Republican Reconsideration of Immigration

Even if it’s for the wrong reasons, it’s good to see conservatives rethinking their position.

“Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.” — Groucho Marx

Apparently Groucho has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama has so shocked the Republican Party that it now is willing to question long-held positions. If defeat prompts Republicans to abandon anti-freedom convictions, that’s all to the good—even if the abandonment is cynically motivated.

The first position open to change is immigration. Hispanics are a growing percentage of the population, and the Republican share of their vote was only 27 percent this year, down from 44 percent in 2004 and 31 percent four years ago. As the Wall Street Journal observes, “Polls regularly show that immigration is not a priority for Hispanic voters, but how border policy is discussed still matters as a threshold and symbolic issue.”

The party has long insisted on border security, which means an electrified fence, militarization, and even surveillance by drones. Only after the border is secure, Republicans and conservatives have said, should any change in immigration policy be considered. The most staunchly conservative Republicans have opposed anything that smacks of amnesty for “illegal aliens,” that is, persons without government papers. Conservative activists and talk-show hosts have insisted that no one whose first act with respect to America was to break the law deserves to be here.

Now Sean Hannity, a conservative pundit on Fox News, says he has “evolved.” People without papers who have no criminal records should be allowed a “pathway to citizenship.” The old Hannity would have said that they all have criminal records by virtue of being in the country without the government’s permission. Funny, isn’t it, that conservatives who say they want small government think it should be big enough to decree who can and cannot freely cross the border.

Hannity’s motive is clear—and it isn’t the advancement of individual freedom. “We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether,” he said. Why did it take a devastating loss at the polls for Hannity to evolve? Because refusal to take a humane position toward people who exercise their natural right to move in search of a better life has become an albatross for the Republicans.

Fellow conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer wants a similar shift. Krauthammer says a GOP turnaround

requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe—full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.

Continuing, he writes,

I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.

Krauthammer leaves a big question unaddressed: If until now Hispanics haven’t believed there would be anything “beyond enforcement,” why should they believe an upfront promise of amnesty? Because the Republicans want their votes.

The cynicism runs thick: “Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016,” Krauthammer writes. “It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.”

Right. Put a Hispanic face on the GOP, and all will be well. Is that the same Marco Rubio who misled voters to believe his parents were exiles from Castro’s Cuba, when in fact they came to the United States more than two years before the communist revolution?

Even if it’s for the wrong reasons, it’s good to see conservatives rethinking their position. But they have a long way to go. Forget about border-security. People have a right to move, and government should not be issuing—or withholding—permission slips. Being required to have papers should offend people who believe they are free.

Next, forget about amnesty. Amnesty implies forgiveness for wrongdoing. But there is nothing wrong in breaking a decree that violates natural law and natural rights. No such product of a legislature even deserves to be called law.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

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.

  • Jgalt1975||

    I think it will be interesting if the enthusiasm among certain Republicans for immigration reform continues past the 2014 elections, which they will most likely do quite well in given the dynamics of off-presidential year elections combined with the Democrats still defending a nearly 2-to-1 overhang in the Senate.

  • Ted S.||

    Goddamn it! I wsa 1th when I opened up the thread, but pushed down to 2st because some yutz posted a shorter comment before me. ;-)

  • Ice Nine||

    Brevity is the soul of 1th.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I think it's going to be interesting when the GOP stops fellating corporations and starts supporting more populist economic reforms. (That is, raising taxes on the wealthy and falling in line behind Obamacare.) Well, I guess you can thank your stupidity and mindless defense of corporate abuse of labor when libertarians are fully marginalized. :)

  • Ted S.||

    We're used to being marginalized.

  • tarran||

    Ooooooh Ricky, you really should google someone named Jason Godesky, I suspect you'd really like what he has to say.

  • ||

    I forgot about ol' Jason. Had to go have a look myself to remind myself. Gee Gods, that poor guy is nuts.

  • ||

    The second most marginalized group right behind libertarians would be the unions who would be the sole beneficiaries of your policies. One wonders what you can thank for that.

  • Rick Santorum||

    The second most marginalized group right behind libertarians would be the unions

    LOL, which is why the UAW got a huge bailout from Bammy. They're sooo marginalized!

    who would be the sole beneficiaries of your policies.

    Sole beneficiaries? Oh, right, I forgot about those working class men and women who wouldn't have their wages undercut by unskilled labor flooding the country.

  • Cytotoxic||

    those working class men and women who wouldn't have their wages undercut by unskilled labor flooding the country.

    TFB for them. If I ever live in the states, I will make a point of hiring an illegal to clean my car or whatever in your name.

  • ||

    LOL, yeah 12% of the private labor pool is unionized. The fact that they got a massive handout from a pro-union president doesn't really change the fact that unions are, by participation, a fringe group.

  • MJGreen||

    Yes, Obamacare is a "populist economic reform." Sheesh.

  • KPres||

    You have it backwards, Steve Sailor, I mean Rick Santorum. It won't be us that gets marginalized in that scenario, it'll be you.

    The fact is the majority or Republican voters are libertarians/fiscal conservatives. That's the only reason the party has any relevance. The racist socons like yourself are the useful idiots we string along just to get more votes. If the Republican platform goes socialist just the Dems, the fiscal conservatives will flee to the Democrats, where at least they won't have to hear people they're associated with say that rapes are gifts from a flying spaghetti monster.

    When that happens, the Democrats will trounce in election after election, even in the South. Then the borders will fly open you'll get flooded with more and more of those dirty spics you despise so much.

    Demographics are tough reality for Republicans, but abandoning fiscal conservativism is suicide.

  • Ted S.||

    1th!

    "Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016," Krauthammer writes. "It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote."

    And Herman Cain would have carried the black vote.

    (Anybody else hate "smart" quotes?)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Conservatives and libertarians project their own values onto poor Hispanic immigrants. Despite all evidence showing that both groups are wrong, poor Hispanics do not have conservative or libertarian values, they continue doing so.

  • Cut out the crap||

  • KPres||

    If people vote according to their material interests, why do poor white people vote Republican?

  • ||

    Because bankrupting the country through overspending is in no one's material interests. The Republican party at least pretends to care about fiscal responsibility.

  • KPres||

    Values don't matter in politics, identity matters. Most Democrats I know are small-minded, materialistic bigots...except when they talk politics. If Republicans can shed the image that they hate Hispanics, Hispanics will adopt Republican economic values.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Why do we even have borders? We should just let anyone into the country. In fact, why do we have fencesd-in yards? If you have a fence, you hate freedom.

  • Ted S.||

    If we're going to keep people out, why can't it be the Santorums and Hannitys of the world?

  • Rick Santorum||

    Sean Hannity's position on immigration is "evolving." Probably because he's just another useful idiot.

  • Lyle||

    Born here?

  • Ted S.||

    Did he sign one of those secession petitions?

  • Lyle||

    I doubt it. If he did though... so what?

  • Lyle||

    I like your house. I think I'll live in it.

  • Ted S.||

  • MWG||

    You think the US analogous to a private home? Does that make the government analogous to our parents?

  • Lyle||

    Government is the property owner.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Government is the property owner.

    HO. LEE. SHIT.

    I agree that's true de facto, but as someone who is presumably liberty-minded, you think this is a good thing?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I agree that's true de facto, but as someone who is presumably liberty-minded, you think this is a good thing?

    The US exists as a nation state - who owns it?

    Do the citizens? That seems to be the theory under democracy (or if you prefer republicanism).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This is where the Federal government takes an about-face from common law. Property owned should be freehold, that is you own the immovable property, like a house, and the land itself under what's known as an "allodial title". As I understand it, most state governments and the Federal government don't recognize the concept of allodial title, considering the government as the ultimate landowner. Thus, this allows them to do things like levy property tax and eminent domain actions.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't know if that was an attempt to answer the question of who owns the US nation state, in any case it didn't.

    Try again.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It did, but now I see that you just don't possess the preliminary knowledge to understand the answer. So let me back up a little. A nation-state is an abstraction; a legal fiction. The United States is an emergent construction of the 300 million or so individuals that identify themselves as American. The concept of ownership is meaningless.

    Now, let's talk about real property, which is what Lyle was referencing. The people who make up the government claims to be the ultimate landowner, and back up said claims with deadly force. However, this is a departure from the common law tradition that I mentioned above.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Real property is a legal fiction, too, complete with imaginary lines of the sort that open borders aficianados decry in other contexts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Real property is a legal fiction, too, complete with imaginary lines of the sort that open borders aficianados decry in other contexts.

    I disagree. The difference is between individuals and the collective.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you don't think the state can own any property? Huh?

    And you're not specifying how real property is any less of a legal fiction than national borders.

  • KPres||

    And you're not specifying how real property is any less of a legal fiction than national borders.

    Easy. Real property is purchased with wealth gained through voluntary trade. National borders are established either through violent conquest, or with money violently confiscated from the taxpayer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But how did that real property originally come on the market? Particularly in the US.. it came on the market because the eeeeeeeeevil nation obtained it by force from its former occupants.

  • KPres||

    Funny how you buy into that left-wing narrative. How much land do you think Native Americans occupied, Tulpa? Not much, that's how much. The vast majority of it was just sitting there unused, ready to be homesteaded.

    They did push Natives off their land, and that was shitty and pointless, since America could have grown up just the same had they not done so.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But how did that real property originally come on the market? Particularly in the US.. it came on the market because the eeeeeeeeevil nation obtained it by force from its former occupants.

    But that's the point, Tulpa. The point of view of the American government is that allodial title doesn't exist in the United States. When you "buy" a house, you are purchasing the building and the right to use the land the building is built on, but the government is the ultimate owner of the land. This is known as "fee simple" ownership. If an individual were the ultimate landowner, they would not be obligated to pay any tax to their feudal lord the government.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So let me back up a little. A nation-state is an abstraction; a legal fiction. The United States is an emergent construction of the 300 million or so individuals that identify themselves as American.

    It's also a legal entity with definite powers in reality.

    Who owns it, ie who controls it's actions is damn relevant.

  • Lyle||

    HO. LEE. SHIT.

    Can the United States be something other than the United States?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Can the United States be something other than the United States?

    Eyeh asher eyeh and tat tvan asi, or any other mystical tautology you want, so what?

  • MWG||

    Wow.

  • Lyle||

    Wow what? The United States isn't the United States?

  • Sam Grove||

    See how we've evolved from hereditary monarchy?
    Now we have a democratic monarchy, we elect a new king every four to eight years.

  • ||

    Government is the property owner.

    The fuck they are! The government is that which defends my claim to my property when someone tries to infringe upon it. That is the only reason it exists.

    Despite what they or anyone else thinks.

  • Lyle||

    Yep, the United States is the property owner.

  • MWG||

    Well hey, if you believe and support that view, then I would say teh immigrantz are the least of our problems.

  • Calidissident||

    The government doesn't own the country. Fuck that. It's funny to see supposedly libertarian people support government restriction of property rights, freedom of movement, and labor freedom just because one party involved was born across an imaginary line

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you have a thing against imaginary lines, you must have an issue with laws against trespassing too.

  • Calidissident||

    Tulpa, why do you equivocate private property with a country? The government does not own the country or its land in the way a property owner owns his land. But it's par for the course for you to nitpick phrasing while ignoring the main point of an argument

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not equivocating at all. Jurisdiction and property are not the same thing, but deprecating jurisdictionary lines (ie borders) as "imaginary" or "legal fictions" is extremely inappropriate if you believe property lines have significance.

  • Calidissident||

    Whatever. The point is, as is expected from you, you ignore the substance of the post to nitpick one how one part is phrased

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Your whole point depends on what I'm "nitpicking". There's no interference with private property or freedom of movement within the jurisdiction, that's just a red herring. and so-called "imaginary lines" ARE important.

  • Calidissident||

    Key point is "within the jurisdiction." Restrictions on private property, freedom of movement, and hiring are still don't become libertarian just because political borders are involved

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if a bunch of North Koreans in uniform walk across our southern border carrying machine guns, you have no prob with that?

    The right to bear arms and dress as one pleases doesn't vanish just because "political borders are involved", right?

  • Calidissident||

    First off, I just wanna laugh at the scenario - North Koreans walking across our southern border? What is this, the new Red Dawn? Hahaha

    And again, I'd like to let you know how idiotic your analogies are. Defending against an obvious military invasion force is exactly the same as telling people they can't live or work here? And I'm actually ok with an immigration process that screens out violent criminals and people with infectious diseases. But to arbitrarily say people who want to come here to work and live a better life can't do so simply because they were born in a different country? I don't agree with that. I think the process should be a formality for them, and not an expensive, burdensome lengthy process that may or may not result in them getting in

  • ||

    Does that make the government analogous to our parents?

    My parents don't live in my home

  • MWG||

    If you think the US is analogous to a private home then they do, but looking at your other comments, I think you may have misunderstood me.

  • Pi Guy||

    "In fact, why do we have fencesd-in yards?"

    To keep our dogs from pooping in our neighbors' yards.

  • ||

    You know, before you invite someone into your house, I think you should have to prove to the entire town that they aren't a burglar. We'll even set up a special town guest registry and appoint some people from the local committe of paranoid old ladies to look over the applications.

    Don't like it? You must be a freedom hating socialist. Freedom is all about being able to approve or disapprove who your neighbors are allowed to invite over for dinner.

  • KPres||

    "If you have a fence, you hate freedom."

    Mary, is that you?

    Seriously, here's the truth Santorum. It's people like you who cost Republicans the election. Romney was closing in the polls until Akin, Mourdock and co. crawled out of their trialer parks and cemented the idea Dems were pushing that being Republican meant you were a back-woods racist/misogynist lunatic. If you people had just kept your fucking mouths shut like you did in 2010 Romney would have won, and there would be no talk of amnesty at all. In fact, had it not been for the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann freak-show in the Republican primaries, Romney would have had the election wrapped up by September.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Assuming the polls at the time were correct, Romney was much further behind when Akin made his idiotic comment than he was on Election Day.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, but that was before the first debate, when people found it he wasn't the racist/bigoted/religious nut the Democrats had made him out to be. The problem is people like Akin and Mourdock reversed that momentum.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Akin's comments came before Romney was even nominated, fool.

  • KPres||

    I know, idiot, it wasn't any one of them, it was the general trend of falling right into the Dems narrative. You can't go by dates, anyway. That's not when the electorate shifts exactly. Most voters will give the offending party a chance to defend themselves after a gaff. But after too many, you can't defend anymore and the oppositions narrative is solidified, ie....

    Limbaugh: "Sandra Fluke is a slut!"
    Fiscal conservative defense: "Uh, Limbaugh didn't say anything wrong. She is a slut! LOL! Lighten up feminazi's!"

    Akin: "Rape doesn't matter because women can't get pregnant anyway."
    Fiscal conservative defense: "OK, that was a dumb thing to say, but it's stupid to jump from there and say Republicans hate women."

    Mourdock: "Rape is a gift from God!"
    Fiscal conservative defense: "OK, we give up. They're right, we're all fucking lunatics. You should probably vote for Obama. Just for god's sake, let me stop having to defend these morons."

  • Lewisite||

    Although this post looks like it should have been written in crayon, you have a solid point when it comes to public perception of the republican base and the non-stop moron-a-thon of their base.

    socon/neocon talking heads ~= ulcerative colitis for the G.O.P

  • Ted S.||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    That was refreshing! The passion and exuberance of CC, his band, and the audience was amazing. I think this video also captures that energy. Especially the sax solo.

    CC looks like George Costanza. =P

  • Ted S.||

    I miss Dudley Moore. :-(

  • Rick Santorum||

    Riddle me this, you idiot glibertarians: if we open the borders, you're going to bring in more Hispanic voters who generally vote Democrat. Democrats support statist policies. By opening the border, you're inadvertently supporting policies that will hinder your cause.

    Why are you so dedicated to open borders when it's going to weaken your position?

  • Ted S.||

    Libertarians have principles, unlike the Santorums of the world, who are just power-hungry monsters.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Libertarians have principles

    Like worshiping Mammon?

    In a certain way, I admire your idiocy. It takes a certain level of masochism (or deliberate obtuseness) to engage in self-defeating practices.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Open borders isn't just a religious belief - It's a suicide pact too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, that's why they call the Constitution a suicide pact!

    Art I. Section. 9.

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
  • wareagle||

    re-read a couple of parts:
    --the one about states deciding how many people they think it's okay to permit
    --and the one calling for a tax or duty per-capita

    We do neither of those. Ignoring the Constitution is not a good policy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    While the courts have ruled that Art I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to control immigration (by way of naturalization), I believe that immigration (but not naturalization) should be left up to the States. That is, states that believe it is in their interest to be open to immigration should have the ability to do so, and states that believe the opposite should also. However, this goes hand-in-hand with the Constitutional right of free movement between the States.

    To see how this works, look at Ellis Island. Many, many immigrants upon entering America, chose to reside in NYC, because that was their port of entry and that was where their first opportunities were. However, some chose to "Go West" and search for opportunities there.

    History has shown that immigrants are usually going to settle near where they entered the country. However, we currently have the INS playing social engineer. They ship Hmong refugees to Minnesota, Somali refugees to Maine, Bhutanese refugees to New Hampshire, et al.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if Cali wants to have uncontrolled immigration and Nevada doesn't, how precisely is Nevada supposed to enforce this? They're not allowed to stop people at the state border.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As I said, immigrants often settle near their port of entry. If California is the port of entry, only those immigrants who want to go to Nevada will go to Nevada.

    I'm not sure about the legality of free movement for non-residents. Perhaps, Californian immigrants might be able to leave only once they have permanent residency. Again, under current law, this is all pie-in-the-sky anyway.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're not answering the question.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No, I did. Nevada has the right to not make itself a point-of-entry, but it doesn't have the right to prevent free movement between state borders unless a particular person was convicted of a crime and is on parole, is on bail, or something like that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not what you were advocating before. You were saying that each state should be able to decide whether immigrants were allowed there, not just whether they would be the port of entry.

    The way you're saying it now, if CA decides to be a port of entry for all comers, then every other state has to accept all immigrants who came via CA.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's not what you were advocating before.

    No, you're conflating immigrant with legal resident. A person is an immigrant until they have successfully entered the country and have been granted residency. After which, they are a resident.

    The way you're saying it now, if CA decides to be a port of entry for all comers, then every other state has to accept all immigrants who came via CA.

    That's how it worked in the days of Ellis Island and San Francisco.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, you're conflating immigrant with legal resident.

    I am not. If CA has open borders, what's to stop someone from entering at San Diego and immediately driving up to Las Vegas? How is NV going to prevent this?

    That's how it worked in the days of Ellis Island and San Francisco.

    When we had a burgeoning economy and a vast frontier, you mean.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I believe that immigration (but not naturalization) should be left up to the States.

    Then you support AZ and GA 'anti-immigrant' policies the?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Then you support AZ and GA 'anti-immigrant' policies the?

    I don't support the thinking behind the laws, but I support their right to legislate it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Open borders isn't just a religious belief - It's a suicide pact too.

    Apparently, freedom is death.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So you think democracy = freedom? Interesting position for a libertarian.

  • MWG||

    I think he's referring to free movement and association. You seem to the one holding democracy to high esteem. IOW, people, through the government, should get to decide who I, as an individual get to associate with.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    My problem with open borders is not the labor aspect but the citizenship aspect.

    People that come here to work, stay and have children that are citizens, and sometimes the illegals vote themselves.

    A theoretical libertarian immigration policy could be allowing anyone to come and work here but restricting the citizenship of them and their children.

    Which, I suspect open border Ls would oppose on fairness grounds and is completely non viable anyway.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So...what?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I realize that your religious devotion to open borders requires supporting it no matter what consequences follow.

    That is a devotion that you share with less than 1% of the population.

    Me, I care about the country and would like to see a less obtrusive government. And I don't have your religious belief that says screw that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    In Cyto's world, it's perfectly moral to incinerate an innocent foreigner with a drone missile for being in an unfree country, but it's not OK to keep him or her from crossing our borders with no control whatsoever.

  • Calidissident||

    VG you are the one holding up democracy as some sort of God. If your rights are dependent on the voting mindset of the majority, you're already screwed. And your entire "Immigrants are a threat to freedom because of how they vote!" would make sense if the alternative wasn't the Republican party. 99% of the electorate is the problem, not 51%

  • Lewisite||

    "Immigrants are a threat to freedom because of how they vote!"

    And this is where the line starts to get blurred, between legal v. illegal immigrants. I have absolutely no problem with strong, sovereign international borders. How legal immigrants vote is their business and theirs alone, illegals voting is another matter entirely. This argument is a result of when a politically crafted wedge issue is picked up and run with far beyond the scope if it’s decisive intent.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    VG you are the one holding up democracy as some sort of God.

    Really??

    Where did I ever do that?

    Saying that increasing voting block X will have negative consequences is actually an indictment of democracy, not worshipping it.

    Consider the following hypothetical.

    After the crash of civilization, libertopia is established in what were formerly several states of the US. The economy booms, it's paradise just like we always knew that it could be.

    But then large numbers of Christian fundamentalists start moving in and twist the minarchist government for their own ends.

    Is that free movement of peoples good? Even if it destroys libertopia?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is that free movement of peoples good? Even if it destroys libertopia?

    So to save Libertopia, Libertopians have to adopt illiberal policies? Who was it that said, "We had to burn the village in order to save it"?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's nothing illiberal about controlling your borders.

    Within the jurisdiction you have libertopia; outside and across those borders you have to be more careful because there's no overarching govt preventing initiation of force.

  • Calidissident||

    There is something illiberal the government controlling private property, freedom of movement, and hiring

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It has nothing to do with private property or freedom of movement within the jurisdiction. The hiring thing is probably necessary for enforcement, just like laws against kiddie porn possession are necessary to prevent child sex abuse.

  • Calidissident||

    You're begging the question Tulpa. And your analogies continue to get worse

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    How am I begging the question?

    I'm convinced that none of you understand what an analogy is, so the claims of "bad analogies" with no explanation are getting increasingly hilarious.

  • Calidissident||

    You're begging the question by saying "there's no restriction within the jurisdiction, so it's all good!" You're avoiding the actual argument

    And I say you have bad analogies because they don't make logical sense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But that IS the actual argument. You don't have libertopia outside the jurisdiction, so there's no point pretending you do.

  • Calidissident||

    Who's pretending anything? What does the rest of the world have to do with anything? All I'm saying is if people from outside the jurisdiction purchase property or rent property inside the jurisdiction, the government has no right to tell them they can't simply because they were born outside the jurisdiction. They don't have a right to tell an employer they can't hire someone simply because they were born outside the jurisdiction.

  • Calidissident||

    In libertopia, rights aren't put up to a vote. That's my entire point. The problem is that people in this country (of all races) have accepted the notion that the people through their representatives should decide how other people are allowed to live. And you still are yet to show how immigrants are destroying America any more than whites or natives are. Democrats aren't the problem. Only a part of it. And neither party is serious about fixing the problems or limiting government

  • ||

    In Libertopia you could have completely open immigration without so much as a hand-stamper at the border, because there wouldn't be any of the legal complications and vagaries that make the issue so contentious in modern America. No welfare, no wage or price controls, very little market disruption due to government, etc. That's what a theoretical libertarian immigration policy would look like.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Assuming the immigrants are looking to work and not cause trouble or make Libertopia not Libertopia. Which would be extremely hard to guarantee.

  • Calidissident||

    Since when do libertarians support limiting freedom because some people might "misuse" it? And in Libertopia, I would hope that a majority of voters don't have the power to institute policies that take away freedom. If the system is built on that foundation, then Libertopia is already lost

  • ||

    Exactly. In Libertopia the institutions of the state would be so constrained that they wouldn't be worth taking even if you could. That's the utilitarian benefit of a minarchist state. And if immigrants came to make mischief or violate anyone's rights they'd be arrested, tried, and convicted just like anybody else. I would be wholly supportive of completely wide open immigration in Libertopia. It doesn't work out quite as smoothly in the reality of modern America though.

  • DJK||

    All the open borders people seem to miss a key point. Libertarians (with the exception of the anarchocapitalists, bless them) generally grant that one of the legitimate functions of the state is to enforce private property ownership. The state may defend private property rights by responding to reports of a break in, etc. They generally need the consent of the private property owner to do so.

    So, even if we take the view that all land in the country should be privately owned...wouldn't the state still have the ability to protect that property based on its owners' wishes? One can easily interpret illegal immigration as unpermitted entry onto private property in this scheme. Which means that the state has the ability to enforce immigration policies.

    I see nothing illiberal about a state enforcing the property rights of its citizens. Which is what it would be doing in a country consisting nearly entirely of private property (we're actually pretty damned close - private property is ~75% of US land area) and in which the property owners (ie citizens) support having their government enforce these property rights through immigration law (as the vast majority of Americans do).

  • DJK||

    I agree with the people posting who say that the problems currently associated with open immigration wouldn't arise in Libertopia because the state would be so neutered to begin with. However, we don't live in close to a libertarian utopia. Given that, immigration policy does matter. And, by reframing the issue as a matter of property rights and property law, it's possible to make a system of restricted immigration consistent with libertarian ethical precepts.

  • MWG||

    "Democrats support statist policies."

    and republicans don't?

  • ||

    If you subscribe to the theory that there are actual degrees of statism, there is a marginal difference between the parties. Nevertheless, importing huge amounts of people who tend to be poor and to hail from countries with authoritarian or socialist cultural and political institutions with no restriction into a welfare state with our present fiscal realities doesn't tend to work very well. Europe made that realization like 70 years ago when they set up their social democracies in the wake of WWII and then promptly slammed their borders shut, where they remain to this day. Ron Paul's position on the issue is instructive in that regard, particularly since he is from a border state that routinely confronts the surrounding issues:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

  • Cytotoxic||

    I like your comparison because Europe is now at least as broke as we are. In other words, slamming the borders shut did nothing but lower their standard of living.

    And for the 500th fucking time, immigrants are less dependent on the state than the natives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, noble immigrants are immune to the corrosive effects of the welfare state, unlike the stinky native born.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They are certainly resistant to it.

  • Rick Santorum||

    They are certainly resistant to it.

    LOL

    That's why they voted for Obama, the most GIVE ME FREE STUFF President since LBJ.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You're a fool if you actually believe that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Facts are facts. Immigrants are less dependent on government welfare. That's why they flock to states that don't have so much of it like Arkansas. Sorry I can't indulge your narrative.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Dude, you're fucking delusional.

    Illegal immigrants are somewhat less likely to be on welfare because it is illegal. There is no such prohibition for legal immigrants or their children.

    Large states with more immigrants and their descendents have higher rates of welfare dependency and larger governments.

    Texas is the anomaly, for now.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    For some reason, Heroic Mulatto isn't enforcing his customary expertise standards against Cyto's claims.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Cyto can fight his own battles.

  • Lewisite||

    "They are certainly resistant to it."

    How so?..human self interests (both rational and irrational) transcend all borders, and cultures.

  • ||

    It's interesting to conjecture whether Europe's social democracies would have been in better financial condition with larger populations, considering that their social safety net is in no small part what is driving their inability to adapt to new fiscal realities.

    Anyway, H1B visa candidates with PhDs generally do tend to be less dependent on welfare, yes. Which might have something to do with the fact that they basically have to have a 6 figure job lined up before they'll be admitted.

    Overall though, immigrant households are more likely to be poor than native households: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.....migration/

    And, according to the only information I could find in the first 5 or so pages of a Google search for "immigrant welfare participation", they also make use of welfare programs at a higher rate than native households:

    (see next post for source - I've got too many links)

    If you have any studies that refute that information, I would be open to reading it.

  • ||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    From the IZA study:

    Immigrants from U.S. protectorate like Puerto Rico, Guam and U.S. Virgin Islands have the highest probability of any group using any form of welfare.

    That seems to support Bill Dalasio's point @ 4:30, no?

  • ||

    I couldn't find the exact post - just one at 4:40 and at 1:05. I was in general agreement with Bill Dalasio's posts though. I was responding to Cyto. If the data in either or both of those studies is correct, it undermines his contention that immigrants are less dependent on the state that natives. Even if they were only as dependent on the state as natives, they'd constitute a drain on government resources. I'm not of the opinion that domestic welfare queens are somehow better than foreign ones, I just don't really see any evidence for the claim that immigrants are less likely to end up taking advantage of welfare programs of one kind or another.

  • np||

    So who gave us the leviathan state for more than a century, before the current wave of Hispanic immigrants?

    Maybe the problem is the very system that allows such policies in the first place?

  • Cut out the crap||

    Why are you so dedicated to open borders when it's going to weaken your position?

    Maybe because their stated position and their actual position are two different things. Their actual position is to shill for the same load of crap as the Democrat and Republican elites they presume to disparage. As John Derbyshire put it:

    "Nowadays, after the brief Thatcherite interlude (sigh), Labourites and Tories are indistinguishable: sleek young metrosexuals in thousand-dollar suits whose thoughts stray not one millimeter from the dogmas of the New Universal Faith—globalism, feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights, “human rights,” and all the rest of the snot, dandruff, and earwax we have to pretend to believe if we want to avoid the attentions of the Thought Police."

    You can choose door #1, door #2 - or door #3. But you still win the same prize.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I like you. Please continue to comment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because the real problem with the 1st world today isn't debt or economies choking on regulation. It's fags and women getting 'rights'. We'll only have our country back when we get back to lynching niggers and homos.

  • Lewisite||

    "It's fags and women getting 'rights'. "

    You're close, it's the pandering to contrived issues that never should had been issues in the first place (ie:14th+P&I/Equal protection/ no Gov in marriage/etc), that is the problem. Politicians pander in these sorts of issues when they have nothing of substance to run on otherwise. Dems are notorious for this, and the repubs just love to add contrast to these issues by going full retard with their socon/neocon "bases" in assumed righteous opposition. Emotion goes up, thinking goes down…moron of no substance gets elected, cycle is repeated.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I support open borders because it's in our best interests economically. Anybody that opposes what's in our best interests economically because it might benefit the Democrats disproportionately is a partisan hack.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I support open borders because it's in our best interests economically.

    Just look what its done for CA.

  • Cut out the crap||

    You've just pushed the button which will cause him to produce the speech that blames California's problems on everything except the obvious.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    OK, I don't agree with everything COTC is saying, but this was hilarious.

    Ken! Look before you post!

  • Cytotoxic||

    "The obvious" being "what there is no evidence for".

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You mean the fact that the natives support a welfare state and massive restrictions on economic growth? Yeah, I'd agree with that.

    Or are you going to try to contend that California is following sound, rational policies that only fail because the population isn't good enough for them?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm saying that the descendents of hispanic immigrants support more socialist policies and politicians.

    I realize that is a painful truth for open border libertarians, but it is the reality.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'll make sure to notify Sen. Cruz. or Sen. Rubio. Sorry, but there's no shortage of WASP socialists (and I say that as WASP on my mom's side). Trying to blame the failure of California socialism on "those damned Mexicans)is laughable. It isn't the Mexicans. It's the socialism! I'm sick and tired of hearing that it's the problems of some kind of geneitic inclination of Hispanics to support socialism rather than the fact that our nation is teaching socialism to the immigrants' kids as the justification for hating immigrants.
    STOP FARMING OUR IMMIGRANTS INTO STATISM!!! This shouldn't be hard. No one comes to America looking for a good handout. If they did, they'd keep going North and Massachusetts and Minnesota would be the welfare problem states from immigration rather than Texas and Arizona.
    California is trying to excuse the failure of statism on "those immigrants". Don't fall for it. It isn't the immigrants that are to blame. It's the socialists.

