Josh Culling, among others, earlier in the day about the potential effects of the Boston terror attacks on immigration reform.

    Nowrasteh is the Cato analyst who has attacked the forthcoming Heritage Foundation analysis that argues that the Gang of Eight bill will add multiple trillions to the entitlement rolls. He wrote to the group on Friday afternoon: “The Boston thing could derail this big time so I’m spending most of today on that,” Nowrasteh wrote, referring to the Gang of Eight bill. “Sorry, gotta run and focus on that.”

  • Calidissident||

    "Considering their loud reaction to Heritage today, they sound awfully invested in that shamnesty bill passing."

    Arguing that Heritage's analysis is flawed is not necessarily an endorsement of the bill.

    As stated, CATO doesn't endorse specific policy proposals. Some of their members do. I'm sure some do (Nowrasteh seems to, and he's the only one I've seemed confirmed. I haven't found a single article by a CATO associate supporting the current bill) support this bill. I'm sure there are others who think the downsides of it outweigh the positives. They're not a monolithic group.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's a particular form of religious insanity that makes otherwise intelligent people deny the reality that increasing the number of people eligible for welfare in a welfare state will lead to higher welfare expenses.

  • Calidissident||

    It obviously does lead to higher nominal welfare expenses (as do a wide number of things that I'm sure you wouldn't support restricting liberty to prevent), but that a) doesn't mean that the net budget effect is negative and b) doesn't mean that we should give in to nanny state logic and use the existence of a welfare state to justify restrictions on liberty

  • VG Zaytsev||

    but that a) doesn't mean that the net budget effect is negative

    Sure, why would increasing the number of takers in society have a net negative impact [[eye roll]].

    and b) doesn't mean that we should give in to nanny state logic and use the existence of a welfare state to justify restrictions on liberty

    Because nothing says liberty like expanding the welfare state.

    I gotta ask you Calidissident, do you support something like prop 184, at least in theory, that precludes immigrants from any getting any welfare benefits?

  • Calidissident||

    "Sure, why would increasing the number of takers in society have a net negative impact [[eye roll]]."

    Hypothetical example to prove the point I was making: Let's say 100 new people join a society. 1 of them goes on welfare at a cost of $10,000 a year. The number of people on welfare and the amount of dollars spend in the whole society increases. However, let's say that those 100 people pay $200,000 in taxes (in addition to improved economic growth). I'm not saying that's the equivalent of what's happening, but do you at least now understand what I meant?

    "Because nothing says liberty like expanding the welfare state."

    So is anything that reduces the number of people on welfare justified? Sterilization of certain groups of people who are more likely to go on welfare? If it was proven that drug laws reduced welfare spending by more than the cost of the WOD (they don't, but we're talking hypothetically), would they be justified? What about all the nanny state laws aimed at reducing health care costs?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let's say 100 new people join a society. 1 of them goes on welfare at a cost of $10,000 a year. The number of people on welfare and the amount of dollars spend in the whole society increases. However, let's say that those 100 people pay $200,000 in taxes

    Great theory,

    The problem is that it doesn't conform to reality at all. In America today, a majority of people will take much more from government than the contribute over their lifetimes.

    You still might be correct if our immigration policy was geared towards people with high earning potential. But it's not. It's geared towards low skilled workers, who are generationally disadvantaged by their interaction with the welfare state, leading to greater poverty rates for their children and grandchildren than for the immigrants themselves.

    The meta-reality is that the socialist left is importing clients to further their political ambition. The libertarian ideal of free immigration and labor markets cannot deal with that reality, so ideologues ignore it and pretend that we have an idealized free market.

  • Calidissident||

    "Great theory"

    Which you claimed was inherently wrong.

    "The problem is that it doesn't conform to reality at all. In America today, a majority of people will take much more from government than the contribute over their lifetimes."

    Research shows that even if immigrants are not a net economic gain, they're not a very large burden either. Even if you're a more utilitarian libertarian, the effect is not nearly large enough, even if we assume it is negative, to justify the restrictions on freedom (of both foreigners AND Americans) that the immigration police state entails.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Research shows that even if immigrants are not a net economic gain, they're not a very large burden either.

