More Than 17 Minutemen Agree

I usually delete most of my daily barrage of e-mails from the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (unless they make mention of my absolute favorite restrictionist-rocker, Luca Zanna), but the one that came last night struck me as having potential interest:

PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL CONCERNED AMERICANS

Ron Paul asked to meet with a few of us local leaders while he was in Las Vegas yesterday so we drove out and met him at a restaurant where he was receiving the endorsement of March for America, a nationwide anti-illegal immigration group based in Seattle.  He gave a great 40 minute speech and Q&A about how we are going to save our nation and end illegal immigration.  Very inspiring.  The man is brilliant and only cares about the country and the people!

Article in today's Las Vegas paper: [Link]

After the press conference we had a private meeting with him for about 25 minutes to discuss our concerns about illegal immigration.  Here's a summary of our meeting:

Ron Paul is 100% with the American people on ENDING illegal immigration, period. He knows our country is in deep trouble until we secure our borders and end the programs that draw illegals here in the first place.

You can check out his entire immigration platform and plan at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ .  Its as solid as you will find anywhere.

Specifically, he is committed to attacking every aspect of illegal immigration so we can end it once and for all.  He believes our economy is crumbling under the weight of 20 million plus mostly poor illegals.

- He will especially focus on finishing the 854 mile Hunter fence approved by Congress and securing the rest of the border with a logical combination of fencing, technology, and thousands more border agents to guard our borders and ports.

- Ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens one of two ways:  by clarifying the 14th amendment to make it clear that illegals are not covered by it or by new legislation to change it. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES!!!! [...]

- Ending all social services for illegal aliens.  No more welfare, food stamps, etc.   Take away the financial incentives that make it so enticing for poor illegals to come and stay here.

- NO AMNESTY OF ANY KIND.  They need to gradually all go home and apply to come back legally if they want.  Take away all the incentives and they will self- deport!

- I asked him for clarification on employer enforcement since he came across a little weak on that in a couple interviews.  He is absolutely 100% for enforcement of our current laws against employers hiring illegals and would increase enforcement.  He just wants to make sure the system employers use is solid and will help them determine their employees legal status.

I was sold by his plan, his committment to our nation and constitution, and his passion, and we left believing this man is the only candidate truly running for the PEOPLE.  He is head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates (in our opinions). He has my vote, support, and personal endorsement.

On a side note, we asked him which candidate is most like himself and he said, hands down, Duncan Hunter. [...]

Over 17 Minutemen and anti-illegal immigration groups have recently endorsed Ron Paul for President!   See attached list.  Compare that to the other candidates and its a complete landslide.  Paul has overwhelming support from the Patriot community. 

I had speculated before that Paul might be the restrictionists' last best hope; maybe there's at least mild traction this year in close-the-border presidential politics after all. As an interesting side note, Paul was very pro-immigration in the mid-1980s. 

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.

  • ||

    *Jumps the fuck off the train*

  • somebody||

    Again, why do people keep using "illegal immigration" and "immigration" interchangeably? Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

  • ||

    Ron Paul is a better politician than I ever gave him credit for. He can pander with the best of them.

  • ||

    somebody,

    I think Matt meant Ron Paul was pro-open-borders in the 80s (in line with the stance of the LP). He's also explained why he changed his stance on that issue.

  • ||

    Again, why do people keep using "illegal immigration" and "immigration" interchangeably? Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?



    Is it possible to be pro-drug but anti illegal drug?

  • Franklin Harris||

    Ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens one of two ways: by clarifying the 14th amendment to make it clear that illegals are not covered by it or by new legislation to change it. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES!!!! [...]



    Unlike other pro-immigration libertarians, I could actually support this if it were implemented along with a program of liberalizing immigration in just about every other respect. Have a guest-worker program and make it easier for people already to have a path to citizenship if they want it. But I suspect a lot of current illegal immigrants would rather be guest workers with rights than become U.S. citizens, and in that case, I don't think their children should get birthright citizenship.

    But, of course, the restrictionists would never go for that plan, anyway.

  • ||

    Snide comment and World Nut Daily link from Lonewacko in three, two, one...

  • ||

    BTW: I had to laugh today listening to some lameass journeyman talk host on XM radio who was ranting about the immigration issue, despite the fact that, as he himself admitted, the issue is pretty much dead as compared to a year ago.

    Not that that stopped him: "As far as I'm concerned, it even a bigger issue than last year..."

    In other words, screw what the listeners wanna talk about...this is what they should care about...

    And people wonder why talk radio listenership is on the wane...

  • Syd||

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    Paul supports the constitution except when it suits his political purposes to ignore it.

  • Fun DaMental||

    He's obviously pro-immigration, as he mentions that he will be glad to accept plenty of new foreign nationals as legal immigrants.

  • etc||

    Ron Paul is called weak on "employer enforcement" because he's against the REAL ID card do-not-work list.

  • ||

    Syd,

    He wants to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship. As long as you get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, you can ignore any part* of the constitution to your heart's content.

    * except equal numbers of Senators for each state.

  • ||

    Hey Matt, he usually talks about how if our economy was in good shape the illegals would be welcome and so on... maybe a bit of pandering there depending on the audience, but nothing like the 'deport them all' rhetoric of the others.
    Syd- I've heard him say that we 'misinterpret' the birthright amendment, but I've not heard him explain how interpret it incorrectly

  • george mason||

    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    Foreign nationals in the country with no authorization are not subject to the jurisdiction, they're outlaws. Freed slaves *were* subject to US jurisdiction because, as we all know, slavery was in the original Constitution

  • ||

    Is it possible to be pro-drug but anti illegal drug?

    is it possible to be pro-driver but anti-illegal driver? Yes. You can support the ability of people to drive in general, but acknowledge that the state has legitimate interest in controlling who can drive. Likewise with immigration.

  • ||

    george mason,

    The parents might be outlaws, but that hardly means they're not subject to US jurisdiction -- illegal aliens CAN be prosecuted for violating other laws while they're here.

    And a newborn child is definitely not an outlaw.

    I suspect the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is meant to exclude people who were born here but have removed themselves from US jurisdiction by settling permanently outside US territory.

  • Rick H.||

    He believes our economy is crumbling under the weight of 20 million plus mostly poor illegals.

    Oh, so he's totally delusional. Got it.

    Spin it however you want... Motherfucker's just lost my vote.

  • etc||

    keep in mind these are not direct quotes

  • etc||

    But, of course, the restrictionists would never go for that plan, anyway.

    .. but Ron Paul likely would, if he were around long enough

  • Justin Raimondo||

    Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt? Because you truly do suck. I hope you get the Marty Peretz Award for Backstabbing -- and maybe your fatcat Republican neocon donors will give you an illegal alien live-in slave to play with.

  • ||

    Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

    It's possible. Indeed, if all immigration quotas and visa expirations were eliminated, then I would be pro-immigration but anti-illegal immigration.

    But, as of today, the set of people who are anti-illegal immigration and the set of people who do not want to legalize any significant number of new immigrants are so close to equal that it makes sense to simply say anti-immigrant to mean both.

    Are you an exception?

  • thoreau||

    As an interesting side note, Paul was very pro-immigration in the mid-1980s.

    Are you sure those pro-immigration statements weren't ghost-written by some guy named Luis Roquel?

  • ||

    is it possible to be pro-driver but anti-illegal driver? Yes. You can support the ability of people to drive in general, but acknowledge that the state has legitimate interest in controlling who can drive. Likewise with immigration.

    So, if I understand your analogy correctly, restricting who can get driver's licenses by quota based on some arbitrary condition of their birth would be "pro-driver".

    Only letting a driver have a license for 2 years, then revoking it for 1 year, then letting them have it again for 2 years, then revoking it for 1 year, then letting them have it for a final 2 years before revoking it forever would be "pro-driver".

    Of course, highly skilled employed drivers can have a license for a solid 6 years, during which, if their employer participates in an expensive and arduous process, they can get a green driver's license that finally allows them permanent driving privileges.

    How much more "pro-driver" can one be?

  • ||

    MikeP,

    No, I do not think driving is the same thing as immigration. It's an analogy, not an equivalence. It's supposed to demonstrate that one can support something without supporting it happening in an uncontrolled fashion (which is what illegal immigration is).

  • ||

    Oh, joy! Maybe tomorrow we can have a Raimondo vs. Dondero cage match.

  • bachwards||

    Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt? Because you truly do suck. I hope you get the Marty Peretz Award for Backstabbing -- and maybe your fatcat Republican neocon donors will give you an illegal alien live-in slave to play with.

    Thought-provoking, to say the least.

  • Ventifact||

    I can't tell if it's a joke or not, but a bit of syntax parallelism seems to have gone unnoticed. It's not 17 Minutemen agreeing, it's 17 Minutemen groups agreeing, as in 17 Minutemen and anti-illegal immigration groups.

  • Women of America||

    17 Minutemen

    17 minutes is pretty good. Those guys are doing the jobs that most American men won't do.

    17 times the job that most American men could do, to be precise.

  • ||

    crimethink,

    But the state has gone way beyond any legitimate interest in controlling immigration while it does a fair enough job in executing on its legitimate interest in controlling driving. I think the analogy is a bit off the mark. Most illegal immigrants have done nothing wrong but be on the wrong side of a quota. Most illegal drivers -- excepting the illegal immigrants among them -- have done something worse.

    But if you are discussing some future time -- or, indeed, past time -- when illegal immigrants actually were illegal for a legitimate reason, then I agree.

  • ||

    By the way, crimethink...

    Did you invent the word 'cosmotarian'? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • ||

    American should strive to enforce all present law

    Food For Thought A LINE IN THE SAND

    SENATOR MC CAULS TEXAS WEBSITE

  • NP||

    - He will especially focus on finishing the 854 mile Hunter fence approved by Congress and securing the rest of the border with a logical combination of fencing, technology, and thousands more border agents to guard our borders and ports. [...]

    - I asked him for clarification on employer enforcement since he came across a little weak on that in a couple interviews. He is absolutely 100% for enforcement of our current laws against employers hiring illegals and would increase enforcement. He just wants to make sure the system employers use is solid and will help them determine their employees legal status.



    Huh? Are you sure about this? John Stossel did an interview with Paul not too long ago where he says he's not for punishing anyone who wants to help illegal immigrants voluntarily, and he goes so far as to call the border fence "offensive." (To be fair, Paul was discussing individual volunteers rather than employers per se, so he might have a different stance on the latter.)