  • ||

    No one comes to America looking for a good handout.

    That is the most outrightly stupid thing libertarians have to say in regards to immigration. As if immigrants were somehow so pious as to be beyond the petty inclinations of self interested human beings. PEOPLE in general are looking for a good handout - whether it's their sanctified Social Security and Medicare benefits, their earned income or child tax credit, or whether it's living better in section 8 housing on Medicaid and food stamps than one can live in the third world. Why should we presume that immigrants are somehow insusceptible to the concept of welfare mooching when we are routinely fighting a losing battle in that regard among Americans, as well as every other country in the first world?

  • ||

    With that having been said, I agree with you 100% on the socialism being the problem, not the immigrants. Even if immigrants ARE supportive of more socialist policies and even if they ARE collecting welfare and voting themselves handouts just like their citizen counterparts, even if every negative stereotype of them is true, it wouldn't a problem if those policies and programs didn't exist in the first place. Blaming immigrants for being rational actors is illogical. The perverse incentives are the problem.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'm not suggesting that they are somehow or another so pious as to not take advantage of the opportunities to mooch. But that wasn't what I said. I said they don't come here looking for that. And that is something that I would think so obvious that suggesting otherwise would be laughable. Think about it. If you're looking for a sweet deal in terms of being taken care of, do you leave all your friends and family and hire criminals with your savings to smuggle you across a border into a country where you don't know anybody, don't know the language, and aren't even legally allowed to be? It wouldn't make any sense as an explanation. Do they decide to leach of the rest of us when they're here? No doubt. But, it makes no sense as a motivation to come here in the first place.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think California's problems are about too many people coming here and being willing to work their asses off.

    I think California's problem have to do with spending too much money--on everybody and everything.

    It isn't the welfare for immigrants that's the problem. It's the welfare. We need to slash the welfare programs regardless of whom those benefits go to.

    If most people wouldn't give a damn either way about the immigrants if it weren't for all the social programs, then let's get rid of the social programs.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think California's problem have to do with spending too much money--on everybody and everything.

    It isn't the welfare for immigrants that's the problem. It's the welfare. We need to slash the welfare programs regardless of whom those benefits go to.

    The immigrants, and their children, are the ones voting for increased government spending. They do not share are belief in the value of limited government for a number of cultural reasons.

    CA's electorate has become increasingly hispanic exactly as it has become increasingly socialist. This same dynamic is happening everywhere in the country, with the possible exception of Texas. Even in FL this year more people of Cuban heritage voted for Obama than voted for Romney.

  • Ken Shultz||

    People who identify with immigrants vote Democrat becasue they believe that Republicans are hostile to them.

    If we ever make any headway, it'll be because they stop associating hostility to social programs with hostility to them.

    Immigrants themselves are actually some of the hardest working people in our society, and like most hard working people, they tend to think even less of laziness than most native born suburbanites do.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You believe a fantasy Ken.

    Poor hispanic immigrants and their children support bigger government, full stop. It's a cultural thing.

    As to your point about immigrants only identifying as democrats because of perceived republican hostility and those immigrants theoretical alignment with libertarian (or at least smaller government) values. Why has the CA democratic party moved to the left as the number of minorities has increased?

    I mean if your theory was accurate, the CA democrat party would become more libertarian, pro free market and move away from redistribution as the immigrants became a larger constituency.

    But the opposite is happening.

    Accept reality Ken. Hispanic culture has an affinity for big government and an inherent distrust of the rich. Which is understanble considering the racial-colonial heritage of those cultures.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hispanic culture has an affinity for big government and an inherent distrust of the rich. Which is understanble considering the racial-colonial heritage of those cultures.

    From where do your glean your insights on pan-Hispanic culture, VG? Can you point me to the papers you've published on this topic? For how long did you do your ethnomethodological research? I'd be fascinated to read the various case studies that made up your research on this very important topic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Says the guy who flies into an armchair psychoanalysis of Islam at the slightest hint of an opportunity.

    The measure with which you measure shall the the measure by which you are measured.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Says the guy who flies into an armchair psychoanalysis of Islam at the slightest hint of an opportunity.

    Oh? You've read my CV, I take it? You have no idea what my academic research interests are. The two years I spent studying the ethnopedagogy of Malaysian pondok (religious) schools puts me ahead of anything you have to say about the topic, Tulps.

  • Cytotoxic||

    From where do your glean your insights on pan-Hispanic culture, VG? Can you point me to the papers you've published on this topic?

    It's his 'gut feeling'. And for conservatives, gut feeling trumps data.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's his 'gut feeling'. And for conservatives, gut feeling trumps data.

    So explain why CA has trending socialist in direct proportion to the growth of the hispanic electorate.

    I mean they're supposed all about hard work and family and entreprenuership so how do you explain the overwhelming number of actual elected hispanics that are flat out socialists.

    Why do they reflexively vote socialist, even as CA swirls the drain.

    You're one of the biggest "FUCK CA... yahoos around here. And guess which CAs keep voting to become Greece.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And guess which CAs keep voting to become Greece.

    The white liberal dipshits that are voting Illinois and other states into the poor house.

  • ||

    So explain why CA has trending socialist in direct proportion to the growth of the hispanic electorate.

    Come on VGZ. You know know the difference between correlation and cause and effect. That's beneath you.

    Could it simply be that they are voting themselves free shit and more and more of them want more free shit? It's happening in other places where immigration isn't even an issue.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're an anonymous internet commenter like the rest of us.

    It's hilarious that you expect to get the benefit of the doubt about your expertise while refusing to give it to anyone else here.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's hilarious that you expect to get the benefit of the doubt about your expertise while refusing to give it to anyone else here.

    Hey, if VG said, "I'm a sociologist/anthropologist who studies the political beliefs of Hispanic-Americans" I'd say, fair dinkum. If you're going to make such a wide-ranging and controversial claim, you should possess some expertise to back it up, yes? But if VG just said, "It's just what I think" then I'd know that such a claim is merely his opinion.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    From where do your glean your insights on pan-Hispanic culture, VG?

    From observing the reality of hispanic voting trends in the US and the actual history of latin american countries.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sorry, you have to post a CV before commenting on any topic here. New rule, it seems.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hispanic voting trends in the US is germane to this discussion, but using that data to extrapolate claims about Hispanic/Latino culture outside of the U.S. is stretching it way too far in my opinion.

    Likewise, the political history of Latin America is tangential toward political attitudes of U.S. resident Hispanics and Latinos. For centuries, Germany was a monarchy, does that have any bearing on the political attitudes of German-Americans?

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's also hilarious given that most latin American states are moving to freedom.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Venezuala?, Bolivia? Argentina?, Mexico?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes, Mexico. And basically all the countries you didn't list aside from Ecuador.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    For centuries, Germany was a monarchy

    Um, which centuries are those?

    The ones where it was a fractured series of small states with mixed economies? The same centuries where almost every European nation state was a monarchy?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The ones where it was a fractured series of small states with mixed economies?

    The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a monarchy? Yes, it was an elective monarchy, which did influence the history of liberty, but again the history of the HRE has fuck-all to do with German-American political attitudes.

    The same centuries where almost every European nation state was a monarchy?

    You're proving my point for me.

  • Calidissident||

    Come on, everyone knows our state would be perfectly fine if only we elected more Arnolds

  • Lewisite||

    LOL Venezuela. (Argentina/Ecuador/Peru too, for that matter)

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    "The immigrants, and their children, are the ones voting for increased government spending"

    This sounds like an argument against voting.

  • Rick Santorum||

    If most people wouldn't give a damn either way about the immigrants if it weren't for all the social programs, then let's get rid of the social programs.

    Let's cut the social programs and let the poors die in the streets because they're living in a first-world country on second-world wages because of unchecked immigration.

    GOOD WORK

  • Ken Shultz||

    If cutting social programs left all the lazy sketchers in our country to just wander around in circles until they starved to death, sometimes that doesn't seem like it would be such a bad thing, but in reality, that's not what would happen.

    They'd have to find honest work doing something productive. People are really resilient that way. But lazy people refuse to find productive work when they can fall back on a social program instead. The social programs are part of what makes them lazy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Thanks for clearing up any possible misconceptions about your views on things. Social conservatives like Mr. Santorum are nothing more than socialist fellow-travelers who also want to restrict social lives.

  • KPres||

    "Let's cut the social programs and let the poors die in the streets because they're living in a first-world country on second-world wages because of unchecked immigration."

    You fucking Marxist idiot. Increasing the supply of labor lowers prices by the same amount that it lowers wages. It doesn't end up in the hands of rich capitalists like you think, because their profits are determined by competition from other capitalists, not by input costs like labor. It doesn't lower anybody's standard of living.

  • ||

    Just look what its done for CA.

    Yeah cuz there are no Mexican immigrants in Texas.

    Give me break.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I support open borders because it's in our best interests economically.

    Tell that to the poor people whose wages are lowered because of an influx of workers in the labor market. Supply and demand (for labor), how does it work?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The job of the American government isn't to protect losers from competition. And if you can't compete for work with people who usually don't get more than 8th grade education and typically can't speak English?

    Then you're a loser.

    Shouldn't have gotten that felony or should stop snorting so much meth--and I don't feel sorry for you.

  • Rick Santorum||

    "Americans that I don't like deserve to go hungry." --Ken Shultz

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "But not illegal immigrants - they deserve welfare." - Ken Shultz

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say illegal immigrants deserve welfare anywhere.

    I did say that parasites are parasites regardless of whether they're immigrant parasites.

    The parasites are the problem--whether they're immigrant or not. And the solution is to cut the parasites off--regardless of whether they're immigrants. Immigrants are just a red herring, and getting rid of them won't do anything to solve the problem of our government being set up to serve parasites.

    Honestly, I don't care whether the leech sucking blood out of my back is an immigrant leech or a native born leech--I just want the damn thing off of my back.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I didn't say illegal immigrants deserve welfare anywhere.

    You've said previously that you vehemently opposed prop 184 which was all about prohibiting welfare for illegal immigrants

  • Ken Shultz||

    Lazy losers deserve to go hungry.

    And since I've outworked immigrant construction workers in San Diego county in my lifetime for work, no I don't feel sorry for lazy losers at all.

    In fact, the more we drive the lazy losers who can't compete with illiterate immigrants to work? The better off we'll be.

    And don't forget that low wages contribute to keeping things like inflation low. If cheap labor were bad for economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past fifteen years.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Please starve.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Also, illegal immigrants taking welfare are actually helping break the welfare state. They can't vote, so they can't do their part to support the machine in exchange for getting what they got. Parasites of parasites.

  • VG Zaytsev||

  • ||

    illegal immigrants taking welfare are actually helping break the welfare state. They can't vote...

    You're adorable.

    Vote early, vote often.

  • MWG||

    "Supply and demand (for labor), how does it work?"

    Not by government dictate as you seem to think.

  • Cytotoxic||

    B-b-but BROWN PWOPLE

  • Lewisite||

    DON'T!

  • ||

    Supply and demand (for labor), how does it work?

    Um...it works by paying workers what the market will bear.

    Unless, of course, people like you manipulate it with programs like minimum wage or eliminating foreign competition. When you do that, I (and everyone, including the workers who's wages you prop up) get to pay a premium for goods and services, increasing the cost of living.

  • Sam Grove||

    Immigrants get hired to do work that natives are unwilling to do. Think stoop farm labor. That's why there are so many immigrants in CA, to do the hard work of planting and harvesting that few native born Americans can be enticed to do.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Central Valley in CA has an unemployment rate over 20%, has for many years.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Isn't the free market supposed to adjust wages upward until people are willing to do the work? Oh, nevermind, RACISM.

  • wareagle||

    Immigrants get hired to do work that natives are unwilling to do for the wages being paid.

    FIFY. Stop with the bullshit that no American will do it. Illegals can be underpaid because 1) it's more than they would make back home and 2) who are they going to bitch to?

  • Lewisite||

    I'd say that FIFY'd it fairly well.

  • ||

    It's worth pointing out here that labor and wage regulations and restrictions are in large part responsible for creating that situation.

    Ruin the labor market, then import a slave class to do the work you priced your constituents out of doing, then demand reform because of the way the slave class is being treated. Politician logic.

  • Lewisite||

    I believe politicians are that cynical, but don't believe they are that sharp.

  • Lewisite||

    "I support open borders because it's in our best interests economically"

    What?!?....Why in the hell would you support less sovereignty over our borders as opposed to more sensible, practical immigration/work permit programs? You know...something mutually beneficially.

  • ||

    I dont get the troll thing. Attention whoring? What is the motivation for looking like a child saying provocative things in order to be the center of attention?

    I like the discussions here when they are insightful and articulated well, and they often are. When some of us respond to the trolls the discussion descends into idiocy.

    (Yes, I know, I am guilty of feeding them too ) *Sigh*

  • tarran||

    I don't think there will be much soul-searching within the Republican Party... they prefer to lose a few elections rather than reform. Only a few marginal seats change hands on any given election and thanks to Gerrymandering (one of my home state of Massachusetts' many contributions to rolling back the freedoms hard won in the War of Independence), only the marginal seats are threatened.

    The Republicans have their seat at the table, and are quite content for the smaller portion of the vast feast and will never willingly get up off that table.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Many conservative Top Men are talking of an immigration shift. It'll happen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Of course, just like all the other leftward shifts they're talking about. Tax increases first, though.

    As predicted by myself and others before the election.

  • 0x90||

    OT: writes Siobhan Courtney, British freelance broadcast journalist and writer, former BBC World News presenter, and BBC News journalist who has reported and written for BBC Newsnight:

    The state can't tell us how to spend our money

    "The notion of the state controlling how the British public spend their money is an idea so utterly incomprehensible and insulting; it seems incredulous this draconian proposal is actually gaining momentum inside Downing Street."

    Pretty serious stuff. Makes the surveillance state sound like child's play. But what is she talking about? Sorry, I left out the subtitle:

    The UK copying the US by dictating how benefits are spent is an infringement of personal liberty.

    She does, however, go on to stumble into a bit of pure, albeit unintentional genius:

    "Handing over food stamps in a supermarket is humiliating. Dehumanising and infantilising the poor through such an aggressive, apparent method is not indicative of a purported, modern, civilised society. Here in the UK, what the coalition is really saying is that people on benefits aren't capable and can't be trusted to spend money properly, so must have their money controlled. Surely then, it is only fair that ministers have the same nanny state rules applied to their expenses, as we know they certainly cannot be trusted to spend their (actually our) money properly."

  • Ted S.||

    Of course, people of Courtney's ilk want to tell other classes of people besides benefits recipients how to spend their money in a myriad of ways.

  • 0x90||

    It does underline how deeply held is the subconscious notion that legitimate resources are those which derive from the state.

    "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

  • ||

    "The notion of the state controlling how the British public spend their money..."

    Not so incomprehensible. It isnt their money, it is our money. If a beggar asks me for money to buy food, I will buy him some food, not give him money. Nine times out of ten when I have offered this it was refused. They wanted the money to buy drugs or alcohol.

    If you want assistance then you have to put up with following the rules. He who has the gold...and all that.

    If you want freedom then you have to learn to support yourself.

  • 0x90||

    "Nine times out of ten when I have offered this it was refused."

    I'll go out on a limb and guess that in at least five of those nine times, the refusal came wrapped in profanity of some sort.

  • ||

    By putting 'at least' in there, you are correct.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm an open borders guy myself, but it seems to me that the biggest difference between the two parties on immigration is mostly marketing.

    It's not that the Republican party is especially anti-immigrant; they've just allowed themselves to be marketed that way. Believe me, the Democrats, and especially the unions, don't want immigrants here either.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's not that the Republican party is especially anti-immigrant; they've just allowed themselves to be marketed that way.

    Even more than that, they've been painted as Anti-Hispanic by democrats and the media. And that's what they have to change.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Geez, maybe all that talk of a border wall and self-deportation and 'invasion' has played a part too?

  • MWG||

    Don't forget electrifying the fence!

  • Cytotoxic||

    TEH LAW IS TEH LAW

  • Lewisite||

    "Even more than that, they've been painted as Anti-Hispanic by democrats and the media. And that's what they have to change."

    All pandering towards the inevitable day that the Hispanic becomes the dominant minority, and oh how quickly they knock the old 'black' sacred cow out of the way to go milk the new sacred 'brown' one. And they say that the rethuglicans are the racist ones...LOL

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So Romney's "self deport" solution did not go over well? That is too bad since he went to the right of Gingrich at the time. But then he supported Obama's amnesty for good students plan in the general. God, what a fucking pansy he is - unable to stick to one single answer his entire 8-yr campaign.

  • John||

    They will all self deport after the liberals destroy the economy. When we are Mexico, why bother leaving Mexico to come here. Obama has the poverty rate among Hispanics up to 28%. In another four years he should have it up around 50% and end any reason for anyone not looking for welfare to ever come to the United States again.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And they are going to destroy the economy. It'll start in California first, since we have to bear the burden of progressive economics at both the federal and state level.

    You should see what they're doing in San Francisco now...

    Headline:

    "San Francisco to cover sex change surgeries for all uninsured transgender residents"

    "When it comes to providing gender reassignment surgeries for any uninsured resident who wants one, San Francisco is, as usual, at the forefront."

    http://blog.sfgate.com/cityins.....residents/

    The economy will break. The pain is coming.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The City of San Francisco is likely flush with cash given its enormous tax base. Covering a few sex changes for some of its oddities is probably not a real strain on finances and does more to stir up you Glenn Beck types than anything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't think providing free sex reassignment services to any San Francisco resident that wants them is going to be expensive, you're crazy.

    Besides, it's a symptom of something larger.

    They're not governing based on any economic thinking whatsoever.

    They don't care whether what they're doing makes economic sense--and they're going to do a whole lot more. And they're going to do it at the state level, too.

    "The City of San Francisco is likely flush with cash given its enormous tax base."

    It isn't a coincidence that's the same thing Jerry Brown says at the state level, too--"Don't worry, we'll just raise taxes!".

    ...and it isn't a coincidence that Barack Obama is saying the same thing, too, at the national level. They all subscribe to the same consequence free theory of tax raising, which has no basis in reality whatsoever.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What happened to states/cities as labs of democracy? If San Fran wants to squander their money on absurdities then let them.

    I didn't like Bush's "Faith Based" largesse so I voted against him.

    And Obama is raising the top end to pay for PRIOR programs (mostly GOP) - get that right. Paying your bills is the responsible thing to do.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I didn't like Bush's "Faith Based" largesse so I voted against him."

    What's the difference between "Faith Based" wasteful spending and the other kind of wasteful spending?

    And paying your bills isn't the responsible thing to do--it's the unavoidable result of spending. Keeping your spending within your means is the responsible thing to do--and it's something that no one in California is doing.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    My tax dollars are wasted on Bush's programs. San Fran wastes their own.

  • Ken Shultz||

    A moment ago, you were saying this spending was alright becasue we could just tax people to cover, if you're admitting that wasteful spending is wasteful now, then that's some progress!

    Congratulations.

    P.S. There weren't any libertarians who supported Bush's wasteful spending.

  • Lewisite||

    You'll contrast any issue for the sake of arguement, won't you? Ri-goddammed-diculous.

  • ||

    "San Francisco to cover sex change surgeries for all uninsured transgender residents"

    Wow, that is some first-rate stupid alright. The left's understanding of economics is on par with the greenie's understanding of nature who said " Hunting should be outlawed. People should just get their meat from the grocery store where no animals are harmed."

    They are good for a laugh if nothing else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's your tax dollars at work.

  • ||

    I was trying to keep depression at bay by treating it lightly and ignoring that little fact. Thanks Ken.

    *Hangs head*

  • Omni||

    Oh god, some of the things in that article...like these paragraphs...

    “Healthy San Francisco was discriminating against transgender people by denying them medically necessary health care,” Wiener said.

    The discrimination was particularly blatant in that the department provides and covers hysterectomies for women with cancer, but not for women who choose to transition to men. Likewise, it provides and covers the removal of testicles for men with cancer, but not for men transitioning to women."t

    What was that phrase the Dems love to use? You're being denied "Access?"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The financial crash of 2008 could have destroyed the economy. It has steadily improved since then.

    Get out of that GOP Bubble while you can!

  • John||

    No it has not. It has stayed at the bottom. It hasn't improved in one meaningful term. Inflation is worse, unemployment is worse, poverty is worse. Only someone as retarded and demonic as you could believe otherwise.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    When we are Mexico, why bother leaving Mexico to come here.

    Because we give poor immigrants food stamps and Mexico doesn't.

    Did you know that Obama has been advertising the food stamp program - in Mexico?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....awareness/

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They were among 151 documented meetings and events held since 2004, when the United States and Mexico first started partnering on food-stamp awareness.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z2CaVRxZxp

    Damn! Obama can travel back in time!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you imagine we can go back in time and oppose Bush advertising food-stamp awareness in Mexico?

    Do you imagine we didn't oppose Bush doing the same thing?

  • ||

    Damn not having perfectly dichotomous choices!

  • Pi Guy||

    Note that, in the economy's present state, we don't have an "immigration problem." Immigration, illegal or otherwise, was a sign that there were jobs to be had and money to be made. IOW, a sign that we were being successful.

  • John||

    Yup. Give it another four years and they will be building a wall to keep people. They kind of already are doing that with the war against ex patriots over taxes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That would require Mexico suddenly becoming a relatively prosperous country.

    The expat thing is totally legit, anyway. If you make money off the US you should have to pay US taxes whether you go hide in Singapore or not. If you make money off Singapore, that's another story.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In the case of an expat, who decides who is making money off whom? The IRS? I'm sure you can see the conflict of interest here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    In the most visible case, it's pretty obvious that the Facebook guy is making money off the US. The company is headquartered here.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    t's pretty obvious that the Facebook guy is making money off the US. The company is headquartered here.

    Fair enough. When I was working in Thailand, I taught at a government university. My salary was entirely paid for by the Thai taxpayer. Still, the IRS didn't look kindly on any argument that I didn't owe them taxes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, that's bullshit that the IRS makes you pay taxes on money you earn elsewhere.

  • ||

    ... And he's a financial investor who left any operational role at the company years ago and who now lives abroad. Also, Facebook has more members than America has people - probably safe to say they're deriving some portion of their revenue from outside the United States.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Mexico IS becoming a prosperous country.

    2) Fuck off slaver.

  • American||

    "Mexico IS becoming a prosperous country"
    LOL
    Nothing sais prosperity like 50,000 dead civilians.

  • MWG||

    That's because of a largely US sponsored WOD, not because of socialism you moron.

    Mexico's GDP?

    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=mx&v=67

  • Lewisite||

    "Mexico's GDP?"

    That is also "largely US sponsored"

    (Oil/Drugs/NAFTA/ExPats sending money home)

  • MWG||

    What's your point? They're growing a hell of a lot more than we currently are.

  • Lewisite||

    "What's your point?"

    My point is, when you say this:

    "That's because of a largely US sponsored WOD, not because of socialism you moron"

    it is disingenuous to disregard the fact that fed money given to the Mexican govt for the war on drugz + the money funneled by Mexican narko-gangsterz , human traffickers, and illegal immigrants (who have no intention of actually staying in the U.S.) out of our economy probably make up a significant portion of their actual GDP (granted that 'on the books' their GDP is mostly oil that the U.S. buys the bulk of).

  • Cut out the crap||

    Hearing from old "friends" and parasitic relatives that you haven't heard from in years after you've won the lottery is a sign of success too. That doesn't necessarily mean their attention bodes well for your continued success.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Pay those friends and relatives to clean your gutters and it bodes well enough.

  • American||

    Really? There are many reasons one would immigrate other than to make money and gt a job. Like welfare, free schooling, free housing, free food, free Obamaphones, ect. Even without a welfare state, America has bridges to sleep under. Rich people you culd beg from. Rich people you could rob. Prisons you could go to and get 3 meals a day.

  • Lewisite||

    "America has bridges to sleep under"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    “Polls regularly show that immigration is not a priority for Hispanic voters

    Right, they vote democrat because the love big government.

    So let's import millions of more near socialist voters, that will certainly lead to libertopia nationwide, like it has in California.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is not the government's job to manage the country's political beliefs or enforce yours. I don't know what's so hard to understand for you xenophobes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nope, it's the government's job to import socialist voters that will destroy our liberty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm pretty sure that's exactly the way BO sees it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Immigration =/= 'government importation'

    Otherwise you think all gun transactions are Fast and Furious.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Krauthammer says a GOP turnaround requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty.

    That fence will come in handy for keeping would-be tax exiles *in* as well.

  • ||

    I agree that an influx of socialist minded immigrants presents a problem, but it is one worth dealing with for exactly this reason. I see a militarized border as a serious danger to american citizens.

    Their is no doubt in my mind that given the opportunity and the infrastructure in place, our pols would turn the entire country into a giant panopticon.

  • American||

    Wow. I mean just wow. You guys actually buy this. Here are reasons why you guys need brain transplants:
    1) Why would any tax exile go to Mexico? How would they take their money out?
    2) What use would it be to be a tax exile in Mexico when the socialist government would cut off trade with the region.
    3) You think Mexico would be any less socialist?
    4) Britain and Japan don't need militarized borders, they have oceans. And they haven't gone socialist.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    4) Britain and Japan don't need militarized borders, they have oceans. And they haven't gone socialist.

    Wait, what? Those two are some of the biggest nanny-state countries in the world.

    What alternate universe do you hail from, and what is Superman's origin story there?

  • ||

    1) A tax exile is likely to have his money offshore already and could use Mexico as a gateway to the rest of the world.

    2) See 1 above. Mr. Tax Exile probably isn't going to Mexico to start a large, multinational import/export conglomerate.

    3) No. Mr. Tax Exile probably doesn't intend on paying Mexican taxes either. See 1 and 2 above

    4) If you think Mexico is more socialist than Britain or Japan, you more or less just destroyed your credibility to speak intelligently on the subject.

  • Cut out the crap||

    Even if it’s for the wrong reasons, it’s good to see conservatives rethinking their position.

    Unlike libertarians, who have never bothered to rethink anything, no matter how disastrously it's turned out when actually implemented.

  • Sam Grove||

    Citation?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What a trolltastic weekend.

    Why no circumcision or abortion posts?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How about a Palin post for old times sake.

  • MWG||

    Meh, I prefer the ground zero mosque days myself.

  • Rhywun||

    There's always artisanal mayonnaise.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm sure there are lots of people out there obsessing about all the Swedes and Australians and Czechs who come here and take our jerbs welfare; we just somehow don't hear about that.

  • 0x90||

    Yeah, but they do it legally. And that's what matters. Respect for the law. Millions entering legally would get no resistance at all, from anybody, because it would be legal. People are perfectly willing to compete for jobs with a billion legal immigrants. Just not illegal ones. Because they're illegal.

  • Lewisite||

    ^this

  • American||

    Well, immigrants from Sweden and Australia tend to be on the right side of the bell curve. Nice try.

  • KPres||

    You realize all of the white people who's JERBZ! you're defending are on the wrong side of the bell curve as well, don't you? White people have a high average IQ, but a wide distribution, meaning there's a whole lot of white dummies out there. And they tend to be the one's who are threatened by Mexicans.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Barbara Boxer is a loathesome, blabbering imbecile, and she has been a United States Senator for twenty years.

    Fuck you, California.

  • ||

    The list of California pols who are loathsome, blabbering imbeciles has m;any many more names than that on it. In fact, it seems that that is a requirement for holding office there.

    Yes, fuck you California.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But not the people of immigrant heritage that vote for those policies.

  • ||

    By 'California' I meant the pols and the voters who voted for those policies, not the actual dirt that comprises the geographical state of california.

    Although, come to think of it, if the geographical state did sink into the sea, it would take the political state with it...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The cognitive dissonance of people like you that hate Californians but love the Californians that are driving the state into bankruptcy; is amazing.

    But don't worry, they'll be a majority in your state soon too.

  • ||

    So we do have something in common after all; neither one of us knows what the fuck you are talking about.

  • ||

    Hear, hear. Fuck you California.

  • np||

    If the issue is about voting as most detractors here seem to make it about, then that's actually case for illegal immigration and non-citizen workers. (Of course it'll shift to zomg they took our jerbz!)

    And the issue about Hispanics and voting doesn't explain how the white northeast still voted socialist. Nor does explain the socialist and statist policies that have been in place long before the wave of Hispanic immigrants as I mentioned.

  • Rick Santorum||

    (Of course it'll shift to zomg they took our jerbz!)

    Trey Parker and his buttbuddy are going to rot in hell for that alone. There is no possibility of discussing immigration policy when one side just yells JERBS over and over. HUR HUR HUR DEY TUK UR JERBS. Hahaha, really funny, isn't it? I hope that you are laid off so your boss can hire some illegals under the table.

    And the issue about Hispanics and voting doesn't explain how the white northeast still voted socialist. Nor does explain the socialist and statist policies that have been in place long before the wave of Hispanic immigrants as I mentioned.

    Are all glibertarians this dense? Just because predominantly white areas voted for Obama doesn't mean that Hispanics don't support statist policies. I mean, how idiotic are you to suggest such a thing? Aren't lolberts supposed to be paragons of reason and rationality as opposed to bigoted conservatives and economically illiterate liberals?

  • np||

    What if I wanted to hire some immigrant. Who are you to stop me? What right do you have to prevent me from freely exchanging with someone else? You're just as bad and as unprincipled as leftist who claim some right to a job.

    Just because predominantly white areas voted for Obama doesn't mean that Hispanics don't support statist policies.

    This is what you keep on harping on about: that Hispanics are to blame for socialist woes. The fact that white areas are socialist disproves your assertion.

    Of course, there are hispanic areas that area socialist. But even if you cut off hispanic immigration, that still won't solve the problem of mitigating socialist policies because it doesn't get to the root of the problem! Unless, of course, that's not what you're really after.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What if I wanted to hire some immigrant. Who are you to stop me? What right do you have to prevent me from freely exchanging with someone else?

    The same right that allows me to prevent you from buying stolen property.

  • ||

    WTF, how is an immigrant selling stolen property? It's the laws that prevent immigrating that makes the act unlawful in the first place dipshit. Make it legal to immigrate, and it will be legal to hire an immigrant. No left or lawbreaking involved.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The laws that make theft illegal make buying a stolen watch illegal, too.

    Laws that you don't like are still laws.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What the actual fuck are you saying here?

  • MWG||

    The law is the law cyto... the law is the law.

  • ||

    The laws that make theft illegal make buying a stolen watch illegal, too.

    Laws that you don't like are still laws.

    Fine. It should be illegal to hire an illegal alien. That says NOTHING about whether it should be legal for an employer to hire a foreigner and legelly get him a visa in the first place.

    The whole problem with the current immigration system is that we've created a catch-22. It's illegal to hire an alien unless he's already got a green card, and it's impossible to get a green card unless you get an employers to prove that it's impossible for any American to take the job he wants to hire you for. Which take five years and costs thousands of dollars, which pretty much means no employer is going to bother.

  • Lewisite||

    "The whole problem with the current immigration system is that we've created a catch-22"

    No catch-22 to it at all really, the federal gov't loves it when illegal aliens work under fake paperwork (ss#/b.c.) and pay taxes, but more important; the FICA/S.S. that the illegals have little to no hope of actually recouping because...they are "illegal" and therefore ineligible to receive. It's all part of the fed's cunning plan, you see, and they think its fucking hilarious.
    (And then they have the nerve to mention "exploitation, in the next breath)

  • Rick Santorum||

    What if I wanted to hire some immigrant. Who are you to stop me? What right do you have to prevent me from freely exchanging with someone else? You're just as bad and as unprincipled as leftist who claim some right to a job.

    Yes, I'm going to stop you. I'm a nationalist, bitch. A free market, libertarian-leaning nationalist, but a goddamn nationalist nonetheless. You want to hire an immigrant? Move the fuck down to Mexico. Otherwise you can keep your business in America and hire Americans so that America, as a nation, benefits as a whole.

    This is what you keep on harping on about: that Hispanics are to blame for socialist woes. The fact that white areas are socialist disproves your assertion.

    No, dumbshit, I'm saying that Hispanics are part of the problem. Another big part of the problem is our university system, which has the strange tendency to turn students into miseducated progressives.

  • MWG||

    "A free market, libertarian-leaning nationalist..."

    The fuck you are.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Prove it.

  • MWG||

    Prove to me you're not a pedophile.

    On the other hand, nothing in ANY of you comments on this Thread would suggest you anything other than a national socialist.

  • ||

    free market

    You keep on using that term...I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • ||

    This.

    Having to prove to a committee from the "Department of Labor" that no American could possibly do the job before you're allowed to hire an immigrant, is so free markety, didn't you know.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh ho someone is VERY butthurt.

  • Skip||

    I thought that episode was pretty accurate. If Mexicans were taking white collar jobs away from liberals, they would become the evil dumb rednecks they so often insult.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    CA had a solid libertarian-conservative polity for decades and then flipped to an increasingly socialist one beginning in the early 90s, shortly after Simpson-Mazzoli led to millions of new voters.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And CA has had a higher unemployment rate than the overall US every month since 1992. Twenty fucking years of demonstrably sub par economic performance from the state that formerly had the strongest economy in the world.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And it has nothing to do with and is probably in spite of immigration.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, it has nothing to do with the demographic trends of the state.

    Nope, the state is controlled by evil socialist outsiders, not the people that actually live and vote here.

  • MWG||

    AZ and TX also have large Hispanic populations.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Fucking liberal elitist. You might have data but VG has his gut feeling. I think we all know what a real American would go with.

  • Rick Santorum||

    As of the 2010 US Census, the racial distribution in Texas was as follows: 70.4% of the population of Texas was White American; 11.8%, African American; 3.8%, Asian American; 0.7%, American Indian; 0.1%, native Hawaiian or Pacific islander only; 10.5% of the population were of some other race only; and 2.7% were of two or more races. Hispanics (of any race) were 37.6% of the population of the state, while Non-Hispanic Whites composed 45.3%.

    41.4% of Texas went for Obama. Draw your own conclusions.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    To be fair, there are a lot of white Dems in Texas too.

  • ||

    41% of Montana voted for Obama.

    With a 3% Hispanic population

    There is no conclusion to be drawn.

  • Lewisite||

    A duck must be made of wood, because wood floats, and so do ducks....

    "There is no conclusion to be drawn."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ...that reliably vote Dem. If it weren't for the retirees AZ would be as blue as CA and NM.

  • np||

    There are few hispanics in the bay area, most of northern CA, along the coast, and in various places Southern CA (Santa Monica, Culver City, Manhattan Beach, etc) Yet those are solidly Obama country with socialist city council and policies.

    I'm not saying Hispanics don't vote socialist. What I am saying is that it would've turned blue--just like Oregon and Washington--regardless. Simply cutting off hispanic immigration won't solve the problem because that isn't the root cause off what enables statist policies in the first place

  • wareagle||

    the Hispanic immigration adds to the existing problem. How are you missing that? That CA is largely run by loons is not news but adding more statists to the mix is not a recipe for change. Addressing illegal immigration is a step; nothing changes wholesale.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They said this in Canada and it was bullshit. Lots of immigrants supported center-right pols once they got over THEY TURK R JERBS.

  • Rick Santorum||

    "Canada"
    "center-right politicians"
    LOL

  • Cytotoxic||

    We are more economically free than you people and have been for most of our history. Freer immigration is a big part of that. Suck it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You also have much lower immigration rates.

    Own goal!

  • Rick Santorum||

    And universal health care.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We'll be there too in a couple of years.

  • American||

    Amnesty, which is what libertarians adcocate, will give these people citizenship. Logic fail.

    "And the issue about Hispanics and voting doesn't explain how the white northeast still voted socialist."
    Was it ever supposed to?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Epidemic!

    In recent weeks, the F.D.A. has confirmed or disclosed a total of 18 filings involving fatalities and over 150 others involving injuries that mentioned one of four top-selling energy drinks — Red Bull, Monster Energy, Rockstar and 5-Hour Energy. But the volume of such filings stands in stark contrast to a federal report that found that over 13,000 emergency room visits in 2009 cited an energy drink as a possible cause.

    How many of those emergency room patients also are now or once were public school students?

  • ||

    Sometime back in the early 70's I was reading something of my choice hidden behind the textbook I was assigned to read for class. It was a short story about a drug addict who schemed and jumped through all kinds of hoops, including committing crimes, to get his fix. At the end of the story the author revealed that the drug being sought was caffeine in the form of a cup of coffee, which had been outlawed.

    As a youngster I thought....'Nahhh, never gonna happen.'

  • ||

    It is worth noting that many who immigrate here from socialist countries are actually more liberty minded than the average american. Look at the russians, poles, cubans etc. . Very capitalist, very conservative. Many mexicans fall into that same category.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Very capitalist, very conservative. Many mexicans fall into that same category.

    No, they don't, you goddamn moron. Mexicans are going to vote for whoever offers the most amnesty. You're delusional.

  • ||

    Is that so? So the very conservative, very capitalist Mexican billionaire that I take hunting on my timberland isnt from Mexico?

    I am confused.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Are you seriously so stupid that you're generalizing and ignoring statistical data in favor of an anecdote?

    Yes, you're that stupid. You're a libertarian.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, every Mexican immigrant is a billionaire.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You sound like a collectivist now.

    He doesn't owe you anything if he benefits from immigration.

    That's what's weird about this Santorum guy--he seems to think everybody owes him something.

    He decries welfare in the name of the idea that everybody owe him a living.

    And that's pretty weird. It's a weird kind of patriotism--that turns being an American into have a right to be a welfare queen. No one else should be allowed to benefit from immigration because of how it might affect you?

    I'm not here for your benefit.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Wanting Americans to have decent-paying jobs is now welfare. Are all libertarians this stupid?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Let's cut the social programs and let the poors die in the streets because they're living in a first-world country on second-world wages because of unchecked immigration."

    ----Rich Santorum

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_3387771

    You sound like a welfare queen to me.

    Get a job.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Nope, Ken. I'm gainfully employed. 40 hours a week. I even have health insurance. I just want what's best for my country.

  • MWG||

    So you are for the welfare state as Ken suggested in quoting you, right?

  • Cytotoxic||

    But it's WHITE welfare.

  • Rick Santorum||

    So you are for the welfare state as Ken suggested in quoting you, right?

    I support a very limited welfare state that is managed on the state level.

  • MWG||

    So ken was right.

  • Lewisite||

    "I just want what's best for my country."

    YOUR country,...or OUR country?

  • ||

    You know who else just wanted what was best for his country...

  • Lewisite||

    Jane Fonda?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You sound like a collectivist now.

    How so?

    Because I recognize the realities of the situation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If Suthenboy benefits from immigration, that's too bad becasue immigration isn't in everyone else's best interest?

    A society where people can't do things unless it's in everyone's best interest is a collectivist society.

    I know you're not a collectivist, but the implications of what you seemed to be saying were.

    P.S. I think immigration is a net benefit to society--even illegal immigration. But that's just icing on the cake. Our individual rights and liberties exist and should be respected regardless of whether they're in everybody else's best interest.

  • American||

    I think our individual rights and liberties must be protected too. Protected from people who want to take our money and our freedom away from us. What part of this don't you get? LATINOS IN GENERAL DON'T LIKE CAPITALISM AND WHITE PEOPLE. Our government should protect us from these people.

  • MWG||

    "Our government should protect us from these people."

    ...and old white people as well given that SS and Medicare are costing us far more than any of the services being used by immigrants.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Here's what I don't get. If the liberty-minded Latino is such a rara avis, then whence does forum regular Old Mexican come? What about all the Reasonoids with full or part Latino/Hispanic heritage?

    Just like the claims that Jews are hive-minded Progressive Democrats. If that were true, then why does the Who's Who of American Neoconservatism read like the guest list to my Bar Mitzvah?

    There is just something off about this Socialist Latino Horde meme.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Rara avis? Every time I think you can't get more pretentious, you go and prove me wrong.

    In any case, rara avis != nulla avis.

  • ||

    What the fuck is up with the influx of crazy racist right-wing trolls lately?

    At least progressives like Tony are interesting to debate. I have no interest in even arguing with racists.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Tony isn't racist? That's news to me.

  • ||

    I think he may be the real Santorum. He certainly is equally stupid.

    The fucking trolls are out in force today.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think it's Mary.

  • KPres||

    It's Steve Sailor or one of his acolytes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't think the real Santorum would be complaining about guys who refuse to marry assertive women.

  • ||

    How is "amnesty" socialist?

    If you ask me, the labor certification requirement is more "socialist" than an amnesty.

    An amnesty simply makes it legal for people to hold a job (OMG! The socialism!).

    Whereas the labor certification requirement requires employers to prove that no Americans workers can take a job before they offer one to a foreigner (capitalism in action!) .

  • MJGreen||

    So... the GOP should become a more immigrant friendly party, as the article recommends, and offer amnesty.

    What, then, is the problem?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    More projection.

  • ||

    Oh, and I apologize to anyone I offended by leaving asians off of that list. I posted too fast. I know a 27 yo vietnamese kid who works 6 ten hour days a week doing nails...has saved nearly 50K and intends to open his own shop. Kudos to him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's because they have to go through a process to get in.

  • American||

    You're an idiot. The reason Russian and polish immigrants tend to be conservative is that only the rich can afford to immigrate. From Cuba, the government prevents people from immigrating. In Mexico, it is the lowest, poorest people who come to our country. The people who vote Democrat.

  • ||

    Brooks is right, this is a trolltastic weekend. And now I am kicking myself for responding to the moronic troll myself. Ugh.

  • ||

    A team-red troll....we dont often get those. Trolls are usually super lefties.

  • 0x90||

    And so we witness the admitted impotence of the protectionist xenophobe. His ideology so fragile, in his own estimation, as to be incapable of withstanding the mere physical presence of opposition. His physical usefulness, and/or his mental faculty, so anemic as to be in need of complete insulation from competition with ones whose environment has guaranteed them an undeniable disadvantage. His rock, the law, and behind it, the gun, the direct use of which he countenances not, and instead relegates to his agents, unthinkingly.

    These are things freely admitted to above, and their meaning, in plain terms, is: that one would be willing to prevent, upon threat of death, the consideration, by his employer, of others, for the post he holds; and that one would be willing, upon that same threat, to prevent entry into the political discourse, of whose ideology might stand in opposition to his own.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    and that one would be willing, upon that same threat, to prevent entry into the political discourse, of whose ideology might stand in opposition to his own.

    What would you think of letting the entire world vote in the US Presidential election? And give them all seats in Congress, too. I mean, since you have no trouble with opening up the political discourse to those of different ideologies.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What would you think of letting the entire world vote in the US Presidential election? And give them all seats in Congress, too.

    Sure, if they chose to reside here. I also think that those Americans who chose to reside somewhere else shouldn't have the vote. (a la the U.K.)

  • Rick Santorum||

    That's a lot of words to say nothing. To anyone who isn't an autistic libertarian, it is plain as day that importing immigrants will cause all sorts of cultural conflicts as well as having a negative economic impact.

    The only ones who are truly interested in open borders are the useless of society. There are the white suburbanites safely cocooned in their gated communities. Socially liberal middle-to-upper class skilled workers, they are insulated from the effects of mass immigration (for now), they enjoy the praise of their like-minded peers for being enlightened in their positions, unlike those bigoted, uneducated nativists.

    There are likewise the corporate profiteers, chief economic beneficiaries who desire inexpensive labor. Why hire an American for the staggering cost of minimum wage when a Hispanic will do twice the work for half the cost? For the corporations who can skirt the law or cut a deal with the government, they can save on labor costs, inflate their own salaries, and lay off their American workers.

    Lastly, there are the politicians. Democrats, in particular. They desire a demographic change in America so they can more easily control the population, and Latinos will vote Democrat because Democrats will offer them welfare.

    Who, then, does mass immigration benefit? Is it the average worker? Is it the man laboring to provide for his family? No; he only suffers the negative effects of immigration.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So, you're a doctrinare Producerist. Good to know.

    I think you should change your forum name to "Pat Buchanan". It would be more honest.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Of Pat Buchanan I am fond.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They met at the cross-burning. White hoods went on the ground. 'Come back to bed doney' said Buchanan.

  • T o n y||

    Nobody with any political power wants open borders.

    The claims you're making about the detriment to society immigrants represent were made about every wave of immigrants ever. I'm Irish. It was said about my people.

    Also, what exactly are you claiming is special about Latino immigrants that makes them favor welfare more? I wonder if we did a survey, who works harder on a daily basis and who gets more government checks: Latino immigrants or Republican voting white old people?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Our economy was growing like crazy and there was a vast frontier when the Irish/Italian/German/etc immigrants came here.

  • T o n y||

    If our economy is not growing and there are not jobs for immigrants to take, they won't come anyway.

  • American||

    "If our economy is not growing and there are not jobs for immigrants to take, they won't come anyway."
    Come on, even YOU don't believe that. What about welfare, free schooling. Even without a welfare state, America has bridges to sleep under. Rich people you culd beg from. Rich people you could rob. Prisons you could go to and get 3 meals a day.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Nobody with any political power wants open borders.

    Which is why Obammy supports the DREAM Act and Republicans are talking about "reaching out" to Latinos and Ronald Reagan gave immigrants amnesty.

    I'm Irish. It was said about my people.

    And you're a leftist. I guess we were right all along.

    Latino immigrants or Republican voting white old people?

    Republicans are socialist, bro.

  • 0x90||

    If someone is willing to work for half your rate, it is at your own risk that you fail to see the problem lies not with him, but with you. If you wish to try to erase this by running to the nanny state, go ahead, that is your choice. And you can bury this in whatever deflection you wish, but it is easy for any observer to see that you do so out of nothing other than an deep sense of entitlement.

  • goneGalt||

    Tell it to the AMA.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Millions entering legally would get no resistance at all, from anybody, because it would be legal.

    Yeah, right.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    My tax dollars are wasted on Bush's programs.

    One of these days, BOOOOOSH will no longer be in the White House, and our once-great nation's healing process can begin.

  • ||

    I had a brief conversation with a Honduran woman who had gotten her citizenship, law degree, and now works as an immigration lawyer helping other hispanics immigrate.

    I inquired as to why the hispanic vote went so blue, and after giving several evasive answers, she finally admitted..."We can just feeeeeeel it."

    She thinks conservative whites are all racists. When I began giving examples of the republican parties role in combatting racism, she became very quiet. I finally shut up myself because I could see that not only did she not believe me, she vehemently did not want to believe me. I should have pointed out that she was far more of a racist than those she was accusing of it. That is usually the case though.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They know about Republicans long before they get here.

    They hear about Republicans like we Republicans hear about the Taliban.

    Talking to her about how the Republicans fought against racism, to her ear, is like talking to Republicans about how the Taliban helped kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

    Incidentally, it would be a whole lot easier to convince immigrants that the Republicans weren't hostile to them if there weren't so many Republicans who were hostile to them.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "we Republicans"....

    But you all keep telling me you are libertarians!

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was an error.

    It was originally "They hear about Republicans like we [Americans] hear about the Taliban."

    I changed "Americans" into "Republicans" and forgot to take out the "we".

    This is one of the reasons why I wish Reason would fix the preview button. Forcing we libertarians to edit ourselves in what amounts to notepad is cruel and unusual punishment.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, though, if Republicans morphed into the opposite of everything Obama is about, there probably wouldn't be much difference between Republicans and libertarians after a while...

    But that's just wishful thinking.

  • American||

    I don't think you get the point. Ask these people about the free market. Even through in a "6 billion people have the natural right to immigrate." Do you really think that woman will feel any differently? These people see capitalism as an exploitive economic system. They don't like the fact that all these rich, smart white people have 3 cars while they take a government-provided bus to the suburbs to clean the rich white people's houses. I know because I've talked to women like that.

  • ||

    Well, shit like the Arizona immigration law doesn't do much to improve the image of Republicans does it?

    You expect immigrants to parse fine distinctions between different Republican factions without requireing Republicans to actually identify those dinstinctions loudly and in public.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I inquired as to why the hispanic vote went so blue, and after giving several evasive answers, she finally admitted..."We can just feeeeeeel it."

    She thinks conservative whites are all racists.

    Right,

    They're only socialist because those evil republicans hate them.

    Do you actually believe this bullshit?

    If it is true then why don't they support libertarian leaning democratic politicians? That way they could get there republican hate on but stay true to the ideals that you project onto them.

  • ||

    If it is true then why don't they support libertarian leaning democratic politicians?

    Such as?

  • Blacksaint||

    Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a thorough procedure
    meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than
    simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care,
    education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by broke U.S. citizens
    and a Bankrupt nation!

    Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to
    detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical
    examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but
    long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent
    newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for
    knowledge of American history and English skills.

    Those who have jumped a fence into America in order to avoid our
    immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are invading criminals,
    with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.

    Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States,
    and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, alone with the corrupt politicians that support this invasion.

    In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America
    vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial
    devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for
    being here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a thorough procedure
    meant to protect the interests of American citizens."

    The Americans who hire immigrants to babysit their children or mow their lawns hire them becasue it's in their interests to do so.

    And they don't owe other Americans anything. I'm not here for your benefit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    People who buy stolen guns and watches are doing so because it's in their best interest, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hiring a babysitter is not like buying a stolen watch.

    One involves both consenting parties and the other does not.

    If you want to cut off social services, go ahead, but if you decide to keep providing social services--over my objections--anyway? that doesn't mean I shouldn't be free to hire someone to mow my lawn.

    I owe you nothing--and certainly not my freedom of choice--just because other people decided to build a welfare state.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Nice word games. Somehow hiring an illegal babysitter became just hiring a babysitter, but buying a stolen watch didn't just become buying a watch.

    From the POV of the buyer, the stolen watch purchase DOES involve consenting parties.

  • Cytotoxic||

    EXCEPT FOR THE PERSON IT WAS STOLEN FROM YOU ASININE DIPSHIT.

    Tulpa, go take a vacation. The election has made you go full retard.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're not a party to the transaction.

  • MWG||

    This might be the densest comment on the whole fucking thread.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I'm not here for your benefit.

    It is the flaw of libertarians to believe that radical individualism can produce a functional society. All societies are collectivist in some form or another, and it is through collectivism that humanity prospers. If libertarians wish to pursue rational self-interest to its logical end, then they must fully divorce themselves from society and all the good that its inherent collectivism has brought about.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Of course you'd completely gloss over the concept of voluntary mutual aid, you dishonest fuck.

    Doesn't fit your Producerist narrative, eh?

  • Rick Santorum||

    "Voluntary mutual aid"? What society has ever flourished on such a principle? None. There will always be legal coercion. We can play libertarian lawgic games all day about how a society could theoretically exist, but, ultimately, such a society would collapse or be overrun by invaders who would kill the men, take the women for their wives, and sell the children as slaves.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    "Voluntary mutual aid"? What society has ever flourished on such a principle?

    I dunno, Mary, the American frontier did very well using that principle for about 100 years.

  • ||

    Excellent example.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There is a flaw in every society that treats individuals and their rights as if they were a resource to be exploited for the common good.

    I am not here for your benefit.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I am not here for your benefit.

    And yet I will place restrictions on your actions to protect others from your actions. Does this frustrate you?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. We will ignore and undermine your collectivist restrictions to the greatest extent feasible. Pedro is welcome to mow my lawn. U mad bro?

  • TJSwift||

    Pedro is using the money you paid him to mow your lawn to support people that promised to give him your lawn, and your house.

  • TJSwift||

    No, you won't. You and your witless ilk will rally behind those you think will do it for you, while ignoring the fact that they have fitted *you* with a ring through your nose first.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh Gord the irony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    People should be free to do as they please. The only exception is when they try to inflict their own choices on other people.

    Hiring a babysitter isn't inflicting my choices on anybody. You trying to stop other people from hiring babysitters, however--to keep yourself overpaid? That's trying to inflict your choices on other people.

    Our Constitution was set up partly in the hope of preventing people like you from inflicting your choices on the rest of us. You assuming you have a right to do that--to protect yourself from having to compete with other people for work? Just goes to show you think everybody owes you something.

    Nobody owes you anything but respect for your rights to liberty and justice. So you have a job? Great! I guess the next step is to stop blaming immigrants and other people for your own personal shortcomings and start taking responsibility for your own choices and your own life.

  • Rick Santorum||

    People should be free to do as they please. The only exception is when they try to inflict their own choices on other people.

    Total, unrestricted freedom works. Trust me. This is because there have been so many successful societies that have had total, unrestricted freedom. Allow me to name them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Government protecting us from criminals, foreign enemies, providing us with fair trials, and protecting us from busybodies who don't want us hiring certain people to mow our lawns?

    Is hardly anarchy.

  • ||

    You completely left out the labor certification portion of the immigration process, which is BY FAR the most problematic.

    if you wish to immigrate on an employer sponsorship (i.e. someone already wants to hire you and has a job waiting for you), the employers has to PROVE to the satisfation of the Department of Labor that there are no qualified Americans who can take the job.

    That means even if you HAVE a job lined up it's almost impossible to immigrate unless you have an advanced degree or some kind of special skills. Plus the number of visas available is low, so almost all of them are taken by Indian and Chinese engineers.

    You claim immigrants should only be allowed to come here if they won't be a burden to society. But then you make the one path to immigration that involves having a job lined up in advance effectively impossible to complete and you give domestic labor the power to veto anyone who tries it.

    Should "the interests of American citizens" include basically banning any immigration from someone who might "steal our jobs"?

    You can't bitch about how immigrants should have to prove they won't be a burden (which already part of the process), and then make employer sponsorship next to impossible.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Who cares? We have enough people.

  • ||

    If you want to ban immigration, just say so.

    Don't lie and say you just want immigrants to prove they can support themselves, then set up a fake visa program that nobody can actually complete.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I want to curtail all immigration and deport the illegals. I'd favor offering economic "incentives" to encourage illegal aliens to self-deport, but they need to leave one way or another.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So if someone marries a citizen of another country, you want to have a say whether or not they can live together with their spouse?

    You're an asshole.

  • Rick Santorum||

    If you choose to marry someone, then you face the consequences of that decision. In this case, that would include the consequences of not having American citizenship, which would have an impact on whether that person's spouse could legally move to the United States.

    Either way, if you don't marry an American, it tells me you're too much of a beta pussy to handle American women and you have to go looking for vulnerable women in foreign countries who are depserate enough to marry you. Hope she divorces you and runs off with someone who isn't a bitch.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Santorum's a feminist. Never saw that coming.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Santorum's a feminist. Never saw that coming.

    Interestingly, feminism and religious traditionalism have a lot of common ground vis-a-vis the way men treat women.

    I still think that most feminists are bitter shrews who need to be married off or forced into a convent.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wow...you're actually arguing "They took our spouses!"

    Oh, I forgot, you're Mary, which ipso facto proves you're the bitch.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Personally I think the US should refuse to recognize marriages between a US citizen and a foreigner unless they legally declare whether they will be living in the US or not, and in the former case I would require an immigration review of the foreign spouse before recognizing it.

  • MWG||

    Fuck, you're an authoritarian piece of shit. That right there is North Korean level idiocy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You want state privileges, you have to do as the state says.

    If you want to live together and have kids together and shit, fine. Just don't expect preferential immigration treatment.

  • MWG||

    As a libertarian who's married to a foreigner, I'm not asking for "state privileges", simply the right to free movement and association you authoritarian prick.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's an unnecessary step. In order for a foreign spouse to live in the U.S., he or she needs to apply for a marriage visa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, but it's treated very differently from a work visa, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In that the spouse is not allowed to work upon entry in the U.S., yes. Also, it requires an Affidavit of Support and many other things. The main difference is that unlike a work visa, there are no quotas for K-1 and K-3 visas.

    Trust me, it's not a walk in the park.

  • MWG||

    "Trust me, it's not a walk in the park."

    Going through the process opened my eyes to the fact that the right is simply the opposite side to the same authoritarian coin.

    It's not so much that Tulpa is against the cock of the state, he just prefers the thickness and flavor of the right's.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm all for streamlining the process of legal immigration. Do keep in mind that many of the obstacles to legal immigration come from labor unions, whose cock reeks of Dem.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Actually let me amend that. In order for the foreign spouse to enter the U.S. they need a marriage visa. A K-1 and a K-3 are non-immigrant visas, meaning that id the spouse or fiance don't apply for permanent residency before the visa expires, they have to leave the country.

  • ||

    Well, again, problematically, K-1 and K-3 visas don't allow the spouse to work, which can be kind of a problem for a lot of people, considering it can take 3 years for a permanent resident's visa to be approved.

    3 years is a long time to take out of a career. Or out of a marriage.

  • ||

    The whole problem is our idiotic obsession with preventing immigrants from having jobs.

    If we didn't have US labor throwing a giant hissy fit every time a foreigner gets a job, 90% of the problem would go away. We could let people work on all sorts of visas and get rid of the labor cert requirements.

    As it is , the entire governing philosophy of our immigration system is designed to stop foreigners from getting jobs in the US.

  • American||

    I agree. As long as we have a situation whereby there is a wlefare state, we should oppose the immigration of people who want to expand that welfare state. Even if the right to live anywhere you want is a "natural right" why should the right to vote be? Why should libertarians give this group of foriegners who illegaly invade our country the right to elect candidates who will take our money away from us.

  • ||

    Amenesty plus Enforcement is not the right formula.

    The right formula is to reform the underlying immigration laws themselves to make it easier to immigrate legally in the first place. Not to put in place a blanket amnesty for those who are already here illeglly, without changing the laws that force them to immigrate illegally in the first place.

    Some kind of path to legal immigration for illegal aliens is desirable as part of a deal, but it should be something like "get in line now and well give you a temporary visa with certain conditions, and in 10 years you get a green card". As the waiting lists can be 10 years long for legal immigrants, this does not unfairly punish people who are obeying the law.

    For children of illegal immigrants brought here as children, pass the Dream Act with an age limit of 12 or 14. If they serve in the military or get a college degree, they get a green card within 3 years.

    As for comprehensive immiegation reform. What needs to happen is roughly:
    a) increase the number of visas available.
    b) repeal the labor certification requirement for employer sponsorship, which requires employers to prove to the labor department that no americans can do the job, which effectively gives domestic labor veto power over a prospective immigrant's ability to immigrate.

  • ||

    Point B can't be emphasized enough. It is this requirement which is responsible for making it effectively impossible for low-skilled laborers to immigrate, which is WHY they are immigrating illegally. If this requirement remains in force, the problem will not go away and you will be forced to do another amnesty in 25 years.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I would replace the certification requirement with some sort of punitive fee structure, and stepped-up inspection regime, to discourage employers from hiring foreign citizens if they could hire Americans. That should take care of the problem of employers who really do prefer to hire desperate foreigners rather than pay a wage and provide conditions that Americans will work for.

  • ||

    If immigrants get green cards after sponsorship (instead of being on H1-B vias for 6 years), it actually reduces the incentive to hire foreigners for cheap, since the foeigners can LEAVE. They can get a better paying job as soon as they get a green card. On an H1-B visa you can't change employers, and a lengthy 5-year employer-sponsorship process also chains you to the employer for a long period of time.

    Arguably, the entire employer sponsorship paradigm should be reversed. The application should belong to the IMMIGRANT, not the employers, so if the immigrant gets a better job, he doesn't have to start the application all over.

    By making it a process that is based onb the employer applying to import an immigrant, the employee can't switch jobs, which is what enables the employer to pay him less.

    They should change it around entirely, so the employee just has to prove that he's actively employed at all times, and has a job offer lined up before he comes here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good idea, and it could work seamlessly with the fee and inspection regime I described. But we would have to make sure the immigrant really did have a legitimate job offer when he or she entered the country.

  • ||

    That's not hard.

    But, Tulpa, I think you VASTLY underestimate how much opposition there would be from Democrats to eliminating the labor certification requirement. Labor will FREAK OUT if that is proposed.

    And if course, it would still substantially increase the number of immigrants.

    I suspect we're only likely to see At BEST a slight loosening of the requirement, and then only if there is a HARD PUSH by Republicans to reduce or eliminate it.

    If Republicans maintain their opposition to loosening immigrationing requirements the Democrats are certainly not going to do anything about labor certs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I assume we're both assuming we'd be dictators for a day here. Back in bitter reality, the status quo isn't changing.

  • tarran||

    I wouldn't waste brainpower on trying to come up with any reform, Hazel.

    The only rational solution is to end this stupid business of having nation states dictate who can and can't buy property or get jobs based on their birth sign location.

    The only reason to compromise is to try to mute political opposition from the alliance of racist scum and protectionist idiots who want to keep people out. And they won't compromise, because the current system is the one they want because it keeps warm bodies out.

    Whatever compromise you get will probably be very weak tea, and almost guaranteed - like any other strongly interventionist government policy - to continue creating further problems and dislocations.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Open borders are likely to cause further problems too.

    But of course, practical considerations only matter when we're talking about the policy that doesn't line up with your ideology.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THEY TURK ER JERBS

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Don't go patting yourselves on the back too hard, Reasonoids. The biggest "reconsideration" the GOP is doing right now is reconsidering opposition to tax hikes. As predicted by the best commenter on this site if Romney lost.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "As predicted by the best commenter on this site if Romney lost."

    STEVE SMITH?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hitler?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Me? I didn't predict that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because it's not like Romney would compromise with Senate Dems to raise taxes and GOP opposition would evaporate. IMPOSSIBLE. Clearly this is our fault for not falling behind Tulpa's shitty choice for GOP nom.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I also predicted that Reasonoids would retroactively declare every awful Obama policy of the next four years to have also been supported by Romney. I'm a veritable Yoda.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Such a Yoda that you thought that the every poll showing Romney couldn't win was part of a media campaign to demoralize your side. OOPS. Guess the force wasn't with you.

    Since Romney and Obama were very similar, you don't need the force to see that Obama's policies could also be Romney's.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    you thought that the every poll showing Romney couldn't win was part of a media campaign to demoralize your side.

    Romney lost by much less than the pre-debate polls were showing. Were they falsified? We'll never know.

  • Ted S.||

    I thought Groovus Maximus was too busy decamping to Ukraine to have time for such predictions.

  • TJSwift||

    The open borders concept is what drove me away from the Libertarian party. How can you not see that an open US border will attract the very people that will grow an all-powerful government?

    Who do you think is climbing over the fences of our Southern border? It's not people that are taking advantage of Mexico's business opportunities; it's the people that keep bringing the socialists like Chavez BFF Andres Lopez Obrador. I work down there often; I talk to these people. Trust me, they are not fans of the American Dream.

    It's one thing to acknowledge the right of human beings to go where they will, but without taking the time to thoughtfully consider the devastating consequences of doing so, the result is no more irrational than the most incoherent leftist papspew.

  • Cytotoxic||

    In other words, you want the government to enforce your political views. You drove yourself away from libertarianism. Good riddance.

  • TJSwift||

    Enforcing our national sovereignty isn't a matter of politics; it's self defense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And we're defending against what again? Cheap labor?

    Nothing violates my rights like seeing Pedro get hired to cut my neighbor's lawn /nativist dipshittery

  • TJSwift||

    Maybe you missed it, but Pedro just overwhelmingly voted to retain the biggest Socialist we've had for a President since FDR...and he used the money you paid him (sans all the taxes that fund the entitlements he uses), to do it.

    Using foul language and ad hominum doesn't enhance your argument; to the contrary it signals ignorance.

  • TJSwift||

    "the result is no more rational than the most incoherent leftist papspew."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's a religious belief for many of them. No amount of evidence will convince them to reconsider their position.

    The honest ones, will admit that they favor open borders even if it leads to greater socialism in the US.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The irony contains irony.

  • Cut out the crap||

    You have to wonder why a political philosophy that promotes policies that makes itself impossible to implement has any adherents at all. A dog chasing it's tail is a more productive use of time and energy. At least it's getting some exercise.

    Libertarianism is a contradiction in it's own right. It rails against "collectivism" without considering that politics by definition is an appeal to the collective. If they were that concerned about their liberty, they could simply get a cabin in the woods where nobody would bother them. But no, what they want is society at large to sign on to their agenda, allowing them to reap the benefits of being a member of a collective, without having to assume any of the costs of maintaining it.

    In other words, libertarians are no different from any other political interest group. They want to socialize the costs of their philosophy while privatizing it's profits.

  • ||

    If they were that concerned about their liberty, they could simply get a cabin in the woods where nobody would bother them.

    In case you hadn't noticed, it has been tried. The fed have a way of finding people who go and buy cabins in the woods so they can be left alone, and then shooting their wife and daughter while storming their house on a trumped up weapons charge.

    That or burning their house down with the children inside.

  • Lewisite||

    ^This is true, unfortunately^

  • Cut out the crap||

    The honest ones, will admit that they favor open borders even if it leads to greater socialism in the US.

    Exactly. The object of libertarianism is to peddle cultural Marxism to capitalists. The object of cultural Marxism is to destroy loyalties that have historically competed with those to the state, such as loyalties to religion, ethnicity or family. The object of destroying those loyalties is to lay the foundation for actual Marxism.

    If you want to know what libertarians are about, pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

    Free markets and Frankfurt School!

  • ||

    Behold the paranoia!

  • American||

    For the hundreth fucking time, that 44% thing is WRONG. As a conservative I do think that we need a government big enogh to decree who can cross the border. The founders of our country also believed this, this is why they gave the government that power. I don't see how the right to live in any nation you want is a "natural right." A liberal(libertarian) democracy is only possible if it has a ciitizenry that believes in liberty. The founders understood that the rest of the world would not want liberal democracy, they recognized that, at that time, it was something unique to Americans. They were designing a government for Americans, they were who they derived their power from, and they recognized that they were responsible for protecting the liberty of Americans. They responsibility for the British should rest on Britain, the spanish on Span, ect, ect. And so they gave the government the power to stop foriegners from immigrating if the people judged them to be a threat to their liberty. One must ask oneself, why is there no capitalism in Latin America, outside of the heavily white Chile? Why is Mexico such a shithole? Why is there so much corruption in Mexico, why is there so much crime? And why, if you pick Mexico up and move it into America, would it look any different? The AVERAGE hispanic IQ is between 85 and 90. This is going to create a lot of problems as hispanics overwhelm white Americians. (continued in reply)

  • American||

    (contined from comment ) Why should white Americans control most of the wealth? Hispanics are not going to vote republican. The welfare state takes care of them, which they don't have to pay for, they benefit from racial prefrecenes, and they like having a party that doesn't represent white Americans. Now, there are many hispanics that voted for Romney, approximately 27% of them. It looks like there is a choice here, either a big government that preserves the liberties of American citizens, or big government that gives Mexicans their "natural right" to move here and gives Americans nothing?

  • tarran||

    Mr American,

    You might want to actually read the declaration of independence. It has a grievance on the subject of immigration that will surprise you.

    It's irrelevant as to the wisdom/idiocy of the policies you advocate for (although your policies are so idiotic that the retard meter is straining against the upper peg), but since you keep appealing to the authority of those long dead corpses, you might want to read what they had to say.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It has a grievance on the subject of immigration that will surprise you.

    And if we had a King living 3000 miles away setting our immigration policy, that would be a valid comparison.

  • Lewisite||

    "And if we had a King living 3000 miles away setting our immigration policy, that would be a valid comparison"

    ‘They' had a real problem with French immigration just a few years beforehand, the taxes levied against them in part to pay for that immigration policy enforcement led to the rebellion that spawned the U.S

  • American||

    "although your policies are so idiotic that the retard meter is straining against the upper peg"
    Sorry your highness, for advocating for plicies that almost every civilized country has. Idiot.
    As for "long dead corpes" your never allowed to qoute or argue in favor of any dead person any longer. M'kay. Just another liberaltarian. As for that passage, it was protesting against the British government making laws for America. The founders believed in a government, governed by the governed, that could regulate immigration. That's why they created one.

  • MWG||

    Most civilized countries have socialized medicine...and so does North Korea. What's your point.

  • American||

    My arguement against socialized medicine would be deeper than "it's retard."

  • MWG||

    Would it be deeper than, "hey, everyone else is doing it"?

  • American||

    That's not my arguement. Where did I say that in my original comment? I'm ridiculing someone else's arguement.

  • MWG||

    Your original comment was full of shit. The founders gave no such power to the feds in the constitution over immigration. They were largely immigrants themselves.

    As to my comment, it was refering to this.

    "Sorry your highness, for advocating for plicies that almost every civilized country has. Idiot."

  • Gadianton||

    Funny, isn’t it, that conservatives who say they want small government think it should be big enough to decree who can and cannot freely cross the border.

    So, a nation is not permitted to determine who enters it?

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4, emphasis mine

    Looks to me like immigration is one of the specific duties the government does get assigned.

  • MWG||

    "So, a nation is not permitted to determine who enters it?"

    Not according to the founders.

    "Looks to me like immigration is one of the specific duties the government does get assigned."

    Not really. The passage you quoted was referring to naturalization, not immigration. They're two separate issues.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Not really. The passage you quoted was referring to naturalization, not immigration. They're two separate issues.

    Not according to the courts, though.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you would have no problem with Arizona setting its immigration laws? If I go back to the threads on that topic from a few months ago, I'll find you full throatedly supporting SB 1070?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Crossing the streams.

  • MWG||

    Actually, I was arguing against gad's contention that "immigration is one of the specific duties the government does get assigned". In fact, no laws regarding immigration were even on the books until well after the country was found and they were all explicitly racist.

    SB1070 is largely based on the idea that its simply the state enforcing federal law. Since I don't think the Feds have that authority, I don't agree with the AZ law.

    Do I think the founders would be appalled by SB1070? Absolutely.

  • American||

    "explicitly racist"
    That's a good arguement against something.(sarcasm)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wait. Aren't you arguing for restricting or ending immigration using arguments from "racial realism"?

  • MWG||

    I believe he is HM.

  • American||

    You could say that if you want. Most "racial realists" also oppose imperialism. And they don't like "welfare queens." I'm not advocating racism here. Many "racial realists" use the term as a smokescreen for racism, so I'm not confortable with it. But I'm not going to apologize for telling the truth. The most famos person to argue for the signaficance of race and intelligence, Charles Murray, is a self-described libetarian.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok, good to know.

    As for Murray and The Bell Curve, there have been a lot of advances in the 18 years since that book was published. Personally, I'm skeptical of a singular g. Even if a singular g exists, I believe psychometric assessments such as IQ tests aren't adequate measures. I lean more toward mental chronometry as a more accurate psychometric assessment as it is linguistic and culture neutral.

  • American||

    "The passage you quoted was referring to naturalization, not immigration. They're two separate issues"
    No, they're not. Anyone with half a brain knows this.

  • MWG||

    Nice argument. Would you mind referring me to what restrictions the founders placed on immigration as opposed to naturalization?

    BTW, as a pretty open boarders kind of guy, I'm largely inclined to believe that citizenship is given out too liberally.

  • American||

    "the founders placed on immigration as opposed to naturalization?"
    None, but the founders weren't dealling with millions of socialist immigrants at that time. They knew that should that happen they would need to give the government the power to prevent it. As for your point on citizenship, I would love having laborers whom I could pay shit wages and not let them vote. But I live in the real world, and in the real world that's not possible.

  • MWG||

    "They knew that should that happen they would need to give the government the power to prevent it. "

    and what power is that?

    "As for your point on citizenship, I would love having laborers whom I could pay shit wages..."

    Do you know what the average wage is for immigrants, illegal and otherwise?

    "But I live in the real world, and in the real world that's not possible."

    Is the world you live in one in which the US could conceivably deport 10-15 millions people?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • American||

    The power to prevent immigration.
    "Do you know what the average wage is for immigrants, illegal and otherwise?"
    I know I would not like living on it.
    "Is the world you live in one in which the US could conceivably deport 10-15 millions people?"
    Yes. Making it harder to get a job will lead most immigrants to self-deport. And even if we were to do it the old-fashioned way, it wouldn't be impossible. In 1955 alone 1 million people were deported.

  • MWG||

    "I know I would not like living on it."

    It is above 'shit', but it's nice to know I'm arguing with someone who knows very little about the subject being debated.

    "Yes. Making it harder to get a job will lead most immigrants to self-deport. And even if we were to do it the old-fashioned way, it wouldn't be impossible. In 1955 alone 1 million people were deported."

    For a conservative you're not very 'limited governmenty'. I personally don't think it's any of your damn business who I hire and associate with, but I guess that makes me an anarchist.

  • MWG||

    "So, a nation is not permitted to determine who enters it?"

    Not according to the founders.

    "Looks to me like immigration is one of the specific duties the government does get assigned."

    Not really. The passage you quoted was referring to naturalization, not immigration. They're two separate issues.

  • TJSwift||

    So, it depends on the meaning of "is"...my God, you people are kith and kin to Leftists, and Anarchists and not even sharp enough to realize it.

  • MWG||

    Hey moron, the Constitution clearly gave the government power over naturalization. It did no such thing in terms of immigration, no matter how much you wish it did.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if immigration was left to the states, you support SB 1070 in Arizona?

  • MWG||

    Not anymore than I would have supported Jim Crow.

    The flip side of your argument is that because you believe the "law is the law" you clearly would have supported informing the fugitive slave act or Jim Crow, but keep reaching Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Jim Crow was unconstitutional, and arguably the FSA as well.

    but if you resist an unjust law, expect to pay the penalty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Fugitive Slave Act was based on Art. IV, Sec. 2

    No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The fifth amendment overruled that clause.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The fifth amendment overruled that clause.

    Millions of Southerners disagreed!

    Jus' sayin'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The FSA wasn't enforced in southern states, so that's their problem.

  • Lewisite||

    "Millions of Southerners disagreed!"

    The resulting civil war was hell on states’ rights + individual property rights movements, and probably the third amendment aficionados too, but I suspect 99.9999% of the Libertarians (I, myself included) are probably okay with that. The resulting questions, answered after that (naturalizing freed slaves/birthright ==14th amendment?)I would assume laid the groundwork for mass naturalizing of 'illegal' immigrants legally?

    This is asked in the form of a question, because I'm unsure, and curious.

  • MWG||

    "Jim Crow was unconstitutional..."

    So until it was deemed unconstitutional by the magic men in black, you would have supported enforcing it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, I would have resisted, and accepted punishment for doing so. Just like the real civil rights movement did, back before their descendants became the outrage industry.

  • T o n y||

    Just put Republicans back in charge and let them cause another depression if you don't want more immigrants. Immigration is all about labor demand. For the past few years that means illegal immigration has mostly been a problem only in the fevered idiotic minds of fat white people with radio shows and a heavy dose of racial paranoia.

    Proposed legislation is meant to fix the problem that it is extremely difficult to move here and become a citizen legally. If you're incentivized to risk your life to cross a heavy armed border, then it means either where you're coming from is really a shithole or where you're going is going to offer you a job. This debate is entirely too disgustingly emotional. "Immigrants bring disease?" Can't be any worse than pandemic diabetes.

  • XM||

    I didn't realize that the government pushed immigration policies in response to labor demands. Could it be that most illegal aliens come here first, and then adapt to (crap) jobs that best suit their needs?

    I don't know what kind of illegal immigrants you hang out with, but their life ain't so sweet. Many illegals in the CA are hired by other minorities, who pay them cash (no tax) without any health benefits and chances of advancement. Bartering occasionally happens. It's a well known fact that these businesses break all kinds of labor and safety regulations.

    I dare say that your typical illegal alien has never worked in a field or factory. Most of them do the kind of "busboy" jobs that was once reserved for high school kids.

    There's no reason why leftists shouldn't be against illegal labor. The employers benefits from their willingness to forego their rights and obligations. It's the flexibility, more than the cost, of illegal labor that appeals to businesses.

  • American||

    Illegal immingration going down != illegal immigration not being a problem.

  • ||

    Just put Republicans back in charge and let them cause another depression

    Great Depression -- thanks, FDR!

    Great Recession -- thanks, Obama!

    Typing is no substitute for thinking (or Googling), Tony.

  • ||

    fat white people with radio shows and a heavy dose of racial paranoia.

    Ed Schultz?

    "Immigrants bring disease?" Can't be any worse than pandemic diabetes.

    Yep. Diabetes is catching just like drug-resistant tuberculosis. All disease is the same you know.

    Jesus fucking Christ

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Tribalist morons, get your hatez on.

  • BMFPitt||

    Next, forget about amnesty. Amnesty implies forgiveness for wrongdoing. But there is nothing wrong in breaking a decree that violates natural law and natural rights. No such product of a legislature even deserves to be called law.

    That's an argument for why such laws shouldn't exist. They do exist. So the (partial) remedy to that is amnesty.

    But as long as I'm here, anyone else ever make a nationalist's head explode by replying to, "I'm not against immigration, I'm against illegal immigration" with "So then why do you want immigration to be illegal?"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "I'm not against surgery, I'm against unlicensed surgery."

    So why do you want surgery to be unlicensed?

  • KPres||

    Uh, aren't libertarians usually against medical licensing?

  • BMFPitt||

    You fail at analogies.

  • ||

    You mean, "so why do you want to make it impossible to get a license?"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Very few conservatives want to make it impossible to legally immigrate.

    One who does is Virgil Goode, whose ass Reason was blowing smoke up at one point because he was running third party, which was a truly hilarious spectacle.

  • BMFPitt||

    So quotas are fine as long as they're above zero?

  • ||

    No, they want to pretend it's possible to legally immigrate, while making the rules complex and burdensome enough and setting the quotas so low that it might as well be impossible.

  • dj kumquat||

    the immigration problem is compounded because we have a welfare state and entitlement problem. if we don't fix spending, but allow for amnesty, we will become a socialist nation even quicker. and any deal making regarding amnesty had better include reforms to protect against voter fraud.

  • ||

    "Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016," Krauthammer writes. "It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote."

    Dunno if he'd WIN it, but he'd do a lot better than Romney, which is all that is needed to flip some swing states. Think Rubio versus Biden, hammering Biden on Obama's record deportations of latinos, plus the fact that quite a few people vote based on race.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That policy would lose votes too, so it's not a simple matter of adding more Hispanic votes.

  • ||

    See below. Setting immigration policy based on whether it is good for the GOP is a terrible idea. Just imagine what would happen to any candidate, R or D, who explicitly said that was the basis for their immigration policy -- "because it's good for TEAM (insert color here).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You were talking about campaigning on policy, not setting policy. Obviously parties choose policies based on how those policies help the party get votes.

  • ||

    Obviously some parties choose policies based on how those policies help the party get votes.

    FIFY.

    Instead of, oh I don't know, having a consistent set of principles.

    Yeah, yeah, for TEAM BE RULED winning elections is preferable to actually advancing policies that result in more freedom.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Dude seriously? We're talking about what should be done to "do better" than Romney did. Don't give me lip about principles, we're not talking about those.

    And Rubio is in many ways far worse for libertarian principles than Romney anyway.

  • ||

    That policy would lose votes too

    Winning 45 or 48% of latino votes is "losing votes" compared to getting 27% of latino votes?

    Math fail.

  • Cut out the crap||

    Doubtful. Rubio is Cuban, not Mexican. Cubans and Mexicans have little use for each other, and the Republicans already have the Cuban vote. It's doubtful he would make them any headway among any other Hispanic group.

  • ||

    Maybe you missed it, but Pedro just overwhelmingly voted to retain the biggest Socialist we've had for a President since FDR...and he used the money you paid him (sans all the taxes that fund the entitlements he uses), to do it.

    So you'd be willing to deny entry to the country to any member of any ethnic group that collectively voted for FDR?

    If Rubio ran for President and got 50.1% of the latino vote, then would you agree to let any and every latino that wants to immigrate into the country, because if it's good for the GOP, it must be good for the country?

    Really?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I think his point is that it's both illegal and pragmatically bad for liberty.

  • MWG||

    Yes, if only they'd vote republican, right Tulpa?

  • Lewisite||

    "Yes, if only they'd vote republican, right Tulpa?"

    If they are 'illegal', they shouldn't be voting at all.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's a reason the Dems hate voter ID laws.

  • ||

    In all fairness Mr.Richman,you could have mentioned that it's some on the right who oppose this view.They are the paleocon/paleolib,here represented by one of them:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/.....white-vote

    and here the subject is also more substantially argumented.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Contrary to what beltway cosmopolitans believe, Hispanics already here could care less about immigration (quite a few just came to America to funnel money south). Look at Latin America....do you see any Free Market nations? Nope. Latinos are unfortunately becoming another shoe-in voting bloc for the Democrats, and the Republicans are utter fools if they think giving amnesty to millions of potential big-government voters will help them electorally.

    Its always an excuse with the GOP not to appeal to us Libertarians...always some other "bloc" or "minority" that needs appeasing and compromising with before us.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's generally a good idea not to cave in to terrorists, kidnappers, blackmailers, or voting blocs.

  • Calidissident||

    "Look at Latin America....do you see any Free Market nations?"

    And you do in Europe? Or even America? If you're speaking relatively, Chile is actually ahead of the US in CATO's rankings, and Peru is only six spots behind. And there are several other Latin American countries that are comparable or more free than a good number of European countries. They've made great strides in recent years

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Mexico? Guatemala? Hispaniola? You know....the places that the majority of illegals and latinos have immigrated from? 70%+ Democratic this last election?

  • Calidissident||

    And "Whoosh!" go the goalposts

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Got some fine Colorado Herbs and Spices, yet? No goalposts were moved an inch.

  • Calidissident||

    You asked if there were any free market countries in Latin America. And then suddenly it switched to "are any of the countries that the majority of immigrants who come to the US from Latin America" free market. That is called shifting the goal posts

  • American||

    Chile is also very heavily populated by white northern European immigrants. Europe has its own reasons for being socialist. For some reason, white Americans are the last population of libertarians on this planet. I think we should preserve this.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, most white Americans are certainly not libertarian. But on a per person basis, that is probably the truth.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For some reason, white Americans are the last population of libertarians on this planet.

    You would be wrong, it's just that in many countries you risk your life talking about liberty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    [evidence not found at link given]

  • Calidissident||

    "Chile is also very heavily populated by white northern European immigrants"

    Not really. There was some immigration from Northern Europe, Spanish is by far the largest European ethnic group. Germans are the largest Northern European group, at only 3.5% of the population. After Spanish, indigenous descent is the second largest ancestral group (the number of culturally indigenous people isn't that high, but the vast majority of the population is mestizo). And looking at Latin America, there's no evidence that there's some genetic link between freedom and and racial ancestry. Argentina and Uruguay are whiter than Chile and have less economic freedom (Argentina is notorious for their economic populism). Peru is the second-most indigenous country in Latin America and ranks second in the region in CATO's rankings. Cuba is communist, and while they have a large black population, their ruling class is white.

    "Europe has its own reasons for being socialist."

    So it's genetic in the case of Latin America (despite the fact that "Latino" isn't a race, and that there's a large variance in racial demographics among the different countries) but "for its own reasons" in the case of Europe?

    Since when are white Americans libertarian? A majority of libertarians are white, but is it that different than the general population? As libertarians are such a small part of the white population to begin with it seems kinda stupid to quibble over such small differences in percentage

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Bill Dalasio's Immigration Reform

    1. Make U.S. Immigration a formality for anyone with no criminal record. If you want to become an American, you're welcome.
    2. Initiation of harsh penalties against future law breakers. If you want to come here and bother us, screw you.
    3. An end to all multicultural training. If you want to come to America, SPEAK ENGLISH!!! It's going to improve your earning capacity by orders of magnitude and make your residency here much more pleasant.
    4. End welfare. This would be a good idea Mexicans or no Mexicans. Let's stop a system of coerced free stuff for some at the expense of others.

  • 16th amendment||

    1. Yes, but how long will the process be?
    2. OK.
    3. Disagree.
    4. Very good point. Without the welfare, coming to the US would not be as desirable. And while it is nice to provide welfare (such as EITC, Obamacare, etc), the cost is too much and will devastate the country. What happens when people stop showing up to buy our bonds?

  • American||

    I'll agree if 2, 3, and 4 are done first. Also, in order to prevent Mexicans from undoing 2, 3, and 4, they can't vote.

  • ||

    That's more or less what Gary Johnson's immigration policy summary on his election website read. Not nearly hard line enough for some of the open borders advocates, but something I could support 100%

  • ||

    The Republicans could do a lot to turn around Hispanic voters by calling the Democrats bluff on the Labor Certification process. If the Republicans proposed eliminating the labor certification requirement the unions would come out of the woodwork and the Democrats would be screaming bloody murder about immigrants stealing the jobs of American workers. Which would be VERY REVEALING INDEED.

    The problem Republicans have is that the true Democratic Party intewrest lies in protecting the interests of Big Labor, which run directly contrary to immigration reform. Labor has every interest in keeping immigrants out. The only reason they have been able to appeal to hispanics is because the Republicans have had their xenophobic faction on full display, so the Democrats havn't had to wage a fight on actually immigration party. All they've had to do is NOT be the party that hates foreigners.

    If we actually had a fight over immigration policy and the Democrats Labor interest was threatened they would be screaming "THEy TOOK UR JERBS!" in five seconds flat, and everyone would know where the Democrats real interests lie.

  • ||

    s/party/policy

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unfortunately, they already did that on the outsourcing issue and it turned out to be a winner for them.

  • ||

    Well it won't exactly be a winner when the people who are allegedly stealing the jobs are Hispanics in America instead of Chinese people in China.

  • ||

    Or, to be more explicit, it will be a winner with domestic US labor, but a loser with Hispanics. Which it the whole point. Expose the rift between the Democratic base's interests and those of Hispanic voters.

  • ||

    My immigration reform proposal:

    1. Eliminate the labor certification part of the employer sponsorship. Or just make the employer prove that the immigrant is the most qualified candidate, not that he is the only qualified candidate.

    2. Triple the number of employer-sponsorship visas available per year.

    3. Double the number of family sponsoship visas available per year.

    4. Offer a temporary legal-to-work visa to current illegal aliens who have been in the country more than 10 years without a criminal record. After 10 years, if they have no criminal record and have been paying taxes, give them a green card.

    5. Dream act for immigrants brought to the US before age 14. Temporary legal-to-work visas and Legal residency within 3 years if they get a college degree or serve in the military. Otherwise see #4.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's my immigration proposal:

    We make an offer to Mexico. We tell them we will take three unskilled, hardworking Mexican citizens from them for every American government employee union member they'll take from us.

    And then we clean house!

  • 16th amendment||

    1. Good.

    2. Good. However, the visas available has been cut in recent years if I'm not mistaken, so you might want to ten-fold it.

    3. BS. The encourages the giving away of free stuff. Because Obamacare stands, we're going to be running $2T deficits per year soon.

    4. Good. There should also be a fee steeper than the $695 for people who come through the legal route.

    5. Good, but why this arbitrary number 14?

  • ||

    The reason for 3 is to clear out the crazy backlog of family sponsorship visas. The number of visas available is so low it even takes 2-3 years to get one for your WIFE and CHILDREN.

    To get a visa for a brother or sister it takes 11-14 years.

    So it's not going to encourage anything. It's just going to make the lines shorter and therefore less of an incentive to immigrate illegally.

    The number 14 is just what I'm thinking is roughly "age of consent" territory. And where someone above that age could arguably be just fine if they went back to their home country.

    A major point in favor the dream act is that sending these kids back to their country of origin would be like exiling them to a foreign country. Somepone who left when they were 2 is below the age of consent, and might not even speak the language. Someone who left at 15 probably knew what they were doing and would be capable of surviving if they returned home.
    The 12-14 age group is borderline.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The problem with spousal visas is that they force the govt to be in the business of deciding what constitutes marriage, a situation which IIRC libertarians want to end.

    I'd dump spousal and family visas altogether, and replace them with a guest worker program and a designated-kin* visa program, both with hefty fees and inspection regimes attached to discourage employers from hiring foreigners if Americans are available to do the job, and to discourage fraud in the designated kin program.

    * a contractual relationship with the legal privileges formerly associated with marriage

  • ||

    force the govt to be in the business of deciding what constitutes marriage, a situation which IIRC libertarians want to end.

    Lol. You're adorable. TEH GAYS! MARRIAGE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The problem with spousal visas is that they force the govt to be in the business of deciding what constitutes marriage, a situation which IIRC libertarians want to end.

    I'd dump spousal and family visas altogether, and replace them with a guest worker program and a designated-kin* visa program, both with hefty fees and inspection regimes attached to discourage employers from hiring foreigners if Americans are available to do the job, and to discourage fraud in the designated kin program.

    * a contractual relationship with the legal privileges formerly associated with marriage

  • joey89924||

    We're used to being marginalized.

    http://www.hqew.net/product-da.....Sheet.html

  • American||

    Hey, Tony, you there? I need your help. Could you please explain to these people how advocacy of the free market is racist? You know, how it perpetuates white privilage, it enables racist employers to discriminate, it creates inequality which is responsible for racism. You do it better than me. I'm just so sick of hearing these people repeat your arguements against me when I protest mass immigration of third-world socialists.

  • ||

    Fuck you Mary!

  • SIV||

    542 comments. I think I'll skip this one.

    PBR and Bud rules.
    Over-priced, over-hopped, skunky home-brew drools.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Only if you drink them with a Papa Johns pizza while watching Transformers in your sweatpants.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Though actually, commentary on Corona would have been more appropriate for this thread.

  • Gladstone||

    Aren't all these "Republicans should like Immigration and Gay marriage" articles pretty much concern trolling? Why are libertarians so concerned about Republican electability when that means essentially rejecting anything libertarian and complaining about that? Also Democrats support gay marriage and immigration and they are so libertarian.

  • Calidissident||

    On the other hand, why are people who are supposedly libertarian so opposed to immigration simply because the people immigrating don't vote for Team Red?

  • Gladstone||

    Presumbly because they think that the people are being imported in order to vote for Team Blue? And Team Blue rule has been shown to lead to disaster? Look at California, Chicago, Detroit, D.C.

    On the other hand the natives vote for Team Blue as well.

    I can't help but wonder if libertarian support for open borders will turn out to be just as wrongheaded as the classical liberals' support for public schools and universal suffrage.

    I also find the libertarian triumphalism over 2012 rather mystifying since the US is more likely to end up like Greece and usually this does not lead to some libertarian revolution.

  • Calidissident||

    "Presumbly because they think that the people are being imported in order to vote for Team Blue? And Team Blue rule has been shown to lead to disaster? Look at California, Chicago, Detroit, D.C."

    You make my point. Team Red is right with Team Blue leading the country to disaster. 99% of all voters, of all races, ethnicities, religions, place of birth, etc. are the problem, not just the 51% that vote Democrat

  • ||

    On the other hand, why are people who are supposedly libertarian so opposed to immigration simply because the people immigrating don't vote for Team Red?

    This.

    If you have any principles, immigration should be treated as an exercise of personal freedom, and libertarians should focus on crafting a humane immigration policy that lets individuals exercise that freedom.

    Getting caught up in the quest to acquire and keep power is a game for statists, not for people who believe in freedom. You don't stomp on people's personal liberty just because you think their freedom means less political power for you.

    And stomping on people's personal freedom in order to acquire power, because you think in some way that having more power is going to allow you to preserve liberty, is a terrible way to sell the virtues of liberty.

  • Cut out the crap||

    And stomping on people's personal freedom in order to acquire power, because you think in some way that having more power is going to allow you to preserve liberty, is a terrible way to sell the virtues of liberty.

    Using it as a rationale for giving away a people's country from under their feet doesn't exactly sell them on it, either. I'll give you three guesses which one is losing more sales.

  • nathanyoung||

    Sheldon,

    What would you say about those immigrants wanting to vote & have the same constitutional rights as people born in America? Would you implement laws (federal or state) such as showing an ID in order to vote in a national election? Would they be free from federal law, but held accountable to state & local law?

  • nikea||

    Today, Columbus boasts more than 70 buildings http://www.drdrebeatsbydreau.com/ designed by internationally celebrated architects like I.M. Pei, Eliel Saarinen, Eero Saarinen, Richard Meier and http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ Harry Weese.

  • Chuckie||

    We, as American have to accept the reality that the founding fathers did not intend for one demographic to remain dominant. The certainly knew that someday, our country's politicians would appeal to the demographic that they needed to get them elected.

    As it stands now, Mexico has a greater influence over policy making than does a farmer in Texas.

    As it should be. We have no claim on anything. Our door is open to everyone, including Chinese who dump their grandparents here for medical care, to Muslims who believe in polygamy and honor killing.

    We are not exceptional. We are a product of our geography.

    I'm glad I'm old and not you.

  • nikea||

    Forty-one percent of Johnson voters self-identify as http://www.cheapfootballcleatsairs.com/ libertarian. Only 14 percent self-identify as conservative and 10 percent self-identify as liberal. Using the Reason-Rupe ideological typology, 65 percent of Johnson voters are libertarian, the remainder is liberal or http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ conservative, and none are communitarian.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement