A Laughing Matter

Immigration policy is a joke on both the left and right.

If you're looking for laughs, the nation's capital probably isn't the place to start your search. But you can still find reasons for levity if you try. Take immigration.

About a year ago, elite opinion was choking on its own rage over Arizona's harsh new immigration law. Much of that law simply recapitulated federal policy at the state level, but certain parts went beyond federal statute.

Well. This was something up with which one must not put. And one did not. The Obama administration swiftly filed suit in order to defend the principle of federal supremacy. States, said the administration, had no business deviating from federal policy on immigration, which was a federal matter best left to the federal government, on account of its being a federal deal and all.

Federal judge Susan Bolton agreed and swiftly issued an injunction.

The New York Times pronounced itself pleased. Bolton's "clear and well-reasoned arguments," it wrote, affirmed "the federal government's final authority over immigration enforcement."

Whew! Another constitutional crisis averted.

Now, though, things are looking a mite different. The Obama administration's pursuit of illegal aliens through the Secure Communities program has alarmed good progressives everywhere. Under Secure Communities, the FBI forwards the fingerprints it receives from local law-enforcement agencies to federal immigration authorities. The program has led to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens.

The program's critics say it has deported too many small-time offenders—and even non-offenders, such as victims of domestic violence. Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York have stopped cooperating. Legislators and interest groups want California Gov. Jerry Brown to end that state's compliance, too.

In response, the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit in a friendly venue before a judge who is guaranteed to insist that the wayward states knuckle under.

Ha ha! Of course it hasn't.

Rather, the administration has pointed out that the program does not need state consent to go forward. It will continue to expand the program. At the same time, though, it has begun holding hearings around the country so opponents can air their concerns. And last week the Obama administration announced that merely being in the U.S. illegally would no longer be sufficient cause for deportation—you'll have to break some laws that really matter.

That hasty retreat probably will not satisfy the nation's newspaper of record, though. The New York Times has expressed its displeasure that the administration will not only "stick with Secure Communities . . . but force it down the throats of state and local leaders. . . . No one can opt out. It's non-negotiable."

Yikes! Having the federal government order people around without their consent like that is just terrible, is it not? It sure is! Unless it's forcing them to buy health insurance. Then, you know, it's social justice. You'd think a newspaper that had cheered Judge Bolton for rejecting "the Arizona way: an incoherent immigration system" would be delighted by the administration's assertion of the federal government's final authority over immigration policy. You'd think that—if you had never read the Times before.

It's the same thing over on the other coast. Last year, the Los Angeles Times was denouncing "Arizona's Overreach": The state's "attempt to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants encroaches on federal authority," it lamented. But now it says that "if the governor [of California] agrees to pull out" of Secure Communities—i.e., if he tries to secede from federal immigration coherence—that "would be fine with us."

Neither the Obama administration nor its hod-carriers in the press care one whit about federal supremacy. They trot out the argument when it's convenient and stuff it under the mattress when it's not. Liberals play this sort of game all the time.

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.

  • Tim||

    "C'mom kid! We're darting across the highway now"

  • ||

    Just when you think it's safe to dabble with libertarianism, the movement's basic kookiness rears its head again with phrases such as "the free movement of labor across arbitrary political boundaries."

    Sure, of course: the boundary separating a third-world kleptocracy/oligarchy and the freest, most advanced political economy on the planet is "arbitrary". Pay no attention to that border!

    Riddle me this: can you name one advanced nation that throws its labor market open to third-world nations where a majority of the population can barely read or write? Why do you think it is that nations such as Canada, Australia, the UK, Singapore-- all of them reasonably pro-market, none of them excessively "statist"-- maintain points-based, carefully-managed immigration systems? Is it really because they're foolish/evil/slobbering statists intent on snuffing out liberty?

    Or do you think it just might have to do with the unwisdom of importing an underclass? Or that maybe these advanced economies prefer to compete not on the size of their internal sh*t-wage proletarian consumer class but on things like innovation and scientific research?

  • Sy||

    Becuase constructing this perfect society is so easy.

  • Doctor Whom||

    We see yet again that neither Team Red nor Team Blue has an internally consistent philosophy and that they both routinely turn their immutable dogmas on a dime. Of course, when you point that out, you get the all-purpose scathing rebuttal known as "La la la, I can't hear you."

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    "La la la, I can't hear you" is indeed the dynamite in rock, paper, scissors.

  • ||

    I have also noticed how people who disagree with me are internally inconsistent. What is really amazing is the internal consistency that those who agree with me exhibit.

  • White Indian||

    Nothing is more internally inconsistent that Libertards who spew their hatred of Non-State sociopolitical typology.

    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

  • Sy||

    And what makes you think Libertarians will be immune to this?

  • MJ||

    "The Obama administration's pursuit of illegal aliens through the Secure Communities program has alarmed good progressives everywhere. Under Secure Communities, the FBI forwards the fingerprints it receives from local law-enforcement agencies to federal immigration authorities."

    What exactly is the objection to the FBI sharing information with other federal law enforcement agancies, unless the goal is not to enforce immigration law and other laws?

  • k2000k||

    Nothing, until you consider the potential political impact. Many progressives assume that minorities are automatic votes in their pocket. Deporting illegals is decreasing their future voter base in their mind. No progressive will ever admit to such thinking, but you never hear them complaining about the non-minority illegals that get deported. But hey asking conservatives and progressives to be ideologically consistant is like asking the sun and moon not to rise and set everyday.

  • DLM||

    Because conservatives and progressives are actually part of a larger collective mind and indivituals are not allowed to have differing opinions, like the Borg... and libertarians.

  • ||

    you can have all the silly opinions you want, just stay out of my pocket...

  • White Indian||

    How about you no invade and occupy land, send First Families on Trail of Tears?

  • Propertarians||

    They're not interested much in liberty, anyway, being grasping propertarians.

  • jacob the barbarians||

    First families made for good target practice. The lamentation of the women is what is best in life.

  • ||

    "Deporting illegals is decreasing their future voter base in their mind."

    I don't think that is true. I think there are other thoughts going on there, but the 'voter base' idea sounds too ridiculous.

    I think it's just a tendency to be too bleeding heart/contrarian in contrast to conservatives without thinking things through.

  • Almanian||

    Yeah - this would be sort of like if a state adopted a law that mirrored a fed law, so that the state could enforce the law because the feds wouldn't....why would that be objectionable?

    NOTE: usual L disclaimers, not that I necessarily agree with said law, consult your physician before starting this regimen, may cause temporary blindness or hair to grow on your palms, must be at least 18 to participate, permitted everywhere cause we dont' need no stinkin' badges.

    /disclaimer

  • Some Guy||

    Yeah - this would be sort of like if a state adopted a law that mirrored a fed law, so that the state could enforce the law because the feds wouldn't....why would that be objectionable?

    Could you provide an example of this? Cause I certainly wouldn't describe Arizona's law that way.

  • Some Jerk||

    Yeah, it's not exactly that. So, blow me!

  • Pip||

    Nothing new here.

  • Almanian||

    See also Shikha Dalmia's column re: Teh Evul Bachmann (with bonus White Indian rantings!).

    Nothing to see here, move along...no, seriously, nothing to see here...

  • MJ||

    "...so do conservatives. They rail against ObamaCare's requirement that you have proof of health insurance. Yet many of them defended an Arizona statute requiring residents to carry their papers with them at all times in case a government agent wanted to see them."

    Hinkle thinks this is a good comparision? The healthcare mandate is for merely existing, the Arizona requirement is for people whose presence in this country is, by definition, a privilege not a right.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Not necessarily. Even citizens who look suspiciously illegal were "advised" to carry their papers, just in case someone in authority demanded to see them. I actually called the Arizona tourism bureau anbd was given that information before my wife (naturalized non-wite citizen) and I took a vacation there.

    We wound up not going to Arizona and went down to Mexico instead, but point being, they basically told us, "If she looks like an immigrant, it's a good idea for her to carry papers". Well, she's not an immigrant anymore, she's a citizen, which means it is a right for her to be there.

  • ||

    Uh.....out of the frying pan into the fire huh? Mexico? Yikes. Not having the proper papers there is much more serious than in Arizona, and you are much more likely to be asked for them. In fact, if you are asked, having the proper papers is no guarantee that you wont run into a hard time.

  • Thank God...||

    ...we aren't Mexico, right?

  • Matt||

    Not yet, anyway.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Suthenboy, my comment was solely in retort to the OPs assertion that the rule was only for immigrants. A representative of the state of Arizona specifically told me that anyone who looks foreign, even if they are a citizen, should carry their papers. As a citzen in a supposedly "free" country, I hope you can see the problem with that.

  • ||

    So any form of ID="Papers"? I am pretty sure that in Nazi and Socialist countries that required "papers" it was never as minimal as a simple ID card. I realize the slippery slope argument, but it seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between a simple picture ID and several layers of bureaucratic red tape in regards to travel, purchase, employment, ect.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    I didn't inquire further, but I believe it has to be proof of citizenship, which a DL is not.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    Gojira, you were misinformed. It's always best to check the law yourself, Reason has amply documented cases where officials will tell you something is illegal or required when it is not.

    A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

  • meh||

    "If she looks like an immigrant, it's a good idea for her to carry papers".

    It is a good idea. This is not fascism for them to suggest you make it easy for authorities to quickly determine you are not the fugitive they are looking for. Just like if you look like a murderer on the loose its a good idea to carry proof you're not him. Doesn't mean your rights suddenly get violated because you choose the path other than the easiest to avoid the situation.

  • Emperor Wears no Clothes||

    Submit and be Free!

  • ||

    Gojira (formerly Jim) - Yes, I do see the problem with that and I am with you on that. It just seemed ironic that you would choose Mexico as an alternative destination because the problem you were attempting to avoid/protest is exponentially worse there.

    Given the horrible mess that immigration policy in the U.S. has become, Arizona's actions are not unexpected. If the Feds could formulate some kind of sane policy not based on exploiting cheap labor or building a voting block, the states would go about state's business and forget about immigration.

  • Zeb||

    This is my biggest objection to these laws as well. No citizen should be inconvenienced in the slightest by immigration law if they are not crossing a border. And there are plenty of citizens with brown skin and funny accents. My standard: if a law treats one person unjustly, then the whole law is bad and must go.

  • DLM||

    This is why I'd prefer to focus on the border. I have yet to heard a good defense for NOT having a fence (not pun intended) of some kind. I can think of one, but I've never heard it so I figure it must not be important.

  • Zed||

    No laws! Laws bad!

  • Breivik's Army||

    Make sure that you don't have citizens with brown skin and funny accents, then the whole problem goes away, doesn't it?

  • JohnD||

    That's what you get for marrying a nn-white.... Just kidding. That actually sucks.

  • ||

    No, the AZ requirement is for merely existing while being brown with a certain accent.

    I don't want my fellow brown accented citizens harassed simply because they do not have fucking papers

  • Federal Dog||

    "I don't want my fellow brown accented citizens harassed simply because they do not have fucking papers"

    Calm down, take a breath, and do a bit of research into reasonable suspicion precedent. Ignorant hysteria helps no one.

  • Why is it...||

    ...always "brown people"?

    If someone sneaks into this country from, say, Norway... they're here just as illegally as any "brown people".

    Or from Germany, New Zealand, Great Britain, et cetera blah blah.

    Playing the "if you're against illegal immigration, you just hate brown people" card is what liberals do. Let them have it all to themselves, and quit sounding like pussies.

  • ||

    Well, the press and the government sure do seem to give black folks a bit of a harder time than white folks in similar circumstances.
    Part of the reason why race is hystericalized so much is because racism is an excellent tool of political control, such as dividing the labor movement against itself by playing to backwardness and racist elements, exacerbating existing tensions and prejudices.
    I agree that it's oversimplying and unhelpful to accuse all opponents of illegal immigration of being racists.

    /marxist-leninist

  • ||

    Well, it's not like police would ever ask a New Zealander or British person for their papers in AZ, because they're white.

  • ||

    Well, it's not like police would ever ask a New Zealander or British person for their papers in AZ, because they're white.

  • Anecdotal ||

    You do realize that the writers here at "Reason" are in favor of loosening restrictions on immigration... and are certainly not in favor of increasing restrictions on immigration... your Republican ideas are your own and that's fine, but don't assume they are the norm around here...