    Oh, and Justin Raimondo is just as highly nuanced in his ad hominem wails as in his antiwar fusillades.

  • Kolohe||

    I agree with Cesar. This is, in fact, why I got back on the station platform: when he started pushing this stuff in his NH ads. And this was before I even heard about certain 'periodicals,' - which, as an aside wouldn't have bothered me, except for the fact that the rhetoric and premises (and demagogic fear-mongering) are pretty much exactly the same in both.

  • ||

    "Nuanced" doesn't work with the Smear Bund.

    Oh, and by the way:

    http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

  • freenation2025||

    well well well... the bickering continues apace. You know, I am sick and tired of so-called libertarian "purists" whose orthodoxy is slowly but surely driving people away from our movement.
    I guess the eggheads in the libertarian community feel it is necessary to keep the Promethean fire to themselves... as with most problems in life , one must ask this time-tested and true question: is the cure worse than the sickness? In other words...for Christ's sake, let up on RP already!

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    But -- but -- then they wouldn't have anything to do anymore.

    Besides, how can you possibly tolerate a heretic? Burn him! Burn him! Burn him!


    If anyone here believes that Ron Paul is the only one running for president that has slipped up in the past, they're an idiot. None is pure enough for the job.

    And if people around here can look at Ron Paul, compare him to the other trash that's running for office, and then honestly say one of the others is better (McCain? Hillary? etc), then I'll have pretty well lost faith in the whole f'ing "libertarian" movement.

    The turn-about on Ron Paul around here has given me severe whip lash.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    To all the "libertarians" here that have bashed "Randroids" -- go take a really long, hard look in the mirror.

  • bachwards||

    It's amusing to watch the Mises crowd whine about being attacked by Cato and Reason. The paleolibertarians have been arguing that we should cast out the objectivists and Cato people for the past 10 years, engaging in purity pissing contests and slinging mud at anyone who was not sufficiently reverent towards Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe. Now, that the Reason crowd has actually gone on the offensive (rather than simply ignoring what was coming out of Auburn), it is suddenly unfair to criticize fellow libertarians.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    It's amusing that the whole libertarian "thing" has criticized itself into oblivion.

  • Ventifact||

    It's an interesting question and a particularly good time to reflect on it: is libertarianism fringe because most people don't like it as a philosophy, or because it is not very tenable in practical terms to get people to unite behind it?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    The libertarian economists have made the case: we cannot afford to have a welfare state and open borders too.

    Fact: we have a welfare state.

    Fact: most of the people who post here don't give a shit. They want open borders too.

    "It's not my fault we've got a welfare state" doesn't change the way it is.

    Given the facts, it cannot rationally be argued that on the immigration issue, Ron Paul is any further from The Tree of Truth and Purity than anybody else around here.

    But it could be argued that he is being more consistent. He isn't saying we can have our cake and eat it too.

    Even though many around would really really like to try.....

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Ventifact -- probably both.

  • Franklin Harris||

    It's amusing to watch the Mises crowd whine about being attacked by Cato and Reason. The paleolibertarians have been arguing that we should cast out the objectivists and Cato people for the past 10 years,...



    Just a matter of history, but this has been going on a lot longer than that (it predates the existence of the Mises Institute), and it's a wee but simplistic to say the Mises folks started it. It goes back at least 25 years to Murray Rothbard and Ed Crane, two of the strongest personalities in the libertarian movement, fighting over the direction of the Libertarian Party. It fact, it's probably too simplistic to say either side "started it," but I wasn't there. And the end result, in any case, has been the decline and increasing irrelevance of the LP. Unfortunately, the whole thing is playing out again, and this time it seems to want to take the whole movement down with it.

    Do I think there is a conspiracy to sink Ron Paul? No. Do I think some people would love to take down Lew Rockwell (and possibly use Ron Paul to get to him)? Yes. The newsletter story itself manages to be embarrassing, disturbing, and yet overblown all at the same time. It's been written about and blogged about far too much given that little of that effort has, in journalistic terms, moved the story forward. At the same time, the responses of the Paul campaign and of most of Paul's supporters have been weak, at best.

    There is an opportunity for libertarians to reach out to Ron Paul's non-movement supporters and bring them into the fold once the campaign is over, but obviously we'd much rather just piss it away, re-fighting the same old intra-movement battles that we've been fighting for years.

    And let me add, I'm as guilty of that shit as the next libertarian. And, sometimes, when the issue is a big one, like the Iraq War, it's an internal fight you have to have. But this has little to do with issues and a lot to do with old grudges.

    Frankly, I'm pretty pissed off with everyone right now, and, worse, I'm starting not to care.

  • ||

    The libertarian economists have made the case: we cannot afford to have a welfare state and open borders too.

    "The" libertarian economists?

    Some libertarian economists have actually made the case that open borders are the best way to destroy the welfare state.

    There is no question that a firewall needs to be built between immigration and welfare so that the latter does not become an incentive for the former. But most of that work was done in the 1996 welfare reforms. The most important repair remaining is to make citizen children of immigrants eligible for welfare on their parents' schedule, not on a long-time citizen's schedule.

    Welfare for immigrants is simply too trivial an issue and too easy to fix to use as an excuse for abrogating the freedom of movement and labor of tens of millions of individuals and the freedom of association and contract of hundreds of millions of citizens.

  • ||

    MikeP,

    There are other alternatives to the status quo not requiring open borders. We should absolutely streamline the byzantine visa/green card system currently in place, and probably increase the quotas of people allowed to come in from Mexico. A guest worker program is a good idea too, since it would allow Mexicans to enter the US legally to work during the growing season, then return to Mexico for the rest of the year (which I suspect most of them would rather do if it didn't jeopardize getting back into the US).

    A democratic govt has an interest in making sure people coming in from less democratic countries come in at a rate slow enough for assimilation to be possible. For instance, I really wouldn't want to see a US state become 60% Kenyan overnight, and deal with the typical third-world response to losing an election that we're currently seeing in Kenya, would you?

  • ||

    I think I did make up that word on the fly, but I'm sure somebody had done it before me. It's just too tempting not to do!

    The only earlier references I can find are this list of expired domain names from July and August, 2007, and a paper with a citation for the "Cosmotarian Science Institute" 1946 publication titled "The Miracle of Milk".

    Is there any money in this?

  • ||

    There are other alternatives to the status quo not requiring open borders.

    Indeed, I would support any unequivocal or nearly unequivocal step toward freer migration.

    But I would say that libertarians who support immigration restrictions should start with the presumption of open borders and then pragmatically back away from that position for whatever reasons they might argue are required.

    Starting with the statist, anti-individualist policy of the US today and tweaking it to be more efficient and maybe meet a little more of the demand, thank you very much, is not how libertarians generally approach other issues.

    I really wouldn't want to see a US state become 60% Kenyan overnight, and deal with the typical third-world response to losing an election that we're currently seeing in Kenya, would you?

    No. I wouldn't. But then, I wouldn't hand them citizenship overnight either.

  • ||

    That said, I think Ron Paul's interpretation of the citizenship criteria in the 14th amendment is pretty wacky. I really doubt that Congress or the states were concerned about excessive immigration when they were trying to populate the western states with as many non-Indians as possible. To say that people who illegally cross the border are not subject to US jurisdiction is pretty bizarre, let alone that a newborn child born here is not subject to US jurisdiction. That would mean if an illegal alien murders someone inside US territory, they couldn't be prosecuted!

    So, it would require an amendment, as Dr Paul admits may be the case.

  • bachwards||

    Franklin Harris,

    I understand that the divide has been around for a lot longer than 10 years and that there is some ambiguity about its origins, but from my perspective, for most of the past decade up until last week, the invectives and pettiness were mainly coming from only one of the camps. I have little doubt that some may like to go after Rockwell/Mises for personal reasons, but I also have no doubt that others simply believe that continuing to tolerate or ignore that segment of libertarianism causes more harm than good.

  • ||

    Is there any money in this?

    You might want to write the Wayne State linguist who asked for hints on the word's origins.

    Maybe there's a nominal prize, with a jackpot if it becomes an OED word of the year within a decade.

  • ||

    I'm sure most white supremacists are proud to be Americans. So, I guess Cesar, Ken Schultz, and thoreau will be emigrating soon.

    If you disagree with Ron Paul's positions, or you think he won't be true to his positions, or you simply don't like him personally, I can completely understand not supporting him.

    I don't get this "I can't support the same person those people support!" nonsense. That's what's kept libertarians in the 0.5% ghetto for 30+ years. Ever heard the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows"?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Our Congressional District here in South Texas has a significant Hispanic population, in some towns it's over 80% Hispanic. Victoria, Port Lavaca, and even Freeport, 10 miles away from where Ron Paul lives in Lake Jackson is heavily Hispanic.

    I cannot imagine this all going over well with District residents and voters.

    What's worse, is Paul is poisoning the well for GOP efforts for future Hispanic outreach, very important for Texas Republicans, in particular.

  • ||

    Hilarious thread at Ron Paul Forums about how Reason and TNR are teaming up to destroy Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Hmm, so if "bad thing X" and "good thing Y" cannot co-exist, and we currently have X... then we must forever give up hope of acquiring Y? And here I was thinking that the solution would be to discard X. Oh, what a fool was I!

  • LP member||

    I used to be an open borders Libertarian and agreed with jacob Hornberger on the issue, but over the past ten years, I've come to realize that being "open borders" is stupid so long as our government keeps offering all sorts of goodies to undocumented immigrants. If it was all about the free movement of people in a free market environment, then fine. I'm all for immigration. But so long as MY tax dollars are being used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants, pay for their health care and God-knows what else, then I say round them up and kick them out.

    I also oppose native born Americans sucking on the government teat. We NEED to end this massive giveaway culture of thought in DC. Once we do, then freedom of movement and free markets will truly be free.

  • ||

    peachy,

    I think the income tax is a bad idea. But I sure as heck don't think it would be a good idea to get rid of the income tax, replace it with nothing, and maintain our current level of spending.

    Sometimes partially implementing a libertarian philosophy is worse than not implementing it at all.

  • ||

    Sorry, LP member. Around here, if you think that people crossing the US/Mexican border should even be subjected to the inconvenience of doing so at an official checkpoint, you're ignorant, racist, and probably a Southern Baptist fundamenatlist who has nightmares about brown people speaking in strange tongues while they rape your daughter.

  • ||

    It's official: Justin Raimondo is nuts.

  • ||

    No doubt that's true, but I fear your equation is not the same as mine. You suggest that if we have two bad things W and Z, then removing only one might exacerbate the other. And that's a perfectly reasonable equation with respect to your example.

    My equation is rather different, however - while removing X is eminently worthwhile in its own right, it also allows us to acquire Y (where, for example X = welfare and Y = freer immigration.)

  • ||

    peachy,

    OK, I get what you mean. But the current piling on Dr Paul is because he opposes open borders, not because he opposes the welfare state...that is, people here are criticizing him for not supporting Y before getting rid of X.

  • DavidS||

    Does anyone know what Ron Paul would do on trade if elected?

    I understand he'd pull the US out of the World Trade Organization. But would he then move to free trade on a unilateral basis?

    If yes, how quickly? If no, what would he do instead?

  • cosmo beltway spam||

    Hates brown people!
    Racist!
    Bible-swilling moonshine-thumping hick!
    Nativist!
    Stormfront!

  • svf||

    I've heard Ron Paul say more than once that the illegal immigrants have unfairly become the "scapegoats" when the real problem is the economy and welfare state that "subsidizes and encourages" immigration. Which is pretty much, you know, true.

    Of course, the Minutemen won't point that out but if they want to vote for him anyway, great.

    -- open borders idealist, Ron Paul realist

  • robc||

    For those who say things like "now he has lost my vote", I have a question. Why did he have it to begin with? As pointed out, his position is clear on his website, didnt you fucking read it? This isnt some brand new thing. Oh, ditto the newsletter stuff.

  • Dave Krueger||

    What exactly is the definition of "Patriot community"?

  • robc||

    Krunk,

    Good call. I think immigrants should be inconvenienced by going thru a check point and Im a southern baptist (no daughters to worry about though).

  • svf||

    welfare state that "subsidizes and encourages" ILLEGAL immigration. Which is pretty much, you know, true.

    need more coffee... or beer.. or something...

  • ||

    Sorry, but what was wrong with that Raimondo article, crimethink? Seemed quite reasonable (heh!) to me.

  • robc||

    MikeP,

    What did you think of the Badnarik immigration plan from 4 years ago?

    If you dont recall it was basically:

    1. Checkpoints for easy access to guess worker permit
    2. Shoot any MFer crossing the border anywhere else

    I personally wanted to add on:
    3. Eliminate the minimum wage

    With those 3 and STRONGLY encouraging current illegals to go home and check in properly, Im fine with any amount of immigration. How fast guest workers can get on a citizenship track is another issue.

  • ||

    I've come to realize that being "open borders" is stupid so long as our government keeps offering all sorts of goodies to undocumented immigrants.

    Um... If the borders were open, then immigrants would not be undocumented: There would be no goodies handed out to undocumented immigrants.

    But so long as MY tax dollars are being used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants, pay for their health care and God-knows what else, then I say round them up and kick them out.

    I like the way you name the only two goodies that immigrants -- documented or undocumented -- get and then imagine there must also be an unenumerable panoply of other welfare benefits too.

  • Matt||

    from the Raimondo link

    >>>>And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a "freewheeling" history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he's too pro-Paul

    Anyone care to comment on this? Matt, Brian, Nick?

  • ||

    John-David,

    Raimondo implies that Reason has been out to get Ron Paul from the start, which is ludicrous, as anyone who had been paying attention to Reason for the past, oh, seven months would know. Or, someone who bothered to look up articles and blog posts in the online archives, or perhaps leaf through the current issue that has Ron Paul's face on the front and a glowingly supportive article inside.

  • ||

    Matt,

    I really, really doubt that's true, but either way, they're not going to comment on it.

  • ||

    robc,

    The government has a compelling public interest to know who is crossing the border and the legitimate authority to exclude entry of an individual for a valid cause, such as his being a terrorist, felon, foreign agent, or carrier of contagion. But that is pretty much where any authority derived from individual rights ends. In particular, quotas are right out.

    I'm not big on shooting anyone crossing anywhere else, but certainly anyone who did not clear an official entry point under such an open policy can be presumed to be a threat to the public weal.

    You don't need to build a fence if you open the gates.

  • ||

    Hmm, it seemed to me that Raimondo was implying that once Ron Paul began to be taken seriously (like, after the successful fund-raising) that Reason knew they had to "take him out" or else risk losing their status as being cool. Something like that. The best way to do that is by smearing Dr. Paul far worse than the rest of the media put together, which seems to be what Reason has been doing lately.

  • ||

    The Paulites have a legitmate complaint on this. When it was cool to be behind Paul, Reason never touched his positions on immigration. Now that it is no longer cool to be for Paul the Reason staff is Shocked!! that Paul is a restrictionist. Paul was a restrictionist all last year when they were shilling for him, why is it so damned important now? What a crock of shit.

  • georgia christgau paraphrase||

    >>>>And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a "freewheeling" history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he's too pro-Paul

    Why? Why is it always Bobby Kennedy,John Lennon and Brian Doherty?
    Why for once couldn't it be Richard Nixon,Paul McCartneys or Jesse Walker?

    to paraphrase the notorious obituary

  • ||

    John-David,

    Good explanation, except it doesn't even remotely fit the facts. The Reason writers celebrated his beating John McCain in cash on hand for the 2nd quarter, his moneybombs on Nov 5 and Dec 16, and oh yeah, they put him on the friggin front cover of their current issue.

  • ||

    And if anything, Reason's change in attitude toward Dr Paul came at a time when he was underperforming, not "becoming more serious". It came on the heels of disappointing showings in Iowa and NH, where the young Paul voters without landlines were supposed to prove all the pollsters wrong.

  • ||

    Would immigrants come here from Mexico if there was no welfare available to them? Some would and they would have to work to live. Some wouldn't and that would be good not only for everyone including the Mexicans who come here to work as the negative stigma of being a Mexican immigrant or guest worker would be lessened and eventually disappear. Hopefully, anyway. Racists, well there's not much we can or should do for you.

  • ||

    crimethink,

    Ok, the fundraising was a bad example, but I only used that to show Dr. Paul was starting to be taken seriously, not that that was the cause for Reason to begin attacking him. You're right, it was after NH and Iowa, that this guy who had been getting press for his fundraising started being looked at once again as nothing more than a fringe candidate, and then Reason decided to jump ship.

  • ||

    Hilarious thread at Ron Paul Forums about how Reason and TNR are teaming up to destroy Ron Paul.

    This is a bit like hearing your mother-in-law just drove over a cliff in your BMW - unfortunately, Paul's campaign is probably toast. But on the bright side, apparently the beltway libs are going down with him....

  • ||

  • dough r t||

    man that would suck if Reason fired like the only true-blue libertarian on staff... why wasn't he made editor-in-chief after gillespie, anyway?

  • ||

    Anyway, it's kind of interesting watching the old libertarian alliance shatter in front of our eyes. That's the real story here.

  • ||

    The Reasonoids are getting desperate. They've been exposed as frauds. Just beltway lackeys. So what do they do, Ron Paul doesn't like illegal immigration. Well neither did Milton Friedman. Thomas Sowell and Friedman's fellow Nobel Laureate don't like it either.

    See how simple that is.

  • dhex||


    Good explanation, except it doesn't even remotely fit the facts. The Reason writers celebrated his beating John McCain in cash on hand for the 2nd quarter, his moneybombs on Nov 5 and Dec 16, and oh yeah, they put him on the friggin front cover of their current issue.


    that was all part of the dastardly beltwaycosmopolibertaritoid conspiracy, dude. they're lulling the opposition into a false sense of complacency before they strike!

    for me the real question is why do so many libertarians have poor self esteem? i.e. they're constantly being assaulted by cool kids (some of whom wear leather jackets!!!) and being laughed at during cocktail parties funded by the neo-con elite - i mean neo-conservative, not neo-confederate, of course.

  • bachwards||

    I thought I heard something about a Raimondo article on Beltway Libertarians. Does anyone happen to have a link?

  • ||

    Gary Becker, Friedman's fellow Nobel Laureate

  • ||

  • Matt Welch||

    Why don't you go back to "Suck" magazine, Matt?

    Because I never worked there?

    And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a "freewheeling" history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he's too pro-Paul

    An utter, laughable, desperate, tragi-comic, paranoid lie.

  • ||

    Do you guys really think that all of the illegals (or even a plurality of them) cross the border for the welfare state?

  • ||

    You must be so proud. I guess they got the newsletters.

    Isn't it possible to be pro-immigration, but anti -illegal immigration?

    Sure. But when you start calling for changing the Constitution to declare vast swathes of United State citizens to be "illegals," you are not pro-immigrant.

  • ||

    Just one question Matt, why didn't Reason ever cover Paul's views on immigration before now? It strikes me as a real cheap shot to go after Paul on immigration now after giving him a free pass all last year. That is bad journalism and worse yet poor integrity.

  • ||

    What are you, kidding? Didn't cover Paul's views on immigration?

    Look in the archives.

  • Rob D.||

    Raimondo again tears through all the stink and writes a wonderful piece.

    I used to cringe when I thought of going to:

    AntiWar.com
    Lewrockwell.com
    Mises.org
    IndependentInstitute.com

    I bought into the whole, if you're a "Reasonite" or "Catoite" that these sites are fringe. Sorry to break it to you people, but when I actually went there and gave these places a shot per se, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

    Do you guys seriously think you're doing any good by trying to marginalize others who don't fit into your style of reporting?

    Thirdpartywatch
    Gordon Unleashed

    There's plenty of other competition out there Reason. Don't act like your shit doesn't stink.

  • ||

  • ||

    "What are you, kidding? Didn't cover Paul's views on immigration?"

    I just ran a search on the site for Ron Paul and immigration and before 2008 and the newsletter scanles, I see articles on immigration and articles on Ron Paul but never the two seem to meet beyond the occasional "I don't agree with him on immigration qualifier". Now, Reason feels the need to link him to the Minute Men and focus on his immigration views, something they were willing ot ignore or minimize before. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but if his immigration views are that bad and worthy of coverage, why did Reason support him in the first place? This strikes me as nothing but CYA on Reason's part. They made the mistake of supporting a guy who has some pretty lousy qualities. Now after the qualities have been revealed they decide to pounce on the numerous things that they ignored or were willing to tolerate before. Sorry, I don't think that is fair.

  • ||

    But when you start calling for changing the Constitution to declare vast swathes of United State citizens to be "illegals," you are not pro-immigrant.

    I wasn't aware that anchor babies comprised vast swaths of the US citizenry. Plus, I don't think Dr Paul wants to revoke the citizenship of people already born to illegal immigrants here in the US, just prevent such births from granting citizenship in the future.

  • Matt Welch||

    Just one question Matt, why didn't Reason ever cover Paul's views on immigration before now?

    From our current cover story:

    Paul does not [at this college rally] mention abortion or immigration-areas where his views are more conventionally conservative and not of great appeal to this age group. He's against abortion and thinks the fetus is a human life deserving of state protection, but he also thinks that like all such crimes against persons, abortion is a matter for states to decide without federal interference. He thinks that border defense is a legitimate function of government, and that government has been doing a bad job of it. He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants. Paul's style of libertarianism includes a populist streak of distrust for foreign forces overwhelming our sovereignty, whether through the United Nations, international trade pacts, immigration, or a feared "North American Union" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.



    From a Brian Doherty piece last summer:



    When it comes to immigration, Paul believes the federal government can legitimately defend the border, and thinks that, in a world of government benefits and minimum wage laws, it is appropriate for government to do so stringently. I strongly disagree with how border defense has been done in practice, as do most libertarians. But as Paul told me, it doesn't mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state.

    Paul's concern with immigration is of a piece with his right-populist strains, an obsession with "sovereignty" that feeds his fevered opposition to international trade pacts and the UN. Combined with his strong emphasis on trash-talking the Federal Reserve and advocating a return to gold, it's the sort of thing that strikes many other libertarians as, if not inherently unlibertarian, sort of cranky and kooky, and that led me to note to The New Republic that many libertarians (though not me) think of Paul as a bit of a yokel.

    And a yokel with some ugly things in his past that no libertarian wants to be linked with. As The New York Times Magazine, among others, reported, Paul's newsletter during his years out of Washington contained some ugly race-baiting comments about the overwhelmingly criminal nature of black males in D.C. Paul says the comments were written by a staffer, but he's refused to say who and hasn't gone through any serious garment-rending and regret about it, though he did disavow them.



    In addition, our website has a handy search function.

  • ||

    Matt,

    How is the first quote anything more than just giving his views? Reason certainly didn't consider not supporting him for them. Why are they so loathsome now. The second quote includes the sentence, "But as Paul told me, it doesn't mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state." To me that says that Reason didn't consider his views on immigration to be beyond the pale or that big of a deal. Now that Paul gets slammed with the newsletters you come out and run a post "More Than 17 Minutemen Agree". I think it is a cheap shot and the kind of cheap shot that Reason ussually reserves for the likes of John McCain and would have never made at Paul before the newsletter scandles came out.

  • Roger||

    While I don't have the smoking gun to decide if the perceived "smear campaign" was coordinated or not, I suspect not personally, Raimondo's genuine effort to read the Kirchick quotes in context is exactly what needed to be said and written about. Too many people seem to be too busy to read the actual literature in question. How irresponsible.

  • ||

    Why is it that Americans are so anti-immigration yet whenever they don't get the person they want elected say they're going to move to Canada?? They think its fine to close the door on Canadians and Mexicans, but think they have a right to come here when things don't go their way. Just another aspect of American Exceptionalism, I guess.

    I'm starting to think that we should consider closing our borders to U.S. immigration in retaliation.

  • ||

    Roger,

    Come seriously on. Ron Paul himself has denounced the views expressed in that newsletter and said they are foreign to his own. This argument that the stuff in the newsletters isn't really that bad isn't going to go anywhere.

  • Roger||

    I bought into the whole, if you're a "Reasonite" or "Catoite" that these sites are fringe. Sorry to break it to you people, but when I actually went there and gave these places a shot per se, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

    I value almost every written piece that comes out of both of the so-called camps, meaning the articles and not the gossip. What is interesting to note is if one goes to events such as the NH Liberty Forum and other conferences like this, the preceived fringe that you speak about overwhelmingly swamps out the token Reason/Objectivist presence if there happens to be one at all.

  • ||

    Kent, did you get The West Wing up there?

    There was a great episode involving some hunters from Montana who accidently wandered across the border, where Mounties attempted to detain them.

    Except the hunters had 12 guage shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, camouflage outfits, and night vision goggles, while the Mounties had 9mm pistols and bright red coats.

    There was a Fish and Game guy who couldn't stop chuckling. That was a good episode.

  • ||

    John,

    The title of the Gillespie post from May that I just linked to was "I [Heart] Ron Paul (except for Immigration and the Gold Standard". Then there was the piece from December where they showed his immigration ad for NH, and it was roundly condemned (even by Justin Raimondo himself.

  • Roger||

    crimethink: I agree, the situation was handled very sloppily in the official sense, one may even infer that the official campaign line is inconsistent at best and a pathetic lie at worst. In my opinion at least, the outrage over quotes taken out of context and propagated in these circles under the presupposition that what the newsletters said in context is morally prepugnant I can't agree with. It's wholly understandable how even in context some "sensitive" types might react and make a big deal about them; "those types" always do react this way.

  • Matt Welch||

    How is the first quote anything more than just giving his views?

    One of the things we do at this magazine is explain and explore people's views, without necessarily issuing a scorecard every time on the spot.

    Reason certainly didn't consider not supporting him for them.

    We don't institutionally support any candidate. We (hopefully) write about stuff of interest to our audience. Ron Paul was, is, and will continue to be of interest to our audience. Different staffers like and dislike different politicians, and we usually poll our writers & editors about who they plan on voting for before an election.

    Why are they so loathsome now. ... Now that Paul gets slammed with the newsletters you come out and run a post "More Than 17 Minutemen Agree". I think it is a cheap shot and the kind of cheap shot

    What's interesting is that you're taking a post that is 90% an excerpt of someone else's writing -- an excerpt that, again, is of presumed interest to our audience -- and from there making the extrapolation that I'm calling his views "loathesome." Not my style, really; what interested me in particular about this excerpt is that it contained news value of Paul seeking out support of a community I happen to know a little about.

    How is it a "cheap shot" to point out the (unknown to me) fact that Paul is actively courting Minutemen-style groups? It's just a fact, and there are plenty of people who are interested in that fact, whether they agree with Minutemen-style groups or disagree.

  • ||

    psst, Matt...it would be easier to just blame everything from before on Nick Gillespie!

  • ||

    Matt,

    It is not surprising that Ron Paul spoke to minutemen groups given his views and the fact that there is a Caucus or Primary or some such in Nevada coming up. I am sure he speaks to a lot of groups and I would bet this is not the first time he has talked to Minutemen or lord knows who else. I don't see it as particularly news worthy that he did. What was the point of putting it up except to imply that Paul is a nutcase who talks to nutcase groups like the Minutemen? Further, I doubt that it would have been posted had it happened in say November. We will never know but I doubt it.

  • Matt Welch||

    John -- So I'm getting this straight, we're not supposed point out any fact that may be construed as linking Paul to nutcase groups?

    You're right that this would not have been posted in November, because back then the CCIR wasn't sending out e-mails about how awesome Ron Paul was. They were more focused then on Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Lou Dobbs (or, negatively, on John McCain and Mike Huckabee). I find the shift of their enthusiasm, and Paul's courting of it, to be an interesting new development worth a mention.

  • ||

    Why on earth would a so called libertarian magazine be opposed to Free Market Money?? Letting consumers decide what money they want to use. It is the money of the constitution

    "No state shall . . . coin money, . . . or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts . . ." (Article I, section 10).

  • ||

    What's so nutty about wanting to enforce our borders?? We are a country last time I looked

  • ||

    How dare you slander Ron Paul by pointing out that he's gained the support of people whose ideas are completely decent and reasonable?

    Have I got that about right?

  • ||

    Why on earth would a so called libertarian magazine be opposed to Free Market Money??

    Do you have a cite of an article that takes a position against free money?

    I don't know about the writers, but whenever the topic comes up, it appears the majority of commenters here are pro-free money.

    You may be misconstruing the fact that most think there are many more important libertarian issues than getting rid of the Fed as ardent support for the Fed.

    What's so nutty about wanting to enforce our borders??

    There's nothing nutty about wanting to enforce national borders. What's nutty -- or, at least, not particularly libertarian -- is wanting to prevent harmless people from crossing those borders.

  • exLibertarian||

    Joined the party in the 70s - left in the 90s; got tired of all the childish whinners.. "If the candidate isn't "Perfect", we don't want him." Although I still have libertarian leanings, I began to see many of the Libertarian views as extremely selfish and foolish.

    I'm not a Minuteman member, but I know quite a few. Those who don't know the MM groups always tend to lump them together; that's ignorance showing. MM groups are more diverse than most people realize.

    Living on the border in AZ, I am directly impacted by what's been going on. Most of the Open Borders proponents have little insight and understanding of the problems we who live here face, and have opinons that deserve the same consideration as someone who's never had cancer "knowingly" telling others what the experience is like.

  • ||

    Matt, the news of the threat to Doherty's job comes from two sources, both of which I trust. You aren't the only one who can use anonymous sources to needle your enemies. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

    You threatened Doherty, for being "too pro-Paul" -- how else can we explain that rambling blog entry by him the other day, in which he clearly was talking about Paul and the phony "controversey" over the newsletters, but didn't dare mention specifics?

    You and your Beltway suck-ups can go str8 to hell -- and you will, when the Paulians start boycotting your rotten magazine. Not to mention contacting the advertisers and donors.

    Screw you, Matt -- and, believe you me, we will .....

  • Matt Welch||

    Matt, the news of the threat to Doherty's job comes from two sources, both of which I trust.

    I'm Brian's boss; your (*cough*) "two sources" are not. It's a clumsy -- and crazy -- lie.

  • crw||

    Is anyone really surprised the WorldNetDaily types are now seeing a conspiracy amongst the Reason/Cato types to tear down Ron Paul? The same mentality that sees disparate facts like "Trans Texas Corridor" and "Security and Prosperity Partnership" and "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and sees a shadowy conspiracy to undermine US sovereignty and create a North America Union is going to see the flurry of coverage and editorializing on the less than savory aspects of Ron Paul's history, and the less than fully libertarian aspects of Ron Paul's candidacy, and see a sinister conspiracy amongst journalistic elites to destroy his campaign.

    Reasonable people (drink, if you like) of course see that this is just legitimate journalism, and all the posting is because these have suddenly become important topics. And of course writers of the self proclaimed magazine of "free markets and free minds" are going to both investigate the story and have editorial opinions. They would be remiss if they didn't.

  • dhex||

    jesus justin it's a wonder you're not an international superstar just yet.

    you're so eloquent!

  • ||

    Oh yeah, it's really "crazy" that some puffed-up Beltway editor would fire an employee for his political views. My sources know what happened, and are in a position to speak with at least some authority. More I cannot say.

    But why is this so bad? After all, Reason is private property, you have the right to hire and fire anyone you choose: let's just be upfront about what's going on here.

  • ||

    "I'm Brian's boss; your (*cough*) 'two sources' are not."

    Yeah, but you're the one who threatened him. Why not be a man, admit it and be done with it?

  • Matt Welch||

    Oh yeah, it's really "crazy" that some puffed-up Beltway editor would fire an employee for his political views.

    No, it's crazy that Doherty's job is in any kind of jeapordy, that I or anyone else has "threatened" him, and that I'm even arguing with the voices in your head.

  • .|||

    And BTW, Matt, when did you stop beating your wife?

  • ||

    You're arguing with voices coming from within your own office and its periphery.

    Don't talk down to me, you asshole. Libertarians are on to you, and you aren't going to like the results.

  • VikingMoose||

    You and your Beltway suck-ups can go str8 to hell -- and you will, when the Paulians start boycotting your rotten magazine. Not to mention contacting the advertisers and donors.

    Screw you, Matt -- and, believe you me, we will .....



    Justin:Matt::Edweirdooo:URKOBOLD??

    srsly: there's something METAEDWEIRDO going on with Justin's posts. With a little of Dave W's text type sneaking in :)

  • ||

    Would it be too much to ask that you name sources, Justin? (Or at least give us a better idea what you mean by the "periphery" of Matt Welch's office?) I've read enough Balko stories to know that I should avoid reliance on the claimed word of anonymous informants. Nothing personal; I'm just skeptical of this sort of thing until I see proof.

  • ||

    I don't consider myself "open borders". I don't like what the term implies.

    I prefer high walls with wide gates. I doubt the Minutemen subscribe to the latter part, though.

  • VM||

    "Don't talk down to me, you asshole. Libertarians are on to you, and you aren't going to like the results."

    Mess with the bull and you get the horns?

    It is! It is!

    *hugs* EDWEIRDOOOO! You're back!!!

  • Ali||

    I prefer high walls with wide gates. I doubt the Minutemen subscribe to the latter part, though.

    Can we use that to scale where people stand on immigration. For example, McCain would be 0-infinity (zero-ft high wall, open gate across the border), Hunter would be infinity-zero (infinitely high wall, closed gate across the border), and Rudy, Mitt, Paul et al. would be in between.

    I would go for 1-50 or something.

  • ||

    Then I'd be a 0-0 guy, just 'cause I think that might break the model. :)

  • ||

    For example, McCain would be 0-infinity (zero-ft high wall, open gate across the border)

    Do you really think that McCain is for completely free migration? It is my perception that he simply wanted to improve bad immigration law, not that he would go so far as to eliminate all quotas and visa expirations.

    Of course, it is most likely that McCain thought immigration reform would be a unifying plank that would be politically appreciated by a wide segment of people, and that he was utterly surprised by the backlash. He has since publicly backed down from his freer immigration stance.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Justin, who the fuck are you talking about "we libertarians are on to you."

    You ain't no Goddamned libertarian. You're a Leftist San Francisco Puke who has infiltrated our libertarian movement with your Anti-War nonsense. Get Lost!

    And "your sources." Gimmee a break. You ain't got no sources because EVERYONE in the libertarian movement hates your mother-fucking guts. Your sources are only Leftist Moveon.org slime.

    And take Rockwell with you...

  • Eric Dondero||

    Time to expose the infamous issue of the Libertarian Agenda Raimondo and Garris produced and circulated titled, "Ron Paul and the John Birch Connection" back in 1988, when they were viciously attacking Paul.

    REASON READERS KINDLY POST YOUR FAX NUMBERS HERE SO THAT I CAN FAX YOU THE COPY OF RAIMONDO'S 8 PAGE TIRADE AGAINST PAUL.

    It's vicious stuff. Raimondo called Paul a "Pro-Life Extremist, Conspiratorialist, Homophobe."

    Fax numbers please? And there's more stuff on Raimondo where that came from.

    He wants a War. He's got it!!

  • ||

    I just want to know if Matt Welch ever travels anywhere without having a professional photographer there to capture his swanky essence.

  • ||

    Can't you just post it online?

  • ||

    You ain't no Goddamned libertarian. You're a Leftist San Francisco Puke who has infiltrated our libertarian movement with your Anti-War nonsense. Get Lost!



    I agree with Eric Dondero... no, wait... no I don't!

    Ha! I've agreed with DONDEROOOOO!!! five times in separate threads between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, and have therefore fulfilled the loss conditions of my bet with Lost_In_Translation (I bet Paul would place third or better in NH, LIT bet he wouldn't).

    I am finally free to announce that I hereby repudiate any agreement with that worthless sack of shit Eric Dondero that I've made in those five threads.

    Dondero, you are not the keeper of the gate of libertarianism, not just because you're a pathetic douchebag, but because you're no libertarian. You're a fucking neocon, and you make me sad to be an atheist, because I do not thereby have the satisfaction of knowing that you'll burn in the deepest pits of hell due to your support for murdering innocent women and children as revenge for 9/11.

    Fuck right the hell off, Dondero.

  • VM||

    Jake boone rocks!!

  • ||

    Can't you just post it online?



    He could, but then he wouldn't have your fax number! Just think of the possibilities for direct marketing!

  • ||

    He could, but then he wouldn't have your fax number! Just think of the possibilities for direct marketing!



    I didn't know people even used fax machines anymore. Whats next, asking for peoples beeper numbers?

  • ||

    I prefer my exposes to be delivered by Pony Express, thank you.

  • ||

    Ah, yes, it has come to pass. Dondero vs. Raimondo, right before our eyes.

  • ||

    Bush has a top secret plan to end illegal immigration by ending financal incentives. He plans to do this by making the dollar worth less than the peso. ;-)

    Seriously, people who support freedom can't support the fence. The fence that keeps them out eventually becomes the fence to keep you in.

  • ||

    I saw the Virgin Mary in my blender today. She told me that Kerry Howley is quitting Reason to take over Laurie Dhue's job on the O'Reilly Factor.

    Come on, fess up, Matt. Don't try to tell me the Mother of God is a LIAR!

  • NP||

    Justin (I'm guessing you won't mind my addressing you by first name, as you seem to prefer an informal tone),

    I probably should let Kirchick and Reason staffers respond to your long list of grievances (to put them mildly), but since you addressed my post directly and also since your post (the linked one) helps clarify what's right and wrong about the current Ron Paul "smear" campaign, I'll offer a detailed and hopefully constructive critique of the manifold points you make, valid or not.

    (One piece of advice before I start: As someone who's been accused--very often unfairly, I grant--of anti-Semitism, you might want to reconsider your flippant use of the term "bund"--same thing with "lynch mob"--unless you welcome the additional accusation of subconscious racism or theatrical solidarity, or maybe both.)

    Let's start with the Kirchick article and the Paul newsletters in general. You do a good job putting in proper context some of the seemingly odious quotations from the newsletters, especially the one claiming that "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions." And while many including myself will still find fault with the tone of the comments on "gays in San Francisco," I acknowledge that the descriptions of AIDS as a "politically protected disease" and of homosexuality as a "gayness" political movement are not in and of themselves bigoted statements.

    But your defense of the other controversial contents from the newsletters is more dubious or sometimes downright unconvincing. (And seriously, Justin, you should try to get your ad hominem wattage in control if you value your credibility as much as you discount Kirchick's.) The most glaring instance I noticed is the one involving "the animals are coming" comment. This is not just a matter of "the color of the rioters' skin" (which is, as you point out, a valid if highly un-PC subject of discourse); the major sin here is that the writer described Hispanic rioters (if we are to take James Fulford at his word) or any other social group, immigrants or not, as "animals." That is indefensible racism, period, and if you think 'Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo' is just another "normal headline" (Fulford's words) on the level of 'Inmates Take Over Asylum,' then you are in effect condoning or at least belittling racism. There's no justification for such an obviously racist remark.

    And that's not the only curious part of your post. You're right that Lincoln is too often uncritically venerated these days, and that he "locked up his political opponents, repealed the writ of habeas corpus, and closed down opposition newspapers." What you've failed to include in this laundry list of offenses, though, is the amazing cry that Lincoln "murdered" over 600,000 Americans. Now leaving aside the legitimacy of secession (more on this later), I think you'll admit that a large segment of Lincoln's critics who shout this mantra are neo-Confederates. No, criticism of Lincoln itself is not proof of racism, but many critics are indeed racists, and for this reason Kirchick was not out of his bounds in bringing this issue up, however unfair he may have been in presenting it.

    I also don't get your cavils with Kirchick's remarks regarding one of the newsletters' praising Asian merchants for "resist[ing] political correctness and fight[ing] back" during the LA riots. Of course it is racist to commend individuals for their ethnicity or skin color rather than for "the content of their character," as you correctly put it, but that's not what Kirchick suggested. He actually offered no personal opinion on this matter, but maybe he thought there's a better way to judge people's character than their not being "assimilated into our rotten liberal culture"? (You know, like honesty and hard work, or even believing in the right to defend themselves and their property rather than believing that American culture "admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.")

    As for the MLK diatribe, it's true that Dr. King was an adulterer, plagiarist, and perhaps Communist sympathizer. It's a fair question whether a national holiday should be reserved for a man with such personal failings. (By the way, many would argue that the MLK Day commemorates not the man but the entire civil rights movement itself, and that MLK's name is used because he was the most prominent activist of the movement.) But let's be honest here: Do you really think this author--who apparently believes that "the evil of forced segregation" and "the evil of forced integrations" are morally equivalent--listed all MLK's failings just because he (or she) was opposed to making King's birthday a national holiday? No, of course not; the author most likely wanted to express contempt for the man himself for his advancing a "liberal agenda" (to use a phrase the author would've preferred), and if you fail to acknowledge or can't see this, then you're again not giving racism its due or not showing good psychoanalytic judgment (respectively).

    But enough of Kirchick and his article. Let's see if "the Beltway libertarians [the Reason staff, mostly] are trying to smear Ron Paul." It's frankly amazing that you make this claim, given the sheer amount of favorable coverage Reason has given Paul in the past (and the present, I should add). You're right that many of the Reason writers were less than diligent in reviewing the actual newsletter materials before making their judgment (I'll say that your dissection of the David Duke quotes is particularly damning). But besides that, most of your criticisms of Reason and the Cato Institute are refuted by common sense or, in cases where you link to their articles or blog posts, by their writings themselves.

    First you make the odd claim that Reason hasn't discussed (and opposed) anti-discrimination laws in "a long time"; I don't know what time frame you usually have in mind when you use that phrase, but as a regular visitor to this site I can tell you that state-enforced discrimination laws are discussed here pretty regularly. I also don't see why you take pains to note (correctly) that Ron Paul opposes affirmative action or other forms of state-enforced special treatment based on race, because his views in this matter are virtually a carbon copy of Reason's own. (Of course, true libertarians do not oppose affirmative action as long as it's adopted by private parties or individuals.) And your comment about impressing Ann Althouse was nothing more than a mere tantrum, since the blog post you linked to clearly indicates an opposite inclination.

    You also seem miffed that Kirchick criticized the Mises Institute but not Cato/Reason for supporting the legitimacy of secession. Look, Justin: Supporting the right of present-day Vermont to secede from the Union is one thing, supporting the antebellum South's secession is quite another. One common Civil War misconception is that the war was undertaken only to preserve the Union. Not so: The Confederacy was very adamant in asserting their right to practice slavery, and they openly flaunted their hostilities towards the North because they knew the Union would have to eventually face the difficult question of emancipation.

    But I know you'll disagree with this account, so I'll get to the crux of this matter. What's important here is that libertarians (and others of various political persuasions) can and do support secession as a legitimate political tool and oppose it when it involves violations of the most fundamental civil liberties on a massive scale, as was the case in the antebellum South where slavery was not only upheld but also favored. Yes, Kirchick was wrong to equate support for secession with "support for the Confederacy" per se, but again it's disingenuous to deny that many of the secessionists are also neo-Confederates. And given the sizable pile of dubious materials from the newsletters I don't think Kirchick can be blamed for discussing this in his article.

    Finally I noticed you accusing "a good half of the Reason crowd" of being "pro-war." I can't speak on their behalf, but as far as I know only Ronald Bailey of the current staff supported the Iraq war, and Mangu-Ward and Moynihan weren't even yet on board. I don't think that counts as "a good half" of the entire "crowd." And of course there's the question of whether libertarians by definition should be noninterventionist or at least anti-war, but as a non-libertarian I'll let you guys settle this score.

    But in the end all these quibbles don't really matter that much, because the main issue here is whether "the Beltway libertarians" are trying to "smear" Ron Paul and his campaign. I think I've already established that despite many quotations taken out of context, the Paul newsletters contain enough racist remarks that should have given the congressman some pause. It matters little whether he wrote them or not (for your info I don't believe he did), since he, as head of the newsletters, should have paid attention to what was published under his name. And as Reason and many others have pointed out, Paul has made little of the offensive contents and been not very forthcoming in his official statement and interviews so far. If he truly wants to take "moral responsibility," he should first condemn in no unequivocal terms the racist remarks that he had knowingly or unknowingly authorized to be published, and second he should disassociate himself from any of the authors of these remarks. (He should probably reveal the names of the authors as well, but I think many people will understand if he's not too keen to strain his relationships with former associates.)

    None of this discussion would've been necessary if Paul had been more forthright from the beginning. And it's simply absurd for you to charge that the only reason Reason (sorry for the repeat) is doing this "witch hunt" is to "smear" Paul," to "spin libertarian voters on the most crucial election day short of the November general elections," when many of its staff (I'm thinking particularly of Weigel and Doherty) have been favorable and some probably are still supportive to his campaign. If anything I'd accuse Reason of not criticizing Paul sooner and enough, as in one of his earlier articles on Paul, Doherty mentioned in passing but failed to dig into this unappetizing aspect of the congressman's past.

    Do note that I'm not necessarily arguing against Paul; though I don't call myself a libertarian I do share many of his views and even when I don't I've respected his honesty and willingness to stand on principle. (In case you haven't noticed, in my earlier post I actually questioned the accuracy of the California Coalition e-mail detailing Paul's position on immigration.) I can tell you that I'm most likely not the only one disappointed by his uncharacteristically evasive behavior in this event. It's a shame not just for Paul but for libertarianism as well.

    Many libertarians like yourself will argue that Paul's strengths far outweigh whatever defects he may have, and there's really nothing wrong with that. If you think his views on foreign policy, civil liberties and the drug war supersede his questionable past and managerial capability, and his current lack of candor, then by all means support him. But many others feel that there are areas of personal character that our leaders, especially if he happens to be the most powerful person in the world, should not contaminate, and that Paul has unfortunately done so, however appealing a candidate he otherwise may be. And I hope that as a libertarian you'll respect their right to this view and judgment rather than accuse them of the smear they would like to see out of politics.

  • exLibertarian||

    Do you really think that McCain is for completely free migration? It is my perception that he simply wanted to improve bad immigration law, not that he would go so far as to eliminate all quotas and visa expirations.

    Reading the details of his failed Senate bill would would give you a different perception. I don't see how anyone could honestly think it was a good bill, even Open Borders proponents. Who in their right mind would want to legitimize members of groups like MS-13?

    Of course, it is most likely that McCain thought immigration reform would be a unifying plank that would be politically appreciated by a wide segment of people, and that he was utterly surprised by the backlash.

    He shouldn't have been surprised; but then again, for years he's been totally deaf to his own constituents in Arizona, so maybe he was.

  • ||

    NP,

    that's only 1,962 words. Joe Allen had one for 4,060 words yesterday. You're going to have to do better than that to break the record.

  • ||

    Reading the details of his failed Senate bill would would give you a different perception. I don't see how anyone could honestly think it was a good bill, even Open Borders proponents.

    Speaking for myself, I thought it was a terrible bill and did not support it. But I also doubt that the bill that came out of the sausage factory of trying to appease anti-immigrant types while reforming immigration is what McCain had in mind when he took up the banner of immigration reform in the Senate following Bush's lead.

    Who in their right mind would want to legitimize members of groups like MS-13?

    I must have missed that in my perusals... Can you let me know what section contains this legitimizing so I can check it out?

  • exLibertarian||

    Seriously, people who support freedom can't support the fence. The fence that keeps them out eventually becomes the fence to keep you in.

    Young and naive or shoveling cow chips? No one to be taken seriously is advocating closing the southern border; just directing and controlling the flow.

  • lunchstealer||

    Wow. This could be the funnest thread EVAR!

  • NP||

    crimethink,

    NO sane person would even try to break Joe Allen's record. (Not that I'm that saner...) I really wanted to respond Raimondo's post. If you haven't checked it out, it's probably at least twice as long as mine.

  • Robert||

    I think we can straighten out the analogies and show them to be more apt or less apt, and the apt ones even predictive to some degree on the immigration issue.

    It is quite possible to especially favor the drug industry from manufacturing to dispensing, while being especially in favor of clamping down harder on illegal possession and distribution of drugs. If it were possible to develop better ways to discriminate between, for instance, those who need narcotic analgesics and those who don't, then the person with such a position would favor stricter enforcement while at the same time favoring more generous dispensing of narcotics. In fact, support for more generous dispensing of pain meds probably would increase if people also thought the illegal narcotics "problem" were diminished. And it may be easier to discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants in employment than it is to discriminate between those who do & don't need pain killers, and many have argued (probably correctly) that clamping down on illegal immigration will help boost support for legal immigration.

    Similarly, one could easily be an exceptionally good friend of the auto industry (mfg. & service) while supporting enforcement measures that would lead to many more people losing their driving licenses -- but it depends on how many is many. We probably don't have anywhere near as high a proportion of people who want to use opiates to get high compared to those who want pain relief, as compared to the numbers on immigrants who are allowed in versus entering & staying illegally, but it's not clear a better discrimination regime would help the business that much on net. Meanwhile the numbers who drive drunk compared to total drivers wouldn't cut down the number of vehicles sold & maintained significantly if the drunks were gotten off the roads. So in impact terms, the drug analogy is probably closer and more predictive.

  • NP||

    Eh... respond to Raimondo's post.

    And here's the link in case anyone missed it:

    http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul

  • ||

    It is quite possible to especially favor the drug industry from manufacturing to dispensing, while being especially in favor of clamping down harder on illegal possession and distribution of drugs.

    Um... No it's not. At least not for me.

    Your analogy might work on some other forum, where people might actually believe that consumption of unapproved substances should be illegal.

    Here it only provides further evidence that broad laws against immigration are illibertarian.

  • ||

    NP:

    First, I'm not sure who you are: you say I addressed your post, but don't get any more specific.

    I think the preciosity of your PC-ness is underscored by your objection to the use of the word "Bund." Another forbidden word? Puh-leeze. I haven't been accused of "anti-Semitism" by anyone rational, and even if I had, I don't take dictation as to my word choices. Bund it is. The history of the term, a phrase John T. Flynn used, is probably something you don't know about, but whatever. But I have to ask: do we really need to go around walking on eggshells so that some self-appointed commissar of PC-ness is appeased? Not me, brother....

    The crippling fear that paralyzes your word choices, if not your thoughts, is demonstrated once again in the absurd argument you make on the "animals" question. So what if the rioters, who looted stores and injured dozens, were Hispanic? What if they had been white? Would it have been okay to call them what they are: animals? This description has no racial connotations in context: it merely says that these rioting thugs were not acting like human beings. Why is hat "racist"?

    The Lincoln issue is a similar case of truth standing in fear of itself. You write: "criticism of Lincoln itself is not proof of racism, but many critics are indeed racists" -- so, therefore, what are we to do? Not say anything about how Lincoln set himself up as a virtual dictator -- for fear of being labeled a "neo-Confederate"? Your PC-ness would eliminate whole areas of study and debate, effectively shutting down discussions on a wide range of issues. But I guess that's the idea ....

    And I don't know what a "neo-Confederate" is: is it somebody who wants to restore slavery? By that definition, there are almost NO "neo-Confederates." So I'm not sure what you are talking about: "neo-Confederate" seems to be one of those "anti-concepts," as Ayn Rand would have it, like "extremist" -- a word or idea that it meant to prevent thought rather than advance it.

    Ron has dealt with this non-issue in the best way possible: he's pretty much ignored it. The War Party is determined that an antiwar candidate is not going to be allowed to state his case, and they desperately want to change the subject. They've been screeching that he's a bigot since Day One, and anything Paul says is only going to be twisted, and used against him: some people cannot be placated. And they shouldn't be placated, either.

    The libertarian movement is bigger than the self-consciouis aging hipsters who edit this magazine, and they will discover that their back-stabbing little election-eve operation will have real consequences for them. Maybe they'll cry "Uncle!" when their circulation hits an all-time low, their advertisers desert them, and some of their big donors go on strike. It's something to look forward to ....

  • ||

    Not say anything about how Lincoln set himself up as a virtual dictator -- for fear of being labeled a "neo-Confederate"? Your PC-ness would eliminate whole areas of study and debate, effectively shutting down discussions on a wide range of issues. But I guess that's the idea ....



    It would be more believeable if we heard from the Lew Rockwell Krewe about how Jeff Davis also set himself up as a virtual dictator. But we don't.

  • ||

    """Young and naive or shoveling cow chips? No one to be taken seriously is advocating closing the southern border; just directing and controlling the flow."""

    I didn't say close. I've never seen a fence without a gate.

  • exLibertarian||

    MikeP,
    Drowning in links, when I got a new pc, I moved very few.

    As I recall, it should be related to Title VI (I could be wrong). If you have a link to the final proposed bill with all amendments, please post it.

    If this helps, it's from the Congressional Record:

    Senator Sessions: "Under the bill, being in a violent gang is not going to prevent you from qualifying for amnesty."

    Senator Sessions and others were trying to fix a loophole.

  • Jennifer||

    Matt, the news of the threat to Doherty's job comes from two sources, both of which I trust.

    Misplaced trust can put you in danger. Be careful, Justin.

  • exLibertarian||

    From reading these posts, it's the same ol' same ol' I remember from my Libertarian days...

    libertarian purists who would rather sit still and carp about the world vs more pragmatic sorts who are willing to give and take a little in order to accomplish SOMETHING

    Politics is a lot like horsemanship; anyone who can climb into a saddle thinks they can ride.. LOL!!

  • ||

    exLibertarian,

    Title VI of the bill includes the following:

    An alien is ineligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status under this section if--
    ...
    `(iv) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that--

    `(I) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

    `(II) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the alien has committed a serious crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States; or

    `(III) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

    `(v) the alien has been convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors.



    I couldn't find any language that would "legitimize members of groups like MS-13." No, I didn't read it all.

  • Ventifact||

    Why is hat "racist"?



    Didn't you hear about his infamous association with the Mr. Garrison Songs?

  • GILMORE||

    crimethink | January 18, 2008, 2:09pm | #
    NP,

    that's only 1,962 words. Joe Allen had one for 4,060 words yesterday.


    REAL Libertarians dont believe in the law of diminishing returns

    TWC probably wins the H&R "brevity is the soul of wit"-award. I dont recall him often topping 3 sentences.

    Lone Wacko wins the "i would kick you - and only you - out of my kegger in 2 seconds if you ever wandered by."-award.

    edward wins the "neener neener"-award

    Dondero wins the "oh, yeah! We all have fax machines and we'd LOOOOVE you to send us stuff! Man you're cool!"-note attached to a flaming bag of shit tossed through a window.

  • Lonewacko\'s Mom||

    TrickyVic | January 18, 2008, 3:39pm | #
    """Young and naive or shoveling cow chips? No one to be taken seriously is advocating closing the southern border; just directing and controlling the flow."""

    I didn't say close. I've never seen a fence without a gate.


    APPEASER!!! NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GATES! MOATS AND LAZER BEAMS AND MINEFIELDS! IF YOU WANT MEXICAN FOOD WE'VE GOT OUR OWN TACO BELLS, YOU BEANERLOVER! WHO DO YOU REALLY WORK FOR

  • SuprKufr||

    MikeP wrote,

    There's nothing nutty about wanting to enforce national borders. What's nutty -- or, at least, not particularly libertarian -- is wanting to prevent harmless people from crossing those borders.

    That's fair. You're talking about ranking potential immigrants in desirability. Since you classify some as "harmless", I infer that you classify others as "harmful". It makes sense to want to exclude harmful immigrants completely.

    The question is, how do we have any kind of control over immigrants so that we can sort out the harmful from the harmless?

    Or were you agitating for a "Let's just assume that all immigrants are harmless and accuse anyone who disagrees of racism" stance?

  • Aunt Trudy||

    Now, now, Justin. Don't be so bitter. It's just not good for you. Try to think of raindrops on a warm Spring day.

    On the other hand, you and your racist scum friends -- Rockwell, Dilorenzo, and the whole gang of you -- can bugger off! You don't represent libertarian traditions, libertarian ideals, libertarian policies, or libertarian decency. You have infiltrated the worst scum of the earth into a movement based on respect for the dignity and worth of every individual. You, "sir," are no libertarian.

  • GILMORE||

    SuprKufr | January 18, 2008, 4:38pm | #

    Or were you [mikeP} agitating for a "Let's just assume that all immigrants are harmless and accuse anyone who disagrees of racism" stance?


    Show me the "dangerous immigrants more dangerous than natives."

    Also, read the Economist issue from a couple of weeks ago on immigration. And the recent Reason issue covering migrants. And stuff like this.

    http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2006/12/do-immigrants-make-cities-safer.html

    ...and basically the economic history of the US. Those Irish were pretty dangerous chaps. They nearly burned down NY. Shoulda locked em out!

  • LONEWACKO ACOLYTE||

    Inside every dishwasher, landscaper, and fruit-picker is a potential nuclear-suitcase suicide bomber.

    And leper.

  • ||

    The question is, how do we have any kind of control over immigrants so that we can sort out the harmful from the harmless?

    You have well-known entry points, give an unlimited visa to anyone who wants it, and do background checks and health screens to exclude terrorists, felons, foreign agents, and carriers of contagion.

    Trying to enter without the visa is prima facie evidence that one is harmful.

    It's really not that difficult...

  • crw||

    Or were you agitating for a "Let's just assume that all immigrants are harmless and accuse anyone who disagrees of racism" stance?



    Nice strawman. MikeP, and basically all open borders libertarians agitate for "Let's assume they're harmless if they can pass a criminal background check and don't have any diseases, and anyone who disagrees is an illibertarian idiot who can't see why imposing other barriers to entry is an abrogation of fundamental human rights."

  • GILMORE||

    This is pretty rich

    http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Piehl070517.pdf

    Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
    Impact of Immigration on States and Localities
    May 17, 2007


    "Today I am pleased to testify about the academic literature on the relationship between immigration and crime. To summarize, the empirical research does not suggest that immigrants pose a particular crime threat. In contrast, the evidence points to immigrants having lower involvement in crime than native-born Americans.

    the data is pretty solid stuff - 20+yrs of large samples. It would be better if they had some of the micro analyses as well as the state and national level views, but the references are there where needed.

    I'm sure Lou Dobbs ran these conclusions as his lede back in May, right? :)

  • GILMORE||

    crw | January 18, 2008, 5:04pm | #
    "Let's assume they're harmless if they can pass a criminal background check and don't have any diseases....and anyone who disagrees is an illibertarian idiot who can't see why imposing other barriers to entry is an abrogation of fundamental human rights."


    No. Not at all.

    Just an idiot. Mostly because we get ultimately more from immigrants than they get from us.

  • NP||

    Justin,

    First, I did think you'd notice that my advice as to the use of the word "bund" was to be taken only half seriously, but having said that I'm awfully struck by how almost obsessed you are with the supposedly debilitating climate of our PC culture. For what it's worth I defended Charles Murray (and Herrnstein, though he doesn't get much mention nowadays) when he published The Bell Curve, and also Lawrence Summers when he dared suggest that there might be innate differences in intelligence between the sexes. But what I do not and indeed cannot do is to defend blatant bigotry especially when the charge of PC-ness is invoked to shield it from an iota of criticism, however warranted it may be.

    Your riposte regarding the "animals" question illustrates my point. I'm frankly amazed that you'd argue the author used the word "animals" (and "zoo" in the headline) just because he or she was ticked off at the rioters' rowdy behavior. I assure you that no reasonable reader would buy this phantom logic, especially given the context of this particular passage and the fact that this came from the same pen (if not the same author) that claimed to be able to identify "terrorists . . . by the color of their skin." If anything you should be taking this author to task yourself for treating an entire ethnic group, be Hispanic, black or white, as a collective.

    As for the Lincoln issue, I didn't mean to even imply that we should be afraid of criticizing Our Greatest President for fear of being labeled a racist or a "neo-Confederate," especially since Lincoln is in fact guilty of some serious civil liberties violations. This would be indeed a case of undue PC-ness stifling honest discussions and I would be among the first to defend those unfairly labeled as such. What I did argue, again, is that a subset of those who criticize Lincoln are indeed neo-Confederates and that Kirchick thus had a solid reason to call attention to the Lincoln passage.

    You also ask what a neo-Confederate is. I don't think you honestly need an actual definition, but no, it's not someone who wants to restore slavery, as no sane person these days would call for such an egregious measure. Neo-Confederates are those who consider Lincoln the biggest terrorist of former U.S. presidents, those who think that the Civil War was nothing more than a brutal act of force by the North and that slavery back then was a-OK. And since you've asked me a question, let me return the favor and ask you what a neocon is, because I've never been able to understand the term. It gets pretty heady for the uninitiated like me when anyone who supported the Iraq war gets labeled a neocon while there are clear ideological differences among the "crowd."

    If you believe Ron Paul is giving this newsletter brouhaha all the attention it deserves, then I must say we have fundamentally different standards of personal behavior. I also don't buy your claim that the War Party (I hope you didn't mean it as a collective) wants to bury Ron Paul because of his antiwar stance, especially when he's not polling even in double digits across the nation. But you're entitled to your views, and I hope you soon realize that your time will be better spent boosting up his support than fretting about the "back-stabbing" of "the self-consciouis aging hipsters" who dare call themselves libertarians--if they are indeed what you say they are.

  • ||

    """The question is, how do we have any kind of control over immigrants so that we can sort out the harmful from the harmless?

    You have well-known entry points, give an unlimited visa to anyone who wants it, and do background checks and health screens to exclude terrorists, felons, foreign agents, and carriers of contagion.""""""

    If that works to determine the bad guys for entering, maybe it will work on finding the bad guys within. Background checks and health screening for everyone.

  • SuprKufr||

    MikeP wrote,

    You have well-known entry points, give an unlimited visa to anyone who wants it, and do background checks and health screens to exclude terrorists, felons, foreign agents, and carriers of contagion.

    Trying to enter without the visa is prima facie evidence that one is harmful.

    It's really not that difficult...


    Does this mean you favor a wall for the entire Southern border, one that encompasses without exception the well-known entry points you mention?

  • SuprKufr||

    GILMORE wrote,

    Show me the "dangerous immigrants more dangerous than natives."

    You're asking for evidence that some immigrants are willing to deprive Americans of life, liberty, or property through force and have made good on that desire? Why would you need evidence for that? It is a fact of human nature that some individuals will be predators. Some Americans are predators, after all. It is not absurd to assume that some immigrants will be predators as well.

  • ||

    Does this mean you favor a wall for the entire Southern border, one that encompasses without exception the well-known entry points you mention?

    Nope. Far too expensive and far too likely not to stop someone who really wanted to get in illegally.

    And militarizing a peaceful border is simply distasteful.

    When the number of illegal entries drops from over half a million to some fraction of five thousand, I expect that border control resources will find much better ways to deal with them.

  • SuprKufr||

    MikeP wrote:

    Nope. Far too expensive and far too likely not to stop someone who really wanted to get in illegally.

    And militarizing a peaceful border is simply distasteful.


    How do you prevent someone without a visa from crossing the border?

  • ||

    How do you prevent someone without a visa from crossing the border?

    I don't know. How do you?

  • SuprKufr||

    MikeP wrote,

    I don't know. How do you?

    Did I just reach the limits of your thinking on immigration?

  • SuprKufr||

    MikeP,

    Didn't you, just a few posts ago, tell me, "It's really not that difficult...."?

  • GILMORE||

    SuprKufr | January 18, 2008, 5:19pm | #
    GILMORE wrote,

    Show me the "dangerous immigrants more dangerous than natives."

    You're asking for evidence that some immigrants are willing to deprive Americans of life, liberty, or property through force and have made good on that desire? Why would you need evidence for that? It is a fact of human nature that some individuals will be predators. Some Americans are predators, after all. It is not absurd to assume that some immigrants will be predators as well.


    Therefore we must build a wall across all American women's vulvae.

    Asshole, go read the linked study, then come back with that wicked logic of yours

  • SuprKufr||

    NP wrote,

    As for the Lincoln issue, I didn't mean to even imply that we should be afraid of criticizing Our Greatest President

    Our Greatest President? Capitalized? I'm surprised by your slavering Lincoln worship, particularly in light of Lincoln's rather disgusting and well-recorded history of overt racism. And I mean overt as in "manager of the Illinois Colonization Society", which was the group that thought the solution to the "negro problem" was to deport every last one of them to Liberia.

    Perhaps some education would do you good help shatter some of that undue Lincoln mythology. At the risk of having your eyes burned right out of their sockets, please read the following:

    http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1997/ihy970228.html

  • ||

    Didn't you, just a few posts ago, tell me, "It's really not that difficult...."?

    Yes. I said that in response to your question, "how do we have any kind of control over immigrants so that we can sort out the harmful from the harmless?"

    The harmless are the ones who pass the visa screening. The harmful are the ones who don't pass or who try to evade the visa process.

    Now, you can answer a question for me... How do you prevent entry into the United States of people without visas?

  • SuprKufr||

    GILMORE,

    I'll be happy to read anything you send me, but first I want you to explain why it is absurd for me to assume that some percentage of immigrants will be predators. Quid pro quo.

  • ||

    SuperKufr:

    He changed his mind about colonization near the end of his life. Colonization is better than permanent slavery--which is what the leaders of the Confederacy had in mind.

  • SuprKufr||

    Yes. I said that in response to your question, "how do we have any kind of control over immigrants so that we can sort out the harmful from the harmless?"

    Gotcha.

    The harmless are the ones who pass the visa screening. The harmful are the ones who don't pass or who try to evade the visa process.

    I think it's naive to think that anyone who passes the visa screening is harmless by definition, but I agree with you that immigrants who try to evade the visa process are up to no good.

    Now, you can answer a question for me... How do you prevent entry into the United States of people without visas?

    I favor a wall. The objections to this are: a) too expensive, b) ineffective. You raised both of these earlier, so I'll respond to them.

    a) It will only be too expensive if the cost of building it will eternally outweigh the cost to American citizens of paying for the welfare of additional immigrants. Yes, welfare reform would change this situation dramatically. Do we see that happening any time soon? Yeah, right.

    b) In terms of effective, I think we already have a good model for effectiveness in the Israeli security barrier. It's not a perfect model, but a good model. Will it stop everyone? Of course not. There are no perfect solutions.

  • SuprKufr||

    Cesar wrote,

    He changed his mind about colonization near the end of his life.

    So he wasn't as extreme a racist on his deathbed? Good for him.

    Colonization is better than permanent slavery--which is what the leaders of the Confederacy had in mind.

    Of course.

    Being marginally less racist than the Confederate leaders doesn't turn Lincoln into Our Greatest President (capitalized, because he is the fucking messiah).

  • ||

    It will only be too expensive if the cost of building it will eternally outweigh the cost to American citizens of paying for the welfare of additional immigrants.

    Since the immigration reform I prefer would legalize essentially all present and future immigrants, you can see how comparing the cost of a wall to the purported cost of welfare for those it keeps out under my proposal is beyond idiotic.

    Will it stop everyone? Of course not. There are no perfect solutions.

    Ah. Okay.

    Then, in answer to your question...

    How do you prevent someone without a visa from crossing the border?

    I will say again what I said before...

    When the number of illegal entries drops from over half a million to some fraction of five thousand, I expect that border control resources will find much better ways to deal with them.

    And I will append...

    Will it stop everyone? Of course not. There are no perfect solutions.

  • ian||

    Concerning the 'animals' name calling I would say that you could use it in a non-racist way to describe rampaging blacks or latinos, but that most people would think you were using it in a racist way because that is the way it was (and still is) by racists. Much the same as the swastika is forever ruined because of its adoption by the Nazis. You could put a swastika up in your front yard to mean something Buddhist but most people would only think of the Nazis.

  • NP||

    SuprKufr,

    That capitalization was meant to be sarcastic, since the issue at hand was the blind idolization of Lincoln.

  • ||

    SuprKufr, aside from maybe Lysander Spooner not too many people in the United States WEREN'T unrepentant racists in 1860.

    Are you going to slam the Foudners for owning slaves next? I thought dead white male bashing was for liberals.

  • ||

    If that really is Justin Raimondo, it appears he and the LRC guys have some ongoing competition to see who can sound the most like a 12 year old boy on the internet.

  • ||

    Not to mention just sounding completely delusional.

  • ||

    Goddamn you reason neocons! lol

  • ||

    I also thought Raimondo was the one with the immigrant houseboys, but I could be wrong.

  • GILMORE||

    SuprKufr | January 18, 2008, 5:47pm | #
    GILMORE,

    I'll be happy to read anything you send me,


    try the above =
    GILMORE | January 18, 2008, 5:09pm | #

  • Dave W.||

    This thread rules.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    200!

  • Ali||

    Jake Boone, MikeP-

    Sorry had to leave. Yeah, I know about McCain. I was thinking of the GOP side on the issue. Was also trying to make a joke out of it. Oh, well!

  • Dave W.||

    Because I never worked there?

    Mr. Raimondo might've gotten suck.com confused with The National Post (sometimes identified in honour box graffiti as The Fascist Post).

  • ||

    I'll be happy to read anything you send me, but first I want you to explain why it is absurd for me to assume that some percentage of immigrants will be predators.

    He didn't say that. He said that it was absurd to think that the percentage of immigrants who are dangerous is higher than the percentage of Americans who are dangerous, and provided quantitative information to demonstrate it.

  • ||

    Face it fools, Reason has been exposed as nothing more than a bunch of NeoCon establishment hacks.

    The Big Article on the Website

    Fred's Final Days

    Barring a miracle, South Carolina will bury the last libertarian-leaning candidate of '08


    Hilarious. Fred Thompson libertarian leaning. Does McCain Feingold ring a bell??

    Suckers!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Supporting McCain-Feingold means you can't be "libertarian-leaning."

    Supporting "unleasing" the police on "the black criminal class," on the other hand, shows you put individual liberty at the center of your politics.

  • NP||

    ian,

    You're right that one can call others "animals" in a non-racist way, but you do have to consider the context. See my comments above and also read the quotes in question (if you haven't already), and I think you'll agree that the author's use of the term in this case was not so innocent.

  • ||

    "The libertarian movement is bigger than the self-consciouis aging hipsters who edit this magazine, and they will discover that their back-stabbing little election-eve operation will have real consequences for them."

    You mean there's like a dolchstoss myth a brewin' even as I type? ...with Ron Paul as Siegfried and Matt Welch as Hagen?

    That's ridiculous for a number of reasons.

    Among them, to take hold, that myth would require some kind of expectation of victory among the libertarian hoards, most of whom are defeatists. ...we warriors and poets of the forlorn hope, we're invulnerable to back stab myths. We just soldier on.

  • ian||

    NP,

    I do agree that the use was racist. I was attempting to show how you could use it in a non-racist way, but that most people would just assume that you were using it in a racist way. Most of the time when people use quasi-racist terms its accompanied by a wink or a nod, so that both people understand the racist connotation, while hoping that they don't appear racist to others.

    I think that is the whole point of these newsletters: to tap into underlying racism, while trying to not appear racist, but rather just non-PC. I think it back fired since that game is so played out.

  • NP||

    ian,

    Yeah, the newsletters tread very dangerously the line between non-PC-ness and blatant racism. That's what makes the newsletters even more contemptible than outright racist drivel: At least we know the latter is honest, whereas the former disingenuously deny their racist intent while reaping financial rewards from those who clearly know better and support them.

  • george mason||

    crimethink,

    I think the proper analogy is to the Indian tribes. The Indian tribes were a sovereign entitites under their own jurisdiction, and thus children born to them were members of the tribe, not a US citizen. The same would hold true for diplomats, etc.

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