    Bullshit.

    Or is it your contention that the bottom third of income earners in the country also aren't a large burden.

    In which case the entitlements really are long term viable.

  • Calidissident||

    Put up or shut up VG. Prove your claim

  • grey||

    I like where the debate began, all the possible impacts aside liberty must be considered first. Though I agree with your assertions, particulalrym tant linertarians should not cede liberty to socialist state economics (by that measure we would be making a libertarian commerce clause type concession of all liberty issues). Sorry to parrot, The conceding liberty to welfare state economics makes me very nervous.

  • grey||

    I have no idea what happened with the spelling blender.

  • Calidissident||

    "The libertarian ideal of free immigration and labor markets cannot deal with that reality, so ideologues ignore it and pretend that we have an idealized free market."

    No we don't. We simply don't make our positions or beliefs subject to the existence of welfare, or what's best for the Republican Party.

  • SIV||

    Reason's Shikha Dalmia has attacked Canadian policy of giving preference to the skilled and educated while strongly advocating "chain migration" of elderly and infirm family members over other classes of immigrants to the US. She also supports full equality to welfare and entitlements for all the newly eligible residents on their "path to citizenship".

  • Calidissident||

    "Reason's Shikha Dalmia has attacked Canadian policy of giving preference to the skilled and educated while strongly advocating "chain migration" of elderly and infirm family members over other classes of immigrants to the US."

    From what I've read of Dalmia, she seems to support the immigration of pretty much all groups. Correct me with a link if I'm wrong. Didn't she just write an article criticizing the restrictiveness of the H-1B program? When has Dalmia ever supported restricting high-skilled immigration. There's nothing unlibertarian about opposing preferences of skilled workers (as long as you don't do the opposite) or supporting chain migration.

    "She also supports full equality to welfare and entitlements for all the newly eligible residents on their "path to citizenship"."

    Source? The last time I asked you for one, you linked to an article where she disputed the claim that immigrants are a huge burden on the welfare state, but didn't defend the welfare state or support giving welfare to immigrants as you claimed, so you'll have to link to a different article if you want to prove your point.

  • Calidissident||

    "I gotta ask you Calidissident, do you support something like prop 184, at least in theory, that precludes immigrants from any getting any welfare benefits?"

    Yes, I would be ok with that (I will say that as long public schools exist, I'm ok with making them open to immigrant kids, but food stamps/Medicaid/TANF, etc. yeah I'm ok with denying that). Although even today, with a few exceptions (refugees and a couple other select groups), immigrants have to reside in the country for five years before being legally eligible for welfare. If I were in Congress, I would propose a compromise bill that would allow amnesty with legal residence, but not citizenship, and open immigration (with a check for disease and criminal history), but ineligibility for welfare. Of course it wouldn't pass, but it would expose the hypocrisy of certain people in DC.

    If you're trying to imply that I must secretly be a liberal that loves welfare because I don't change my positions or beliefs because the welfare state exists, then I have to let you know that you're wrong.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If I were in Congress, I would propose a compromise bill that would allow amnesty with legal residence, but not citizenship, and open immigration (with a check for disease and criminal history), but ineligibility for welfare.

    I agree with this proposal.

    But we'll never get the socialists to do so.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree. Nor will you get most conservatives to agree to it.

  • smiley||

    Here's a wild idea: why not handle the welfare state problem first? Or would that cramp your style with the liberals?

    By the way, having my tax dollars swiped to prop up yours and CATO's open border fetish doesn't sound very liberating.

  • Calidissident||

    "Here's a wild idea: why not handle the welfare state problem first? Or would that cramp your style with the liberals?"

    Ideally, we would handle both in one fell swoop. That's not happening. I am completely in favor of eliminating the welfare state. That doesn't mean I allow the existence of the welfare state to dictate and change my positions or beliefs on other issues. This is exactly the logic liberal nanny statists use to justify laws on substances (tobacco, food, soda, certain drugs, etc.) or activities that affect health. Or the logic SoCons use on the drug war. And so on.

  • smiley||

    Oh, well, then let me counter by saying this:

    Ideally, we would handle both in one fell swoop. That's not happening. I am completely in favor of eliminating our national borders and state sovereignty. That doesn't mean I allow the existence of our national borders and state sovereignty to dictate and change my positions or beliefs on other issues. This is exactly the logic liberal nanny statists use to justify laws on substances (tobacco, food, soda, certain drugs, etc.) or activities that affect health. Or the you get it by this point.

  • Calidissident||

    First off, that isn't analogous in any way, shape, or form to what I said.

    That said, I believe national borders serve the purpose of not letting foreign governments enforce their laws within those borders. They aren't justification to restrict liberty. Most of the time, the "Sovereignty justifies X" arguments from people here come off as Tony-esque arguments in favor of majoritarianism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is every bit as asinine and worthless as the drug-warrior liner about 'you can have your drugs when the welfare state is gone.' No fuck off I'll have my freedom to hire Pedro regardless thank you.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Fine, but letting Pedro take welfare benefits for his family or promising to let him vote away my property is an imposition on me.

  • smiley||

    Except that you won't have the freedom to hire Pedro to do your manscaping for cheap due to E-Verify. Or is the plan to neuter E-Verify later?

    Don't sell yourself short btw; you are also asinine and worthless.

  • Calidissident||

    Where did he say he supports E-Verify. I don't think anyone here is defending all the stuff in the immigration bill in Congress. The debate has been about the concept of open borders.

  • SIV||

    Liberals praise Jennifer Rubin for attacking Heritage for not supporting the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Maybe she'll work with Cato on "common sense gun safety" too.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's as likely as you making an honest argument on this subject that doesn't reek of whinyness ie 0%.

  • smiley||

    Aren't we on the libertarian rag.

    Are their dietary supplements you can take for this? Or just a reach-around from Pedro at the Home Depot?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh was even more outspoken saying “how disappointed” he was that Heritage abandoned conservative dynamic scoring (i.e. the impact a piece of legislation’s impact on the economy). ...“They ignored GDP, they ignored productivity,” he said in reeling off the list of items in the Gang of 8 legislation left out of Heritage. Cato’s study, which did use dynamic scoring, found that immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion in growth over ten years while forcing out 11 million immigrants (the Heritage solution) would lower GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

    And CATO has an unimpeachable record, having accurately forecast CA downfall from the world's premiere economy in the late 80s to it's current state.

  • SIV||

    Just wait till the dynamically-scored "multiplier effect" kicks in and Cali will be back on top!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Krugman's already made that claim.

  • Calidissident||

    Of course Texas is just an economic mess these days

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Which state has a higher percentage of it's population consisting of poor immigrants and their children?

    Are the parts of Texas with the highest immigration rates doing better or worse than the rest of the state?

    Does Texas have CAs welfare policies for immigrants and CA's dysfunctional education system? (which is my problem with the current immigration paradigm)

  • Reggie1971||

    When Texas becomes a blue state I doubt you'll have to wait very long for those new welfare and education policies to kick in.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't know what the numbers for immigrants are, but the Hispanic population of each state is virtually identical, percentage-wise. And according to this map (it's a Slate link, with the data from the Pew Hispanic Center), the illegal immigrant population is 0.1% higher in CA than it is in TX (as % of population).

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....state.html

    "Does Texas have CAs welfare policies for immigrants and CA's dysfunctional education system?"

    Where did you get that I support CA's welfare policies and educational system. You're making my point for me. The fact that so many immigrants are moving to states like Texas, Arizona, and others that don't have very generous welfare benefits also seems to confirm that there are more important factors in deciding to move here than welfare.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's also the existence of economically viril Canada with its easier immigration system debunks this xenophobe talking point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't know what the numbers for immigrants are, but the Hispanic population of each state is virtually identical, percentage-wise.

    The way that the left conflates illegal immigraiton with Hispanic is a major pet peeve of mine. I've known plenty of hispanic people that were rabidly anti-immigrant. It's a lazy rhetorical trick, akin to claiming that since a majority of Texans are white, that they are therefor pro-Californian.

  • smiley||

    The way that the left conflates illegal immigraiton with Hispanic is a major pet peeve of mine. I've known plenty of hispanic people that were rabidly anti-immigrant.

    As a so-called "Latino" or "Hispanic" or whatever, you may include me with the "anti-illegal immigrant" crowd. It's always simultaneously humorous and grating to see doofus white leftists address and speak to me as if I am part of a Borg collective that wants los amnesties.

    Equally humorous/grating is watching them attack those like Ted Cruz that break from the collective as "not Hispanic".

    BTW, I detest the words "Latino" and "Hispanic"; phony white technocrat/collectivist words designed to shove me and millions others into a box marked "HABLAN ESPANOL".

  • Calidissident||

    I never conflated the two. But let's not tiptoe around the fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants and recent immigrants in general (until a few years ago, when Asians surpassed them) are Hispanic, or that they are the group you're mostly referring to when we're talking about changing the political landscape. Or that most Hispanics are immigrants or the children or grandchildren of immigrants. Both Texas and California had historical Hispanic populations, but both states have seen that population grow massively in recent decades from immigration. The percentage of Hispanics is almost exactly the same, and the overall demographics are very similar. Texas has a little higher percentage of whites (though they aren't a majority), fewer Asians, and more blacks.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Where did you get that I support CA's welfare policies and educational system. You're making my point for me. The fact that so many immigrants are moving to states like Texas, Arizona, and others that don't have very generous welfare benefits also seems to confirm that there are more important factors in deciding to move here than welfare.

    Yeah right.

    CA's welfare policies developed when large numbers of easterners moved here in the 70s and 80s and were cemented in place by immigrant voters in the 90s.

    Even through the mid 80s CA was the most libertarian large state in the country. Now it's the most socialist.

    What do you think caused that transformation?

  • Calidissident||

    The governor of the state is the same guy who was in office in 1975. Clearly foreign immigrants are not the only reason for California's political change. I grew up in a mostly white, relatively conservative county. Most of my peers who cared about politics were liberal. In a mock election in 08, Obama got something like 75% of the vote. White Californians are becoming more liberal and have been for some time. Nor are Republicans exempt from any responsibility (though of course CA Dems scapegoat them to an absurd degree) for the current mess. Arnold was a disaster and that's the kind of Republican that gets elected in CA.

    "Even through the mid 80s CA was the most libertarian large state in the country. Now it's the most socialist."

    New York's right there with us, and the argument could go either way. I'm not enough of an expert on the libertarianess of state politics in the 80s to comment on the accuracy of that claim. In any case, Texas has received huge numbers of immigrants as well, has similar demographics, and a totally different political and economic climate.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    White Californians are becoming more liberal and have been for some time.

    Right, beginning with the migration of large numbers of displaced rust belters in the 1970s and even so they are more libertarian than the children and grand children of foreign immigrants.

  • Calidissident||

    Is there even any evidence that the voting patterns of Rust Belters and their descendants are significantly different from the "natives" (California has almost always had huge numbers of people moving from other states)? My dad's from Illinois (on the edge of the Rust Belt, but a fairly liberal state either way) and is a Republican and my grandparents on my mom's side were born here and are Dems. Most of the liberal white kids I know were born and raised here, as were there parents.

    "even so they are more libertarian than the children and grand children of foreign immigrants."

    Because they don't vote Republican in equal numbers (although there's a wide variety geographically with the white vote. The OC and Central Valley are a lot different from the Bay Area or LA)? I haven't said foreign immigrants have had no impact on the political situation of CA, but they're far from solely responsible (again, I repeat, our governor is the same guy that was in office in 1975), nor do I think our problems would simply be solved if we just elected Republicans

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In any case, Texas has received huge numbers of immigrants as well, has similar demographics, and a totally different political and economic climate.

    Texas is demographically where CA was in the 70s. It's an open question whether they'll follow CAs path to socialism or be able to avoid it. The fact that the eastern locusts that destroyed CA are now moving to TX does not bode well for that state.

  • Calidissident||

    "Texas is demographically where CA was in the 70s."

    No it isn't. Please look up the demographics of each state. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Reggie1971||

    I fail to see why libertarianism would align itself with the open borders crowd. The concept of state sovereignty and not rewarding people for breaking the law aren't exactly at odds with our Constitution. But aside from the principle of the thing, by encouraging increasingly more people to come here illegally and expediting their legal legimitimacy, you are poltiically dooming the anti-statist cause. Texas will be a blue state before you know it, and then libertarian arguments will.

    You guys really must love cheap lettuce and lawn care.

  • Reggie1971||

    I should say "then libertarian arguments will REALLY become academic.

  • smiley||

    They really like getting dozens of likes from liberal Facebook friends.
    ("OPEN BORDURS NOT CLOSED MINES" [38 people like this])

    And defending Nick Gillepsie's constitutional right to have a starving Guatemalan clean his leather jacket for a scheckel.

  • Sevo||

    Reggie1971| 5.6.13 @ 10:46PM |#
    "I fail to see why libertarianism would align itself with the open borders crowd."

    So trade in physical goods should be 'free', while trade in skills should be 'protected'?
    Care to define a libertarian defense of that position?

  • Reggie1971||

    Certainly. Physical goods do not receive public welfare and education benefits, which I always understood libertarians to be reticent towards. Not to mention, they do not precipitously change the language, culture, and political dynamic of a nation either. This is about national sovereignty and identity. If we were simply talking about people who came here for a time to do jobs and then went home, that would be a different matter. But we aren't.

  • Calidissident||

    "Not to mention, they do not precipitously change the language, culture, and political dynamic of a nation either. This is about national sovereignty and identity. If we were simply talking about people who came here for a time to do jobs and then went home, that would be a different matter. But we aren't."

    There's your answer Sevo. BOARDERS LANGWIGE KULTURE

  • Reggie1971||

    CHEEP LABER CHEEP LETUS CHEEP LAWNCARRE UUBER ALLLES

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is not the government's job to 'defend' your culture.

  • Reggie1971||

    Not per se, no. It is it's job to protect the borders. Greater assimilation would result if it adhered to that responsibility.

  • Calidissident||

    Last I checked, there haven't been any armies crossing our borders in a couple hundred years. And immigrant groups are assimilating. It hasn't happened (and won't and never has or will) overnight, but it is happening.

  • Reggie1971||

    In all seriousness, I suppose that language, culture, and borders all seem to the politically correct among us to be quite dubious things to hold in high regard. Certain others actually manage to consider what you are left with without those things.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Libertarians, in general, have a huge blind spot wrt Culture. It is real and it does matter and government does have a huge influence over the development of culture.

    It's the reason why two geographic areas can have widely diverging levels of wealth, with one being rich and the other being a shithole. For example, MA and TX.

  • Calidissident||

    Libertarians don't think the government has a job to enforce culture

  • Calidissident||

    *change job to right

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Government is a huge influence on culture, whether libertarians acknowledge that fact or not.

  • Calidissident||

    And libertarians think government should influence culture by not initiating force against peaceful people. Whether it's immigrants, drug users, business owners, workers, etc.

  • BardMetal||

    "Libertarians, in general, have a huge blind spot wrt Culture."

    I've been lurking here for awhile, and I think you nailed it.

    Whether the topic is immigration or terrorism it seems like a majority of posters here seem to think you can sharia loving muslims move next to Amsterdam's red light district without any problems what so ever.

  • Calidissident||

    Do you seriously think immigrants are going to make Spanish or Mandarin the official language of the country? Most immigrants learn English (to some degree. It's difficult to learn a new language when you're not a child) and the vast majority of kids who grow up here speak it well. I work with preschool age, mostly Hispanic kids in South Central LA, and almost all of them speak better English than they do Spanish. Almost all of the elementary and high school kids I pass by on the streets speak English amongst themselves.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you seriously think immigrants are going to make Spanish or Mandarin the official language of the country?

    No

    But I'm sure that they will bring their culture with them and that culture is not conducive to small governments or free markets, as demonstrated by the lack of both throughout latin america (with the semi-exception of Chile).

    And that's not any racial thing. For example, Irish Americans have retained a cultural affinity to socialism despite successfully integrating economically and socially into the American mainstream.

  • Calidissident||

    That post was a response to Reggie, not you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    Culture and politics isn't static. White Europeans love socialism and big government as much or more than Latin Americans do. And the UK and Germany (the two largest ancestral countries of white Americans) are no exceptions. And outside of a few big cities, is that statement about the Irish true? Not in my experience. Irish are the third largest white group. Outside of Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. (where people of all ethnicities tend to support socialism and big government) I don't think you'd find a big difference in voting patterns. Unlike some, I don't view White America or the Republican Party as some great standard of libertarianism from which we should judge everyone else. All groups should majorly alter their beliefs, IMO. In any case, though, I do not believe rights are dependent on what the majority of people of your ethnicity believe or who they vote for.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I know a number of Irish people that are 1st and 2nd generation migrants from the greater Boston area that are successful and completely indistinguishable from other groups of white people in CA except that they have a shocking affinity for socialist language, they would never describe themselves as socilaists, btw but think that Lizzy Warren is great and hate the kkkorpurashuns and reflexively fear guns etc.

    It's really weird.

  • Calidissident||

    Constitution? Where exactly is the Constitutional justification for current immigration law? "Naturalization" isn't synonymous with "immigration"

  • Reggie1971||

    Please specify what you mean by "current immigration law".

  • Calidissident||

    Laws that make free movement illegal without government permission. Naturalization refers to making foreigners citizens, and always has. It's not synonymous with immigration. Naturalization laws were very restrictive since the beginning of the Republic, even though immigration was very open.

  • Reggie1971||

    I don't support making free movement within the country illegal. I'm not aware of any laws that restrict it for our citizens. I was speaking to national sovereignty, and the concept of the country rewarding illegal entry with citizenship.

  • Calidissident||

    "I don't support making free movement within the country illegal."

    What about between countries? What is it about borders that make it ok to restrict freedom? And that does affect Americans by limiting their ability to hire, rent, sell, or associate with people.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Texas will be a blue state before you know it, and then libertarian arguments will.

    Sorry this is a libertarian site not RedState.com or whatever.

  • Reggie1971||

    I'm sorry, will Texas becoming a blue state be of benefit to libertarianism? How exactly is that supposed to work?

  • smiley||

    It's the same magic math that lead to all those Libertarian Party presidents getting elected.

  • Calidissident||

    Tell me more about how we all should have supported Mitt Romney

  • Cytotoxic||

    ITT SIV and Zaytsev set out to prove that nativists are every bit as mendacious and wrong-headed as their drug warrior brethren and they succeed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Excellent argument.

    Next time just shout RACIST!!!

    or better yet INFIDEL

  • smiley||

    And later that night, poor poor Cytotoxic cried himself to sleep. :(

  • SIV||

    Calidissident thinks I hold libertarians to too pure and strict a standard while you call me a nativist. OK, I want wide open borders, a narrow gate to citizenship and the total elimination of welfare and entitlements with the last checks restricted to the infirm and disabled natives. Freedom to travel and freedom to work? Fine, but no subsidies.

  • Calidissident||

    "Calidissident thinks I hold libertarians to too pure and strict a standard"

    Not even what I said. I just said you're being hypocritical when you criticize libertarians (or supposed libertarians if you prefer) in the manner you do (especially when you accuse them of being too friendly towards nonlibertarians, namely liberals) and then turn around and defend, especially in the misleading way you did, an organization like Heritage. If anyone here made a defense of a liberal group similar to the one you made of Heritage, you'd call them out for being a cosmotarian.

    "OK, I want wide open borders, a narrow gate to citizenship and the total elimination of welfare and entitlements with the last checks restricted to the infirm and disabled natives. Freedom to travel and freedom to work? Fine, but no subsidies."

    I'm pretty sure we'd largely agree on those details. However, I don't make my support of libertarian policies, whether its immigration, drug laws, or nanny state health laws, conditional on the existence of the welfare state. Nor have I said I support the bill in Congress. I think it ultimately will fail to resolve the underlying issues and will include things like E-Verify which aren't very appealing.

advertisement