  • ||

    Wedll then, you'll be happy to know that your claim is based upon absolute nonsense, fueld by naivete and paranoia...anyone who claims otherwise is either stupid or a liar.

  • ||

    "Yet many of them defended an Arizona statute requiring residents to carry their papers with them at all times in case a government agent wanted to see them."

    That is the current FEDERAL law. It says right on my wife's green card that she is required to carry it at all times.

  • ||

    Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states,"Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him . . .. Any alien who fails to comply with [these provisions] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor...

    I would at this point invite A Barton Hinke to revise and extend his remarks about Arizona's so-called require to carry one's papers.

    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/si.....2ca60aRCRD

  • ||

    So there are three reasons someone might not have proof of legal residence:

    1. He is an illegal resident.
    2. He is a legal resident who is not carrying proof of legal residence.
    3. He is a citizen.

    In which cases does Arizona law make detention until legal residence is proven not only an option, but often a requirement?

    Well, here's where an illegal immigrant actually has the same recognized rights as a citizen, because the answer is: all three of them!

  • ||

    In which cases does Arizona law make detention until legal residence is proven not only an option, but often a requirement?

    The bill does not allow the police even to inquire without reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal, explicitly excludes race as an element of reasonable suspicion, and holds the government liable for violating these provisions.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Well, thank god then that cops never lie and would never use race to profile anyone and then make some shit up later to excuse it. Problem solved!

  • ||

    If the government decides to break the law, how is the law they broke to blame?

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Because the law gives them a pretext, as you well know.

    If it is illegal not to carry papers, but there is no law authorizing local PD to enforce this, then local PD will not enforce it. Or at least it stands a high probability of being tossed out of court since local PD did not have the legal authority to do such and such a thing.

    If there is a law giving local PD the authority, but puts conditions upon it, it is then astronomically easier for local PD to lie/cheat/sidestep those conditions because if they can just get around it, they have the legal authority to enforce such and such a thing.

    If weed is legal at state level EXCEPT under many listed conditions, they will find a way to circumvent those conditions. If it is just legal period, they will not bother, because they don't have authority to do anything about the situation to begin with.

    But then again, you knew that.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    As I posted above, you were misinformed. Driver's licenses are considered prima facie evidence of legal residence under SB 1070 as is any other government document issued to legal residents, such as a Social Security card.

    In New York City the law says that everyone is required to show ID if asked. This law does not even go that far.

    Yes, cops might choose to break that law. SB 1070 prescribes penalties for those that do.

  • Anecdotal ||

    My understanding of laws requiring people to show ID during police questioning, is that these laws are only constitutional if the person is enganging in an activity where having as ID is required ( as in driving a vehicle)...if your just walking I don't believe a cop could legally force you to show ID... you aren't allowed to give false information to the cop, but this doesn't mean you have to provide ID either.... of course a cop can ask, and if you refuse they might become suspicious, but unless they hhave reasonable suspicion to believe you've broken a law, then they have no legal choice but to let you go.
    This Arizona law suddenly gives the police a way to legally arrest someone for simply not having ID, that is if they can claim reasonable suspicion that your an illegal immigrant, and thus breaking a law.

    In my opinion this is giving entirely too much power to police

  • ||

    Pretty much.

  • BigT||

    If a law is seen as improper because the police MIGHT circumvent it, then why have laws at all?

  • Anecdotal ||

    Because some crimes are much much much greater then crossing a border..

    Ideally we weigh the benefit provided to society against the possible erosion of civil liberties...

    We should be working to take away some undue power from government, and certainly not handing them more.

  • ||

    Citizens are residents too.

  • ||

    The Arizona law does not require citizens to carry papers whatever. FEDERAL law requires ALL aliens to carry their papers at ALL times.

    The Arizona law made no requirement of citizens or aliens that is not already required by FEDERAL law.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Listen asshole, a STATE OF ARIZONA REPRESENTATIVE (to be fair, not a gov't official, but some wonk working at their tourist bureau) fucking specifically advised my wife to carry her papers even though she's a citizen, just in case the question came up. That was over a year ago, and that person may have been full of it, or fired by now (though working for the state gov't, I doubt that), but the point is, your asinine belief in the magical power of laws is misplaced.

    Just because the law says something, does not mean it will be enforced or treated that way by LEOs or the judiciary. Just look at the story up now about how they're finding every possible loophole in Michigan to bust pot-smokers.

  • ||

    'Listen asshole,"

    My wife is a legal immigrant. I know whereof what I speak. We got her permanent resident status after much time and expense we could ill afford. So I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head.

    If the government breaks the law, the law they broke is not to blame, but rather the government officials who broke that law.

  • ||

    My point solely is that the Arizona law required nothing that the Federal government has not already required for decades now.

    Am I saying no cop is a racist asshole who arrests and holds people on trumped-charges? No. The whole point of this discussion is that Federal officials feel free to enforce laws or not at their whim. This is unfair. If they don;t like the law, change it. But this kabuki dance is unjust and a waste of everyone's time.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    "Keep a civil tongue"? Guess you haven't been lurking here wrong, so let me give you a hearty "Fuck you!" in welcome.

    Secondly, "Am I saying no cop is a racist asshole who arrests and holds people on trumped-charges? No."

    THEN WHY GIVE THEM ANOTHER LAW FOR WHICH THEY CAN FIND AN EXCUSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RACISM!!!

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Ack, the above should read, "Guess you haven't been lurking here long"

  • ||

    since every cop is a racist, let's pretend that no one is illegal, America is one giant theme park, and admission is free.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    By this logic, Gojira, laws against rape shouldn't be allowed because they have been unfairly implemented against black men.

    The law explicitly addresses your concerns, and does not go as far as Federal law currently does. I can see why you'd be concerned about the implementation but that is true of ANY law. Your anger here is misplaced. If you think Federal law is unjust by all means work to change it. But it is wrong for the Federal government to selectively enforce its own laws.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    Go back to the article. The Federal government sues Arizona for trying to enforce Federal law, but does nothing to "sanctuary cities" like San Francisco which ALSO preempt Federal law.

  • Name, which is required.||

    Just because the law says something, does not mean it will be enforced or treated that way by LEOs or the judiciary. Just look at the story up now about how they're finding every possible loophole in Michigan to bust pot-smokers.

    I notice your examples here conveniently involve another law you happen to disagree with anyway. Replace pot-smokers with murderers and then argue the principle. Its just anarchism. Though I suspect those corrupt agents of the state will still be the ones you get problems from under your new system too.

    And cops already hassle the crap out of anyone they want.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gabriel Hanna,

    The Arizona law does not require citizens to carry papers whatever.


    It requires it as an unintended consequence, especially if the American Citizen looks suspiciously like Frito Bandito.

    FEDERAL law requires ALL aliens to carry their papers at ALL times.


    Which is why the law is meant to harrass AMERICAN citizens, not immigrants. Especially those Americans that look like Frito Bandito.

    How many America citizens do YOU know that carry their passport or birth certificate around with them? I know quite a few Americans and they would give me a puzzled look if I asked them to show them to me.

    The Arizona law made no requirement of citizens or aliens that is not already required by FEDERAL law.


    Federal Law does NOT require American citizens to carry documents that show their legal resident status, Gabriel. Don't be confused by the noise: The AZ law has NOTHING AT ALL to do with illegal immigrants. It is TOTALLY meant to harrass American citizens who, unfortunately for them, look like Frito Bandito.

    You know: Brown people.

  • ||

    OM, read the quote! NO ONE is required to do anything more than carry the basic ID Gabriel quoted. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING PERSON IS REQUIRED TO CARRY EITHER PASSPORT OR BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!1!! Indeed, in the wiki above he quoted 4 different types of ID, none of them birth certificates or passports.

  • ||

    Here it is again, in case you missed it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

  • ||

    Maybe you should read it too...

    ... or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

    About half the states -- including adjacent New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada -- do not require legal residence in order to get a driver's license. Their driver's licenses do not meet Arizona's standard of proof of legal residence.

  • ||

    Mike, I will assume that you simply made a mistake, rather than purposefully omitting valid text. I did read it, didn't you? The complete sentence:

    A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: a valid Arizona driver license; a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.[10]

    So it says "drivers license" and then> also includes in a completely different category government issued ID, which IS qualified. So an Arizona, or Nevada or New Mexico DL meets the requirement.

  • ||

    Good heavens.

    It says "a valid Arizona driver license."

    A Nevada or New Mexico driver license does not meet the requirement.

  • ||

    I was wrong. I did not read it as only Arizona DL's, but simply valid drivers licenses. I stand corrected.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    A Social Security card would.

  • ||

    I don't carry mine. Do you carry yours?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Marshall Gill,

    "Any person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code.[10]


    Only legal immigrants would be carrying such documents, not Americans who, unfortunately for them, look like Frito Bandito. ERGO, the law is meant to HARASS American citizens who do NOT carry documents that can "[confirm] the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code."

    It says ANY PERSON, Marshall. That means anybody. NOT ME, tough: I have my docs with me. Does American-born Manuel "Manny" Perez-Perez?

    Please, don't fool yourself: That law is meant to harass Americans, not immigrants.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    Only legal immigrants would be carrying such documents, not Americans who, unfortunately for them, look like Frito Bandito. ERGO, the law is meant to HARASS American citizens who do NOT carry documents

    Right, so the text of the law means the opposite of what it says. It must have been passed on Opposite Day.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    If Manny Perez works, buys smokes or alcohol, or drives, or cashes checks, or uses a credit card, most likely he has some form of ID.

    If Manny Perez lived in NYC he could get busted for not having it on him just like white New Yorkers do.

  • ||

    That's all well and good, but if Manny Perez is carrying a New York driver's license in Arizona, the state will not consider it proof of legal residence.

  • ||

    Please, take a reading comprehension class. The quote you provided mentions documents exactly not at all. This may amaze and astound you, but the police have a magical ability to communicate with federal agencies to determine your immigration status without your passport or green card! Technically, if you ARE an immigrant, they won't even need ANY documents, your fingerprints alone will be sufficient to (eventually, I admit) determine your immigration status - wow, that's just crazy! Plus, you should probably actually read the law - they can only ARREST you if they have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe you are an illegal immigrant or that you have committed another crime. The law is considerably more restrictive than Federal Law, and in fact Border Patrol can lock you up for mere Reasonable Suspicion in order to make a determination.

  • JohnD||

    Old Mexican, you are beginning to sound like some of the other morons on this site. I'm disappointed.

  • Old Mex||

    Me no read so good, visited by friend Al Zimerz.

  • Anecdotal ||

    The difference here is a matter of enforcement. In our day to day lives the chances of being questioned by a federal law enforcement agent isn't all that likely. City police encounters are far more common. The law requires anyone suspected of being an illegal to provide ID to prove their innocence.

  • Old Mexican||

    Neither the Obama administration nor its hod-carriers in the press care one whit about federal supremacy. They trot out the argument when it's convenient and stuff it under the mattress when it's not. Liberals play this sort of game all the time.


    No. Shit.

    Fortunately, Americans of Latin American origin are waking up to the fact that the Obama admin has been playing with them all along, what we call "Dar Atole Con El Dedo" (translation: give'em pudding with a finger, which loosely means stringing one along.)

  • ||

    "the Arizona requirement is for people whose presence in this country is, by definition, a privilege not a right"

    I understand that your opinion that being in the country is a 'privilege' but how is that 'by definition' a 'privilege'?

  • O2||

    because they're brown peoples

  • Pip||

    I'll take all of these you can send me:

    http://www.cryosites.com/share.....9vbdt.jpeg

  • Playa Manhattan||

    She is actually part Middle-Eastern

  • Zeb||

    She's still from Mexico.

  • MJ||

    Residency for an unnaturalized immigrant is a rescindable status*. Only citizens of the country in question have a right to live in that country.

    That applies no matter what the color of the immigrant's or the citizen's skin is.

  • .||

    Stop saying right. To speak accurately: on this earth, armed groups hold territory by force, selectively allowing or denying individuals bodily existence within that territory on the basis of arbitrary club rules called laws. Some consider this to be an utterly barbaric system; others don't.

    That is all that is 'by definition' in reality.

  • ||

    Only citizens of the country in question have a right an entitlement to live in that country.

  • Big government enTITLEment||

    The biggest government entitlement program is privation property granted at the government Land Title office.

    Establishment on the Land for Propertarians. Disestablishment from the land for labor. Otherwise, how would we get them to work at shitty jobs?

  • Emperor Wears no Clothes||

    Have I ever mentioned that Indians are fkn useless?

  • White Indian||

    Frantic bootlickers of the agricultural City-State often say that, because to survive they have to work so much harder.

    The Original Affluent Society worked a quarter hard as you, had much more leisure and more health.

  • ||

    The only problem with the trail of tears was that there were survivors named white idiot

  • ||

    "Only citizens of the country in question have a right to live in that country."

    According to who?

  • ||

    The laws of every country on Earth. Kind of the definition of a nation-state.

  • MWG||

    So governments 'determine' what are rights are?

    Also, that's actually not the definition of a nation state.

  • MWG||

    Ugh... are=our

  • ||

    No - nation-states control their borders and decide who gets in.

  • MWG||

    So... those governments do decide what our rights are.

    "nation-states control their borders and decide who gets in."

    In terms of immigration, the US government did no such thing until 100 years after this Nation State was established.

  • Abe L||

    Everything is just the same as 250 yrs ago, no changes.

  • White Indian||

    Everything is the same as 10,000 years ago when the agriculture City-State (civilization) got started. Civilization, as Stanley Diamond states, is:

    1. Externally invasive
    2. Internally repressive

  • MWG||

    Well, if things are so different than they were 250 years ago then... you know... change the fucking constitution...

  • MJ||

    I do not know of any government on the planet that recognizes non-citzens to have an inalienable right to stay in their country. There only seem to be a small number of people who assert that as a right.

    You can assert that as a right as much as you want, but it does not make it so. You have to persuade people instead of demonstrating your ability to be petulant.

  • nanda||

    the liberal viewpoint is that the nature of the racial and cultural population in the west should be changed from the European or western to the Islamic, African, or Latin American or perhaps anything that is not western. For those who are "people of color" to endorse this view makes sense. It is only human to want to see more people who look like you around you, to have your culture and your language around you. for the colorless, however, this is a suicidal way of thinking. To see how strange it is, imagine the Mexicans insisting that ten million Ghanians or Nigerians come to live in Mexico, and that once they are there, they must have their culture reflected. Imagine the author demanding that millions of evangelical christians immigrate to her country and start insisting on their rights. I am sure she would say my country is for the people there. They have a right to have a place to be themselves in which is mainly for themselves.

    It is hard to talk about these things because of "racism". but the alternative is the end of western culture. Western culture does more than insist on tolerance. It tells us that identity does not matter. That it its big defect, a unique defect, shared by no other civilization. By trying to limit immigration, conservatives are trying to preserve liberalism by not letting matters get to a crisis point. Liberals are betting on the idea that to one group, the group called white, ethnicity, nationhood, religion, symbols, do not matter. They are also betting that all the "people of color" will get along in one nation. Nations vary widely in the degree of cooperation they get from citizens. Even when all are the same it is hard to get people to get along and treat each other halfway decently. I don't see how this new US can work, particularly as it becomes more and more clear that identity matters terribly to everyone. I am sorry is this sounds racist.

  • Atlas Ducks||

    How is Latin American not western? It's west of Liverpool.

  • What?||

    Nobody "demands" that scary brown people come to America. Those of us who actually believe in freedom just think that people should be able to live wherever they choose (assuming they can acquire/rent property on which to live) and not be restricted by a set of arbitrary national boundaries. If Mexicans stop wanting to come to this country, that's fine with me (well, actually it probably isn't because it would mean America had become even more messed up than Mexico, but in principle it's ok with me), but as long as they want to, the fact that you don't like people who don't look like you, eat food you don't like, pray to a god you don't believe in, or speak a language you don't understand doesn't mean that they don't have a basic, fundamental right to buy your neighbor's house and move in there.

  • Mexico's Southern Border||

    Yeah! AMERICA'S Southern Border is racist!

  • ||

    I admire your consistency. However, your veneration of free "competition" and open markets seems to be confined only to interactions at the individual level. People also compete as teams and groups and "corporate" bodies of various kinds. This fact is rooted in the reality that a single man, no matter how strong and brave, stands little chance in battle against a gang. We are thus a social species and as such the social group must have an "identity" process by which it recognizes "members" and excludes non-members. The practical enforcement of group identity involves many "signals" that we sometimes take for granted. These include language and dialect or accent, traditional religion and music, leadership or clan aristocracies, greeting customs like hand shakes and bows, racial characteristics like skin color, traditional clothing, and so forth. Once the clear boundaries of group identity break down, a society dies because the willingness of members to sacrifice for the social good is impaired. Members will not sacrifice their individual well being for a society that cannot or does not clearly recognize their membership and protect and enhance their ultimate survival relative to non-members. Strong borders, and closely regulated processes of immigration and naturalization are thus among our prime bulwarks against social disintegration.

  • Freedom of movement? LOL||

    Officer, am I free to gambol across forest and plain, making a living like Non-State families did for 17,000 years - until 300 years ago when the invasion and occupation of the City-State impacted this area?

    No? Why? Privation property for those whom you serve and protect?

    I thought so.

  • Injun Blanc||

    Let's go back to the times when we had tribal wars and despoiled the plains by using fire to drive animals to slaughter. That's the ticket!

  • White Indian||

    Your understanding of the Non-State sociopolitical typology is utter bullshit the City-State has taught you. Ever read?

    The Harmless People
    Elizabeth Marshall Thomas
    www.amazon.com/Harmless-People.....67972446X/

  • ||

    Wow, you have done the worst job possible and made the least amount of effort possible to understand the liberal POV. It's fundamentally NOT to 'get more foreigners to live here' (although there is no need to be xenophobic-- soon enough we'll be mostly minority, anyway, and who's to say that's a bad thing? Americans have always been naturalized foreigners). The reason liberals don't like the law is that it will result in racial profiling.

  • Anecdotal ||

    This is not about Republicans versus Democrats... this is Reason... not MSNBC or Fox News..

  • Pale Attempt at Humor||

    Without PRIVATION [PROPERTY], there wouldn't be any illegal immigrants, because everyone would [BE] on perpetual vacation, like their ancestors.

  • Thomas Paine||

    The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe. ~Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, written about privation property

    Got something against the pamphleteer of the Revolution?

  • Zeb||

    Context is all important. The poor of Europe were bad enough off that years of indentured servitude in a wilderness full of malarial swamps seemed like a good option.

  • Thomas Paine||

    Yeah, ain't European civilization just grand?

    Even in the Libertarian "Golden Age" in the US around 1850, life expectancy was 38.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Even in the Libertarian "Golden Age" in the US around 1850, life expectancy was 38.


    As it was everywhere else. And don't bring back this idiocy about hunter-gatherers living to a ripe old age of 120, because that is what a few clueless anthropologists assumed when visiting communities back in the 50s. They were duped then, just as you're an unthinking dupe now.

  • Civilization reduces life||

    Old Mexican, you're as intellectual bankrupt as they come.

    I bet you got it in for those leftist at those damn universities teaching evolution and chemistry too.

  • ||

    You do realize 21st century you are? SPAM you are. On a blog site. Very avante guard.

  • Freedom of Movement, my Adz!||

    Immigration has little to do with "freedom of movement." It is mostly about the City-State Prison Wardens, i.e., capitalist owners and middle-management government, administering their ultimate resource: Populations of Domesticated Humans who have been disestablished from the land by the government entitlement program of privation property, and therefore forced to work for the owners, (or beg from middle-management government,) or starve.

    If libertarian propertarian think tanks truly advocated "freedom of movement," then they would advocate we could gambol across forest and plain like Non-State* people did for 17,000 years (until 300 years ago in this part of Turtle Island) without being shot or imprisoned or herded into a concentration reservation.

    Non-State and State Societies
    faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

  • Karl May||

    Gambol. You seem to like that word. How about using “frolic,” “skip,” or “cavort” next time?

  • Agriculture creates Government||

    Gambol is used in Richard Manning's book Against the Grain to differentiate between pleasurable gathering food and the difficult work of stooping over the soil as an agriculturalist. I like it, so go piss up a rope.

    "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

  • Adam Ant||

    Don't blame us, we merely keep aphids for their secretions!

  • ||

    Word!
    I call 'em propertarians, too! :)

  • Rothbard, the Thief ||

    Rothbard bragged of stealing the term 'libertarian' as a marketing scheme. It's been as profitable as selling Roundup, that is, as profitable as death is to propertarians.

  • ||

    If state can't deviate from federal laws then how come California can create emission control laws that are stricter then the federal EPA laws. If California can so can the other states.

  • Doctor Whom||

    The Clean Air Act explicitly allows for such deviations from federal law.

  • ||

    they would advocate we could gambol across forest and plain like Non-State people did for 17,000 years (until 300 years ago in this part of Turtle Island) without being shot or imprisoned or herded into a concentration reservation.

    For one, Non-State people became born losers when they met up with the more numerous, better armed and more immunized (with the possible exception of syphilis).

    For another, they did shoot & imprison each other.

    That continual holiday (with all due respect to Mr. Paine) was like today when after arriving in the resort, the travel company which organized one's vacation goes belly up & the vacationer is kicked out of the hotel with its two square meals a day and can fend for him/herself.

  • Thomas Paine||

    Libertarians are also born losers, having met up with more numerous and better armed Statists.

    So quit yer bellyachin' already, eh? LOL

    By the way, quit spouting off about shit you don't know. It is well recognized in archeology and anthropology that, while there was some violence in Paleolithic life, the level of violence is much more in agricultural societies. And certainly they didn't have the ability to kill 7 billion humans in 30 minutes or your money back.

    The continual holiday of which Thomas Paine spoke has been documented with empirical evidence. For a summary of the evidence, see Marshall Sahlin's essay in his book "Stone Age Economics" called The Original Affluent Society."

    Again, you're just spouting off shit you learned in a State school, telling you how great the City-State is.

  • ||

    Actually I learned your hunter-gathere utopia theory in anthropology class in a state university--the same place you learned it from, whether or not you got it directly from that source. It was BS when I heard it then, and BS now.

  • Thomas Paine||

    Actually, I didn't learn it there. Anything else you want to lie about, Gabriel?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Actually, I didn't learn it there.


    Some drunken idiot told you about it while you were passed out under the freeway...

  • Libertards no likee Science||

    Libertards look like Fundamentalist Creationists more and more. Got something against intellectual academics, Old Mexican?

  • ||

    Who cares from where you learned to be an imbecile.

    I will use technology to express my hatred for technology has GOT to be an example of one of the most pathetic, crying out, Rather like, for attention, because Daddy didn't give you enough love, that I have ever seen.

    What part of "you will NEVER, even for a second, convince people of the evil of technology while using the same technology" don't you get?

    Wait, I read they banned rather, finally. Could this freak of "Nature" be one of her multiple personalities?

    Uh, oh, lunch coming up!

  • ||

    Obviously not aimed at you, OM.

  • Thomas Paine||

    Who cares where? Gabriel Hanna.

    Marshall Gill, you're fucking pathetic.

    You've got me. Trapped like John Galt. With the attitude of his captors.

    Officer, am I free to gambol through plain and forest? In other words, am I free to move about? No?

    Marshall, you're like a fundamentalist creationist reading On the Origin of the Species for the first time. Same words. Did you plagiarize them?

  • Old Mex||

    Me dumb, but smarter than Pale Savage.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    For a summary of the evidence, see Marshall Sahlin's essay in his book "Stone Age Economics" called The Original Affluent Society."


    The title readily tells me your hero knows little about economics - or evidence, for that matter.

    What a gullible dupe you are, White Imbecile. What a waste of time you are.

  • ||

    why you here just go back to Mexico, Oh your country sucks so bad you need to invade ours, wheres your pride, go fix your problems and stay in your country you and 20 million of you, why you abandon your own country? Because its broken by a failed attempt at a communist takeover did you know that?

  • MWG||

    Internet asshole is an asshole.

  • MWG||

    I find it interesting that OM, an immigrant, is able to write in complete sentences with proper grammar, while you, a native, seem to have barely made it out of grade school.

  • ||

    I'd love to witness a real expression of your intellect, one book? Wow!

  • White Indian||

    Thanks man. Some aren't blind domesticated city-boy poodles.

  • ||

    Death to all first families! Oh. Wait. They already dead.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_cultur.....index.html

    Because they killed each other off.

  • ||

    while there was some violence in Paleolithic life

    Nice way of putting 2 out of 5 dying of homicide.

    Again, you're just spouting off shit you learned in a State school, telling you how great the City-State is.

    "It's like his mind is leaking away..." -- Cindy Lauper in Vibes.

  • Thomas Paine||

    2 out of 5? Did you pull that out of your ass?

    Or maybe you're cherrypicking data from the newly formed and apocalyptic survivor plains tribes, whose violence more than doubled after the City-State began invading/occupying in 1491, as archeology shows.

    That's like cherrypicking how violent civilization is by doing a study of how many died in Hiroshima, another apocalyptic time.

  • Robert||

    Such a number could be derived by examining fossils for cause of death. I'm not saying such a figure has been derived, just that there's a possible basis.

  • Pat Robertson||

    Good boy.

  • ||

    whose violence more than doubled after the City-State began invading/occupying in 1491, as archeology shows.

    Your ass stinks; mine is lily-fragranced.

  • City-Statist Poodles||

    Live Free or Die! Unless it means really being free in a real Non-State sociopolitical typology.

  • ||

    Live Free or Die!

    New Hampshire has copyright on that, don't they?

  • "Free" "State"ers.||

    Yeah, fuck intellectual property. Fuck sexual property. Fuck alien property. Fuck other-worldly property. Fuck artificial property. Fuck arbitrary property. Fuck Walter Block's thinking of People as Property.

  • Ivory Injun||

    Fuck me - I've lubed my asshole for you!

  • ChrisO||

    White Indian brings to mind the ubiquitous "white guy with dreds", who has bathing issues and always seems to have to bum his smoke off of others.

    There's your Non-State person at work.

  • Get a HairCut and a Real Job||

    Go NEO-CONS! Hoo-RAH!

  • Major Johnson||

    We have these problems here in South Carolina too. Since the recently passed voter ID law passed D's say you shouldn't need ID because so many born in SC residents can't get ID, R's say who cares and the possibly very real issue of valid SC residents inability to obtain ID for voting or other than voting purposes like banking, flying or being employed is ignored. One side doesn't seem to care as long as these citizens can't vote, the other side doesn't care as long as they can vote, neither side seems concerned by the legitimate complaint that legitimate residents of the state may not be able to get ID, only by can they vote or not.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    Can you explain why so many in SC can't get IDs? I thought every state provided gave the options of a driver's license or an ID card, for a small fee.

    Would your objection be removed if the fee were waived? Is there a legal restriction on who can get Ids in SC which I don't know about?

  • ||

    Fuck the papers. Razor wire. 1969 miles of it.

  • BDSM Libertard||

    BDSM Libertarian Propertarian

  • ||

    I thought myself magnanimous. Razor wire is more humane than mine fields and machine gun nests.

  • ||

    Now you're talking. Land mines, snipers, t-100 patroling killing everything in sight. Napalm! It sticks to kids!

  • Mr. Mark||

    - Prosecute employers who knowingly employee illegals
    - Establish a practical, enforceable guest worker system using staffing agencies

    In other words, get control over who comes into the country - but at the same time, make it easier for people who are safe visitors to come in without breaking the law.

  • Gabriel Hanna||

    - Prosecute employers who knowingly employee illegals

    Good luck with that. It is illegal to refuse to hire an illegal who presents documents, even fake ones, and it is illegal to fire them once you find out those documents are fake, under the Civil Rights Act. That's discrimination by national origin unless you are prepared to prove in court that you applied the same level of scrutiny to all of your employees.

    The flipside is that if you, as an employer, hire an illegal who submits documents, you have a good faith defense to that lawsuit.

    http://www.i-9employmenteligib.....lties.html

  • ||

    It is illegal to refuse to hire an illegal who presents documents, even fake ones, and it is illegal to fire them once you find out those documents are fake, under the Civil Rights Act.

    I would like to see documentation of this, rather than take you at your word.

  • ||

    goddamn joke handles and their fucking unicode shit babies

  • ||

    ahh yes those crazy people that believe in national soverignty and borders.

  • ||

    One can believe in national sovereignty and borders and still believe that laws the sovereign authority enforces within its borders should not abrogate individual preexisting individual rights.

    Or is it not obvious that "national sovereignty and borders" is just as valid an argument for pretty much everything that some sovereign nation has ever done within its borders.

  • ||

    Gawdammit awl to hail, Mike. Don't you read the fucking bible? It states explicitly that white Americans are entitled to overpaid crap jobs without competition from dusty beaners!

    Your lazy fuck-up middle class ass hanging out of his fucking pants wigger son should be able to get paid ten bucks an hour shirking at Taco Bell without some dirty beaner working harder for less.

  • ||

    That sounds exactly like the janitor at the taco bell next to my highschool sounds like. White power and all. FWIW, best customer service I've ever gotten at a fast food join.

  • ||

    Its our country if we dont want dusty beaners living here then we don't have to , you want five billion chinese living in your frontyard thats whats comming. socialist pig youare

  • ||

    5 billion Chinese comming would cause quite the mess. You'd need like 2.5 billion cups for that, pat.

    Oh my, I just peeked at yer email address, and you appear to be a tater eatin' drunken Irishman. Jeeze patty boy, don't you know that this country didn't start going' to shit until we let the Irish in?

    And it ain't your country, you ancestors who couldn't survive a goddamn blight havin' motherfucker. My ancestors, the Derpingtonnes, came over on the fucking Mayflower, so the country's mine.

  • ||

    my country applies to all who are citzens.

    And jobs is only a secondary issue. The citzens of a country should be able to decide who gets to come in.

    It's just like my house, I get to decide who comes in. No invite = tresspasing.

    And no your indvidual rights, doesn't mean you get to come in if I don't invite you.

  • White Indian||

    Then leave, Kronebutt.

  • MWG||

    "It's just like my house, I get to decide who comes in."

    Fuck you for repeating this lame-ass analogy. The country is not like a private home and it's none of your fucking business who I invite over the MY home, MY business, or any other private property I might own you collectivist POS.

  • ||

    you can bitch and moan all you like, but borders are here to stay, and so is the right to decide who and how many get to come in.

    Oh and since you want to get rude, fuck you too piece of shit.

  • MWG||

    "...but borders are here to stay, and so is the right to decide who and how many get to come in."

    Governments don't have 'rights', they have authority. In the case of the US government, their authority is derived from the constitution... which says nothing regarding immigration.

    You argue from a position of 'might makes right'. I'd be interested to see what your view would have looked like during Jim Crow.

    'Jim Crow is here to stay, and so is the right to determine who can associate with who.'

  • ||

    The citzens of a country should be able to decide who gets to come in.

    I'm a citizen and I say let all the Mekskins in that want to come. See, that wasn't so hard.

  • ||

    This just doesn't compute - error 404.

    US Capitalism does not require open borders immigration, so contrasting market liberals with secure border advocates is pointless.

    Likewise, contrasting lemonade kiddies with illegal immigrants is pointless. One can be for the former and against the latter without being "laughable."

    I appreciate the attempt at humor, but no self-respecting Sheldon Cooper fan could let your idiocy go unchallenged.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    see big government is evil, pure evil, we need to go backto 1776, and especially get rid of the 16th amendment, take the teeth out of these Monsters and alot will change.

  • MWG||

    You mean 1776 when we actually had open borders?

  • Invasion/Occupation RAPE||

    The invasion and occupation was just getting cranked up like a rapist initiating penetration.

    Liberarians propertarians think it's ok to rape, just as long as you cover her with a flag and fuck her for old glory.

    Trail of Tears.

  • ||

    Goddamn, that is soooo fucking hawt. There's a trail of something and it sure as hell ain't tears.

  • Hey, MNG...||

    ...name a country WITH open borders.

    That isn't a hellhole.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Who?

  • MWG||

    The US for the 1st 100 years of it's history.

  • Tom Jefferson||

    He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

  • White Indian||

    appropriations of lands

    Yeah, the British Crown treated the First Families on their Land better than the 'Murkan Takers.

    Grab, Grab, Grab! More, More, More!

  • ||

    i thought you liked your sour grapes out of a bottle?

  • Rape Victim = Sour Grapes||

    I love BDSM libertarian propertarian talk. So Neo-Con butch. Hoo-rah!

    I guess rape victims pointing out violence is all "sour grapes" too, eh?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Sour grapes", if one re-reads Aesop's fable, refers to the fox rationalizing that, even if he COULD get the grapes, they'd probably be sour anyway.

  • BigT||

    "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for..."

    You misunderstand TJ's objection. The complaint is that HE does these things. Self determination was the goal, achieved via elected representatives.

  • ||

    Why not just bill Mexico for every penny an illegal Mexican immigrant receives from our state and federal governments?

  • ||

    can we change NAFTA to NASTIE,
    North American Stop The Illegal Employees?

  • Some Guy||

    The program's critics say it has deported too many small-time offenders—and even non-offenders, such as victims of domestic violence.

    Why do victims of domestic violence get fingerprinted, exactly?

  • Curious||

    Anyone have a link to why some libertarians view immigration as a "liberty" issue?

    I honestly don't get it, and would like to learn more – perhaps I'm missing something that would change how I perceive the issue.

    Because right now, I'm not seeing it. I would expect the strongman in any region to have a vested interested in keeping me out, and the only reason the strongman in my own region doesn't kick me out or put me in a cage is because I pay him money.

    I don't want that to be the case, but I fail to see how illegal immigration circumvents that. If anything, I'm now being forced to pay for someone else. At the very least, that seems unfair...

  • Curious||

    (The reason I bring up fairness, is because wherever "liberty" isn't being maintained, as in this case, the "next best thing" is fairness, aka equal treatment under the law.)

  • Some Guy||

    but I fail to see how illegal immigration circumvents that

    The argument is essentially identical to the one against the drug war. All problems with illegal immigration are one or more of the following:

    1) They are only problems because of the prohibition. (Border crossings and such.)
    2) They are problems that are not related to immigration. (I don't want to pay for welfare for people who were born here, either.)
    3) They are not actually problems, except to protectionists and xenophobes. (Dey took er jobs!)

  • R||

    With universal suffrage and jus solis citizenship, how is the current rate of immigration conducive to ending the welfare state?

  • Some Guy||

    See bullet point #2.

  • ||

    This is laughable and reveals why the libertarian agenda is not mainstream: The first thing illegals will do is vote for socialism to make the country more like the place they left. They only work because they have some problems qualifying for welfare. How many farmworkers that Reagan granted amnesty to are still in the fields?

    Libertarians are basically a bunch of pot smoking leftists who preach small government but secretly want to make the USA into Amsterdam and sit at home smoking weed on welfare.

  • Libertard||

    ^, and the fact that if rights come from our creator, then gov'ment doesn't define rights. Ergo, rights supersede the nationstate and mecksikens have the same rights we whiteys have.

  • Libertard||

    ... they's just more oppressed.

  • tarran||

    Curious, here is an essay I penned a long time ago on the subject:

    http://www.thelibertypapers.or.....migration/

    I have a right to do business with whomever I want so long as they are willing and able to do business with me. So long as that person does not trespass on someone else’s property or steal anyone else’s property in order to do business with me, no one else has the right to physically restrain me from doing business with them.
    ...

    When a person considers how limits on immigration are put into effect, one immediately can see that liberty is destroyed, not enhanced by such restrictions. The armed man preventing an airline from permitting a paying customer from boarding, preventing a man from renting an apartment, or from selling his labor services to a factory is attacking not only the man whom they are trying to keep out of the country, but those with whom that man wishes to do business. These restrictions inherently involve attacks on liberty.
  • Blue sky||

    Federal law may not be entirely correct, if we need to change it to adapt to the requirements of social progress, it should go through legal proceedings, rather than ignoring the authority of federal law, leaving state law beyond the federal law. .

  • jtuf||

    Let's raise the number of diversity visas to 1 million per year and open the program to people from all nations.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement