Immigrants Try to Solve the Immigration Problem as Michele Bachmann Bashes Them

While Michele Bachmann took immigrant-bashing to a new height today, proudly announcing that she would become the first presidential candidate of 2012 to make opposition to illegal immigration a signature issue, immigrants themselves were busy devising new solutions to the immigration problem—or at least one part of it—and the housing crisis to boot.

I will have more to say about Bachmann’s misguided crusade in days to come, including the bogus distinction between illegal and legal immigration, which makes it sound like there is a class of people out there who are congenitally wired to not care about our immigration laws, when the truth is that our immigration laws are wired to not care about them. For now, however, let’s ignore the Center for Immigration Studies-types who believe that there should be a total moratorium on immigration because all immigrants are bad immigrants since they raise our population and global greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s also ignore people like me at Reason who believe that all immigrants not proven to be Mohammad Atta and bird-flu carriers are good immigrants and should be allowed in the country pronto. Let’s split the baby in half and accept that highly skilled immigrants here legally are “good” and unskilled immigrants here illegally are “bad.”

“Good” immigrant Vivek Wadhawa—an Indian expat and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur-turned-Ivy-League-researcher—notes in his latest Washington Post column, this country has been doing a rather good job chasing out even people like him. Quite remarkably, it educates them and then loses them to other countries. Why? Because, explains Wadhwa:

 [O]ver the past 20 years, we brought in large numbers of highly skilled workers and foreign students on temporary visas but never expanded the number of permanent resident visas which allow them to make the U.S. their only home. In some years we admitted more than 100,000 workers plus their families on the H1-B temporary worker visa, and we admitted a similar number of foreign students. But the cap for permanent-resident visas for all workers in the three skilled-worker permanent visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3) remained at 120,000 (family members are counted in this quota). To add to the problem, there is a 7 percent-per-country limit on the number of skilled immigrants that are eligible for these visas. So we admit as many immigrants from high population countries like India, China, and Russia, as from Iceland, Mongolia, and Poland. That's less than 10,000 per country… 

 [A]s of October 2006, there were 500,040 principals in the main employment-based categories and an additional 555,044 family members awaiting legal permanent resident status in the United States. These numbers have likely increased since then. About 350,000 Indians and 250,000 Chinese are waiting for a yearly allocation of the roughly 10,000 skilled worker visas allocated for each country.

Given that these immigrants could be suspended in green card-limbo for decades, Wadhwa points out, many of them will simply lose their patience and leave for greener pastures elsewhere, greatly undermining America’s global competitiveness. To prevent this from happening, Wadhwa suggests, we nix the per-country limit for these “good” immigrants and hand them green cards on an expedited basis on one condition: They agree to purchase a house worth $250,000. Wadhwa’s calculations show that at least 20 percent of the qualified immigrants will take the offer, instantly taking 100,000 homes off the market, and injecting $25 billion into the economy.  This is nothing to sneeze at and it sure beats trying to rescue the housing market through taxpayer-funded bailout and subsidies.

I have to confess that I get nervous when technocrats start delving into public policy given their low regard for precedents, checks-and-balances, keeping government in check and other such niceties that we libertarians worry about. And one obvious danger in Wadhwa’s suggestion is that the government will start seeing immigrants as a cash cow to subsidize its profligacy. Still, if the government gets too demanding, the immigrants can and will simply hit the exit doors, as they have been already doing, leaving neither themselves nor the country much worse off.

Hence Wadhwa’s suggestion deserves some serious thought. May be it’ll work and may be it won’t. But if it does, it will show that immigrants themselves are the best source of ideas to solve our immigration problem. And that is reason enough to let them in.

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.

  • ||

    one obvious danger in Wadhwa’s suggestion is that the government will start seeing immigrants as a cash cow to subsidize its profligacy

    They already do. For instance, the way the IRS treats foreigners (who include immigrants who are in limbo as to whether they will get to become permanent residents) is sickening, but since this extra stuff only happens to the foreigners, no one cares.

    Our government treats immigrants like shit because they have even less incentive to treat them well than they do citizens. And considering how much the government treats citizens like criminals, ATM machines, and children, how do you think it's going to treat immigrants and foreigners?

  • Almanian||

    *shoots self in head with a hollow point*

  • Almanian's Ghost||

    Epi, that is the most-morose and accurate description of the clear-to-all-who-would-but-look sordid underbelly of "American patriotism". It was so moving, and left me so hopeless, I had to kill myself.

    Fuck. Been nice knowing you....your...H&R...persona....sort of...

    *Goes off to read Hemingway and Camus...*

  • ||

    Still looking for the civilized country that has "open borders"!

  • Bradley||

    Still looking for the civilized country that has "open borders"!

    What does this even mean? No country has open borders, civilized or otherwise. Although some used to have relatively much less closed borders. Like, oh, the United States 150 years ago. Did that openness make it less "civilized" than other countries of the time?

    Moreover, your implication that if no "civilized" country currently does X then X is undesirable or impossible is without basis and retarded. Imagine some dumbass in ancient Greece: "Still looking for the civilized country that has 'abolished slavery'!".

    tl;dr Fuck you.

  • ||

    You are 100% correct re. fuckery via the tax code. There are new let's-screw-the-foreigners provisions added as funding to so many shitty acronym-y laws. There is continually increasing vigilance on reporting of foreign bank accounts, passive foreign investment companies, etc. The only advantage the rich smartypants on H1Bs have is that when they decide enough's enough, they at least won't get hit with the exit tax like citizens and long-term greencard holders would.

  • ||

    This is one of the clearer examples of how the government really exists only to fuel itself, and cares not the tiniest shit about people. The only reason it doesn't fuck citizens more is that people get voted out of office if it goes too far.

    Take money, any way it can: that's what it does. Foreigners and immigrants are "weaker" prey, so they get fucked more.

  • Chupacabra||

    Well, did they sign the social contract?

  • Polevaulter Donkeyman||

    Is this the same contract that every baby has to sign when it is born in the US? What happens if it doesn't sign it? Is it deported to where it came from?

  • ||

    The reason I remain layal to Wells Fargo is this:

    While I was adjusting status from H1-B to F-1 some time ago, I attempted to close my bank account near my old workplace, and open one near my new school. The local bank freaked out because I was a foreigner, and one in adjustment even. They refused to open an account, even though I was transferring around $30,000 (a work bonus).

    I was furious, but then I went a block away to Wells Fargo, and they opened one in five minutes.

    I don't give a shit if they we're breaking any laws. They treated me like a normal citizen. End of story.

  • Jim||

    GodDAMNit Epi, we've been over and over this! Don't you realize that we have a certain culture here, and if you just let people in willy-nilly who think and act differently than you, you're going to destroy/drown the culture? I hate gov't interference as much as the next man, but the gov't does have a legitimate function and should use force on everyone to protect our culture! The only exception to gov't screwing things up and generally making things worse is when it's used to keep people I may not like off of the streets!

    /paleocon

  • ||

    "Government is bad unless it's doing what I want, then it's good! What? How dare you call me a statist!"

  • Jim||

    You just channeled 100% of Red Staters, and 25% of the frequent commenters on here.

  • ||

    You just channeled 100% of Red Staters, and 25% of the frequent commenters on here.

    Actually, all non anarchists. Strange you left out the entire Left. I thought that Libertarian meant limited government. So he was also channeling ALL Libertarians, right?

    I repeat almost daily to my son that government is a necessary evil. It is always evil because it derives it's power from the individual through coercion; however, it IS minimally necessary. Accepting this truth is nothing like believing that government is ever "good".

  • Jim||

    I left out the left (pun intended) because they wouldn't even have started with the premise that "Gov't is bad except...". They just go with "Gov't is always good!"

    I hate the left and everything it stands for (and it does NOT stand for peace or prison reform or drug reform, as their chosen politicians have shown us), but they're less hypocritical (in their broad, over-arching belief structure) because they assert right from the get-go that they believe the gov't is the answer to all your problems and coercion is good and right to achieve gov't aims.

    As for your bald assertion that gov't is necessary, I would strongly disagree with that. But I've been in enough anarcho-capitalist v. statist arguments to know that neither of us is really going to change anyone's mind, so we'll just leave it at that.

  • ||

    Government being necessary is a "bald assertion"? But the potential for billions of human beings to exist without some form of collectivization is....reality? OK.

    The point remains that even Libertarians favor some laws. So they, like all non-anarchists favor "government they like". Even minarchists still believe in some laws. Are non anarchists now "statists"?

    Epi is so much more interesting when he isn't cheer leading for TEAM ANARCHY.

  • Jim||

    Yes, declaring, without being able to prove it one way or the other, that gov't is necessary, is a bald assertion. My stating that it's not necessary is also a bald assertion. Difference being, I believe mine is an opinion; you state yours as an established fact, like the earth orbits around the sun.

    And yes, minarchists are also statists. They believe in a state using force against people against their will to achieve the aims of some majority. That is statism. I'm sorry if you don't like being called a statist, but if you desire the existence of a state, you are a statist.

    We're not going to convince eachother of anything here, so it's really not worth getting into. There are several good articles on Mises.org about this, including one specifically stating that minarchists are closer to fascists than they are to anarchists, and thus anarchists should not have any truck with them, as well as counter-arguments that minarchists are (generally) liberty-friendly and we should be genial fellow travelers for the time being. I tend to believe the latter. So I'm not trying to start a fight. But to simply state, "Government is a necessary evil. Are all minarchists statists?" is begging to get into an argument. You cannot prove government is necessary, and I cannot prove it is not. Yes, if you believe in the necessary existence of a state, then you are, on some level, a statist. Maybe a tiny one, but still one, nonetheless.

  • ||

    No, not trying to start an argument, just get my terms straight. Until now I thought Libertarian=non-statist. I stand corrected.

  • Jim||

    Until now I thought Libertarian=non-statist. I stand corrected.

    I'm sure most of them believe that and use the word in that fashion. I would personally disagree on strictly pedantic grounds, i.e. how can one call oneself a non-statist while simultaneously believing in a state?

  • ||

    how can one call oneself a non-statist while simultaneously believing in a state?

    I always thought that the term statist (when used here) is a reference to favoring stasis, rather than favoring a State. Does this mean I am going to have to go back and re-read every single post?! I am gonna need more whiskey.

  • ||

    Re-reading my post I realized that I did not make a "bald assertion".

    I consider statements made to my son as pure indoctrination.

  • Jim||

    I consider statements made to my son as pure indoctrination.

    Hey, knock yourself out. I think as long as the kid's living on your dime, you have every right to indoctrinate him any way you please. I'm going to force mine to watch Godzilla movies until he learns to appreciate them.

  • ||

    I'm going to force mine to watch Godzilla movies until he learns to appreciate them.

    Ouch! Glad to hear it! Now, making my son read The Jungle when he was 8 doesn't seem so bad.

  • ||

    And even though I dogged the snarky quote, I totally agree with Epi's point. The government feeds itself instead of administering Law.

  • ||

    Yeah Jim you tell em! Anarchy is totally workable and everybody else is teh STOOPID STATIST?!!!?11

  • ||

    "Epi is so much more interesting when he isn't cheer leading for TEAM ANARCHY."

  • ||

    How's that smartphone data plan working out for you?

  • ||

    Are you against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Epi?

    If so, good on you. 50% of the supposed libertarians are in love with it.

  • pmains||

    Isn't Epi an anarchocapitalist?

  • ||

    Don't confuse the Commodore. He's getting cranky because he hasn't changed his Depends all day.

  • No||

    Isn't Epi an anarchocapitalist?

    I believe it calls itself (don't laugh) an "individualist anarchist."

  • ||

    Wow, that's a lot of posts from a smartphone. I bet your fingers are tired.

  • ||

    Considering there are self-identified an-caps who support govt recognition of same-sex marriage, it's a valid question.

  • SIV||

    self-identified an-caps

    They give the rest of us a bad name!

  • Joe R.||

    There are also anarchists who support arresting rapists. Just because we tolerate a less-perfect solution doesn't mean we don't have a preferred one.

  • jtuf||

    We love immigrants, but we refuse to raise the number of immigration visas.

    /Liberal

  • A Serious Man||

    It's idoitic to differentiate between unskilled and skilled immigrants since it's obvious that both groups come here to work and be productive, which is more than can be said for a substantial portion of our own native population.

  • Almanian||

    *resurrects self and shoots self in head AGAIN with another hollow point*

  • MJ||

    Do you want to get boxed?

  • ||

    Exactly.

    I'll be the first to admit that immigrants work their ass off more than I do.

    However, if I emigrated to another country with the intention of staying, I'd take jobs and put in long hours that I would be very reluctant to do here.

  • ||

    My PhD thesis advisor always reminded me to do a search-and-replace for words like "clear", "obvious", and "trivial" in my thesis before submitting it...because sentences containing those words are usually where the errors are.

    A substantial proportion of immigrants are not the driven workaholics that Reason and others romanticize them to be. They're schlubs like the rest of us trying to get by doing as little honest work as possible.

  • A Serious Man||

    Thought experiment: suppose the US were to streamline all immigration laws and became a truly open country. But at the same time it eradiacted its welfare system. Would the immigrants be happy at being citizens or outraged at the loss of benefits?

  • ||

    They'd probably be divided on that question...JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

    Sometimes it's the most racially/ethnically tolerant people who don't understand that on average, every race and ethnicity is the same.

  • ||

    Thought experiment: suppose your idea were proposed. Would the vast majority of people who say they are opposed to immigration because of welfare say "fine and dandy!", or would they come up with a new reason why immigration was bad?

  • Jim||

    The latter. I put this to my father. He said he has no problem with immigrants, it's just the illegal ones (standard line from closed-border folks), because, you know, they're showing no respect for the law, which is a bad sign.

    So I said, then why are you against legally opening the borders? If we removed the laws against it, then they wouldn't be illegal anymore.

    Oh no, that would be "giving up" or rewarding law breakers or some such nonsense.

    So I said, then basically, no law can ever be changed, because you'd be "giving in" to the people who had previously been breaking it. Repealing Prohibition was "giving in" to the fact that people were going to do what they're going to do regardless of how much you try to stop them.

    After a few blinks, he started in on how we can't let them subsume our culture.

    At that point I snorted and walked away.

  • ||

    After a few blinks, he started in on how we can't let them subsume our culture.

    BINGO. Scratch the surface to get to the real reason.

  • ||

    I once knew an anarchist who was a child rapist.

    Aren't anecdotes fun?

  • Jim||

    And you're free to believe based on that evidence that the majority of anarchists are child-rapists. You may even be right; I certainly don't know the majority of them.

  • ||

    he started in on how we can't let them subsume our culture.

    At that point I snorted and walked away.

    Because it is impossible? It has only happened, what, a few thousand times in human history? America is immune because....?

  • Jim||

    Two things.

    First, it's disingenuous to claim that you're only opposed to "illegal" immigrants, if you're actually opposed to immigrants on a cultural basis, period. If you don't like immigrants, fine, but make your case for that...don't hide behind the "I only don't like them because they broke the law to get here" smoke screen.

    Secondly, I don't believe that groups have rights (only individuals), which means they don't have a right to protect some nebulous concept like "culture" as long as no one is using force against them. An immigrant moves into your neighborhood and tries to steal your car? You have every right to take action against the individuals involved. Don't like their "culture" and are upset that it's replacing your own? Too bad. Convince others who you believe share your "culture" to have more kids. But you don't have the right to use guns against other people to preserve your notion of it.

    "I don't like the number of people speaking Spanish in Amurika!" (common cultural complaint) is not a justification for using guns against others, as them speaking Spanish in no way imposes upon your rights. If you disagree, then by all means, make your case.

  • ||

    First, it's disingenuous to claim that you're only opposed to "illegal" immigrants, if you're actually opposed to immigrants on a cultural basis, period.

    It's not disingenuous to criticize people for breaking the law without referring to your reasons for supporting the law.

    If I criticize someone who drives through red lights, do I have to immediately explain why I think the law against driving through red lights is a good law?

  • Jim||

    If I criticize someone who drives through red lights, do I have to immediately explain why I think the law against driving through red lights is a good law?

    Bad analogy. Something closer would be, you criticize someone for running a red light, then they remove the red light the next week, and you still criticize and wish to punish people who no longer stop even though the red light isn't there anymore (metaphor for legalizing open borders).

  • Polevaulter Donkeyman||

    If asked for an explanation, why not?

  • ||

    First, it's disingenuous to claim that you're only opposed to "illegal" immigrants, if you're actually opposed to immigrants on a cultural basis, period.

    Science, argue with yourself much? Your "bald assertion" to the contrary, it is no such thing. The whole point of limiting immigration is to assure cultural acclimation, which doesn't equal ethnic exclusion.

    "I don't like the number of people speaking Spanish in Amurika!" (common cultural complaint) is not a justification for using guns against others, as them speaking Spanish in no way imposes upon your rights. If you disagree, then by all means, make your case.


    How about, when large numbers of people emigrate to a different country and do not consider themselves members of that country bad shit happens. Simple enough? Do you need a couple hundred historical examples? Shit, don't know the history of Texas, even?

    Make my case? Is there any basis for the idea that America is immune to this historical condition? It has been repeated across time and the globe but this time it will be different? You are the one who is claiming it is unique. You have yet to tell me why.

  • Jim||

    I never stated America was unique. You're the one making the claim that I stated that. It's possible they all move here and set up a new Mexico. At the point they begin violating someone's rights, I'll oppose that action. But there is no "right" to not have people you don't like living nearby if they can afford to buy the property and the owner wants to sell it to them.

    You say, "bad shit happens". What bad shit? They commit more crimes? Then use force against the specific individuals who commit crimes, and don't ascribe actions to a group. Your collectivism is so strong it's sickening. Immigrants are not the Borg. They do not have a hive-mind to which you can ascribe collective guilt for crimes.

    And if not crimes, then what else are you talking about? They speak their own language? Do you have a RIGHT to only hear English?

    I grew up in Texas, and am fully aware of it's history. Are you afraid we're going to have a bunch of hispanics move in, have an incompetent dictator take over America, and then the hispanics revolt in order to form their own republic?

  • Barack Hussein Obama||

    Let me be perfectly clear...

    I am NOT incompetent!

  • ||

    Hey Jim, have you looked at Europe right? How does is that melting pot going? Oh that's right it riots. The cultures haven't melted.

    A difference between legal and illegal..hummm you mean besides that the legal ones work they butt off and learn the ways of the country. While the illegal ones don't. (yes, board strokes).

    Yes Jimbo, I expect everyone to have a basic understanding of English in this country. Everyone. That is the language of businesses here. Hey, if you go to France to you expect everyone to speak English or do you learn French? What about Japan? If your going to live some place, your supposed to learn their language and customs not expect them to learn yours.

    Why Spanish huh? I think your racist because you didn't suggest to put Koren, Mandrin, or a hundred other languages.

    As to your hispanic comment - so why do these people get prefence? Because they live south of us? Millions in India, China, Africa would love to come here? What makes them more special because distance? Why is it wrong to pick who comes in? Oh wait, almost every country in the world does that.

    So Jimbo, since your such an open border person - guess you don't have a door on your house because it should be great anyone to come in right? Oh way you have a door? Hypocrite!

    A country survives because it has like values, customs and culture. Immigrants are assimulated into that culture and do change it in small ways. That is not what is happening with illegal immigrants.

  • Sean Healy||

    How about, when large numbers of people emigrate to a different country and do not consider themselves members of that country bad shit happens. Simple enough?

    This sounds like an argument for reducing restrictions on immigration, since having 11 million people classified as 'illegal' pretty much creates a large class of folks who won't feel a part of the country they are living in. Am I missing something?

  • ||

    Citations?

  • ||

    (citing 1000s of times immigrants subsumed another another's culture)

  • ||

    s/anarchist/Hispanic/

    and try again.

  • iguanodon||

    gotta ask, not really expecting answer, but...why exactly are y'all so damn hot to see the culture subsumed? it's kind of silly, really...

  • Jim||

    gotta ask, not really expecting answer, but...why exactly are y'all so damn hot to see the culture subsumed? it's kind of silly, really...

    Whose culture? Are you so collective-minded that you conflate your identity with that of a group? I'm probably into a lot of things you aren't, and you're probably into a lot of things that I'm not. Many people would ascribe christianity to our "culture", but I'm an athiest. Collectives do not have rights, only individuals.

    I do not care if all my neighbors are catholics with cars with giant wheels and spinning rims, as long as they aren't violating my rights. If it bothers me, I'll move away. But my discomfort does not give me the right to use government to force property owners to only sell to groups of people of whom I approve (excluding unapproved groups such as immigrants).

  • iguanodon||

    ooh, really wasn't expecting an answer, neat! now i think about it, i suppose i was just bitching about the general decline of this country that i love, which to be fair isn't really the fault of immigrants...you'd certainly peg me for a statist, since i don't give a hoot in hell for anarchy, but i agree w/ what you say about not using government force...

  • ||

    "general decline" = red flag. You are a cultural conservative. You always lose.

  • ||

    If we removed the laws against it, then they wouldn't be illegal anymore.

    Technically not true. Repealing a law does not remove the guilt of those who broke it while it was in force.

    I think your father's point was that their willingness to break the law as it was at the time of their entry is a bad sign. Changing the law doesn't change their willingness to break it.

  • Jim||

    Technically not true. Repealing a law does not remove the guilt of those who broke it while it was in force.

    Granted, but he wasn't down with open borders period, not just in relation to those who already came here illegally. So really he's not opposed to illegal immigrants per se, he's opposed to immigrants, period.

  • MWG||

    We can't end prohibition until everyone gives up the drink!

  • ||

    And Epi comes along to remind us that dissing one's opponents is more fun than actually addressing the issue at hand.

    Don't ever stop being you.

  • Caesar||

    citation?

  • Bradley||

    My PhD thesis advisor always reminded me to do a search-and-replace for words like "clear", "obvious", and "trivial" in my thesis before submitting it...because sentences containing those words are usually where the errors are.

    I may not have a PhD, but at least I use some new anecdotes every once in a while.

  • Some Guy||

    As much as I despise our current immigration policies that make it illegal for people to come here and be productive citizens, I think forcing people to buy houses is even worse. We have had enough problems with the government encouraging people to buy houses already.

    How about just charging an extra $5-10k for a green card, removing all caps, and leaving the housing market alone?

  • Joe R.||

    It seems silly to me, too. What, a PhD chemist was going to come here and sleep in a ditch?

  • Almanian||

    This is today's "Cop Shoots Dog" story, right?

  • ||

    the bogus distinction between illegal and legal immigration, which makes it sound like there is a class of people out there who are congenitally wired to not care about our immigration laws

    Considering the size of this strawman and the fact that it isn't signed, should I assume that Tony is now posting articles for Reason?

  • ||

    No shit. But this reads like Mike Riggs' work.

  • ||

    -1 for me, it's Shikha Dalmia. Apologies, Mr Riggs.... THIS TIME....

  • ||

    The passive-aggressive "I'm not even going to talk about X" positioned right before a rant about X is like a friggin thumbprint.

  • ||

    Hence Wadhwa’s suggestion deserves some serious thought. May be it’ll work and may be it won’t. But if it does, it will show that immigrants themselves are the best source of ideas to solve our immigration problem. And that is reason enough to let them in.

    How does it show this? If the idea had been thought of by a native-born American, would that "show" that immigrants don't have ideas to solve immigration problems?

    And even if it did, of course, idea generation is one of the easiest jobs to outsource, so there wouldn't be any need to "let them in".

  • ||

    If we gave these immigrants green cards, most of them would buy homes anyways. We're talking about skilled high-tech workers, here. If any of them are renters, they are renting because they're afraid they'll have to leave the country.

  • Brittanicus||

    What are the two most critical issues in the oncoming presidential elections? Down to the wire it is the economy and jobs. Therefore, we must find jobs, lots of jobs and illegal immigrants in the lower incomes who have acquired jobs must be removed and returned to less fortunate legal workers in our country. Are you aware that illegal immigration has been encouraged very successfully by the unconscionable business organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce; backed up by certain unconcerned Republicans and the disingenuous Democrats, propelled by the left-wing influence? Records on immigration numbers have been systematically sanitized and kept out of the main spotlight. Liberal leaning news media have massaged numbers, statistics for years, including previous administrations. Any blogger or outside comment author is quickly banned from passing on sources or statistics.

    Currently the main headline has been quickly flows through the national press, which illegal aliens are leaving and returning to their own country? What they are not selling you, is that over 20 million illegal aliens have settled here; and this may be uncounted. Millions live in houses of legal immigrants, hidden away from authorities, spending taxpayer’s money; Using friends ID or stolen documents to take American jobs. Millions could be shielded by unions, working in construction, hotels and motels or on a grand scale in Sen. Harry Reid’s entertainment Mecca of Nevada. The Pew Research Center says there are 8 million illegal immigrants are working and who have stolen jobs from American workers, through the collusion of business owners and many radical open border groups.

    These groups are under the unfounded supposition that we need more and more workers, legal or illegal? This is not saying we shouldn't give expeditious visas to engineers and scientists and those who have high professional achievement. Highly skilled individuals, who have shown their skilled abilities, will never drop to the poverty line as they will always have high paying jobs. On the negative side, people who are sliding past the border line, or the other 40 percent who lie at entry ports at airlines and shipping terminals are committed to staying until caught. The majority of economic illegal aliens are well versed in welfare laws and the use of false ID. These economic nationals have a better idea of each States entitlement system, to be able to play to their advantage then law-abiding Americans.

    California is a very Liberal state that is under the impression that American taxpayers should support the illegal immigration occupation of that State. All Border States are under a giant pressure from especially illegal pregnant mothers, who are determined to bring their unborn child here so they can get free hospitalization; then after conceiving the 300.000 children annually born to illegal aliens, in receipt of instant citizenship can collect cash payments and a whole bunch of handouts, that US citizens and residents never see?

    Figures from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services

    Immigration is having a bigger impact than ever on the American economy, but the current presidential candidates seem reluctant to speak up. June figures from the Department of Public Social Services in California report $54 million in welfare benefits were issued to illegal alien parents of their native-born children in Los Angeles County alone. This was announced by County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. The $54 million consists of $22 million in CalWORKs (welfare) and $32 million in Food Stamps — an increase of $3 million from June 2010. This represents 22% of all CalWORKs and Food Stamp issuances in the County. The projected annual cost has jumped to $625 million.

    “With the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” said Antonovich. “These costs do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars for education.”

    WHAT MONSTEROUS FINANCIAL HOLE IS YOUR STATE DIGGING FOR ITSELF? LAWS FORCED ON TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT INVADERS? ARIZONA WAS HIT HARD BY DEFICITS CAUSED BY ECONOMIC ILLEGAL ALIENS. THOUSANDS HAVE MOVED OUT AS POLICING LAWS WERE ENFORCED, AND MOVING IN YOUR DIRECTION. THESE FOREIGNERS ARE GIVING ALABAMA, GEORGIA, UTAH AND OTHER LOCATIONS A WIDE BERTH.

    Should we expect Perry, a Republican who once served in the Texas legislature, to make the same admission about his pro illegal immigration stance? After all, he gave illegal aliens discounted in-state tuition at public colleges and universities in Texas then traveled to Mexico to brag about it. He also slammed Arizona for passing a tough immigration control law, believes the southern border fence is unnecessary and opposes the E-Verify federal verification program that prevents illegal immigrants from landing state jobs. E-Verify the job eliminator for illegal aliens and the new deterrent is equally needed to start clipping the wings of the open border zealots, the religious entities, unions and the unhappy business leaders who determined to keep cheap labor pouring into the U.S.
    Perhaps Americans shouldn’t hold their breath for an apology on the open borders issue since it’s likely that Rick Perry is betting it will earn Latino votes.

    • The threat of a Congressional amnesty may be off the table for now, but millions of illegal immigrants are still taking American jobs.
    • Congress continues to import an additional 75,000 foreign workers every month at a time when American workers are facing massive unemployment and collapsing wages.
    • The immigration crisis is as severe as ever, and elected officials from both parties have refused to do anything to address the role mass immigration plays in our national jobs crisis.
    • Americans need a president who will take our immigration crisis seriously.

    Right now, the political parties and presidential candidates are staking out their positions on immigration. Together, we can influence the candidates to improve their immigration positions and publicly commit to defending the American worker. See the immigration grade scores of contenders in the Presidential race at NumbersUSA. Learn who is involved in corruption and collusion of all lawmakers at Judicial Watch.

    • Will the Republicans reject another open-borders candidate?
    • Will President Obama move to a more reasonable position as he strives for re-election?
    • Can candidates and prospective candidates like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Herman Cain recognize the urgency voters have about this issue? Michele Bachmann has openly discussed this ominous issue that is erupting from every newspaper and media every day. Only—and only the TEA PARTY are willing to talk about Illegal Immigration. So this is the time to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak and learn who is ready to fight for every American and not try to pacify illegal aliens, with the possibility of Immigration Reform- we all know as mass amnesty. No TEA PARTY leader will enact any law that rescinds the Reagan 1986 Immigration Control and reform Act. All cities branded as a Sanctuary for Illegal aliens, will either conform to the law, or lose federal funding.

    Politicians, who won’t recognize the urgency of the immigration issue, will be removed.

    MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/

  • ||

    TL;DR

    Herc always adds a bunch of brackets. This post needs more brackets.

  • Almanian||

    Cool story, bro

  • Tired of this||

    "the bogus distinction between illegal and legal immigration"

    FUCK YOU.

  • ||

    I usually don't approve of vulgarity but I'll give this a +1.

    Reason rightly looks askance at those who minimize the distinction between illegal and legal wiretapping or illegal and legal police entries. For some reason they shed their insistence on the rule of law when it comes to immigration.

  • tarran||

    I think, Tulpa, that they discriminate between laws that outlaw behavior that has no victims, and laws that outlaw harmful behavior that injures people.

    In the case of warrants, the theory is that the government has to get permission before harming soemone from a judge and/or a jury composed of the citizenry. Thus the question of whether or not the government engaged in injurious conduct with or without a warrant is significant.

    In the case of immigration, there is no victim from the act of immigrating per se. Absent a victim, the question of legality is purely a political one.

  • ||

    I'm getting rather tired of Shikha's dishonest rants on immigration policy.

    "While Michele Bachmann took immigrant-bashing to a new height today, proudly announcing that she would become the first presidential candidate of 2012 to make opposition to illegal immigration a signature issue"

    So opposition to *illegal* immigration is immigrant bashing? Maybe it's just a commitment to the *rule of law*?

  • MWG||

    "So opposition to *illegal* immigration is immigrant bashing?"

    I don't know. Is she for expanding legal immigration?

    "Maybe it's just a commitment to the *rule of law*?"

    The law is the law? Barf.

  • ||

    You can be opposed to expanding immigration without bashing immigrants. Sort of like you can oppose hiring public school teachers at a higher rate without bashing current teachers.

  • tarran||

    Except that when you oppose a person immigrating, you are intervening to prevent them from entering into a bunch of transactions (buyin g a bus ticket, renting an appartment, selling their labor, etc), whereas when you are arguing against hiring more people for the government school system, you are debating appropriate levels of staffing for a business that you are a share-holder.

    In the case of immigration, you, a third party, are preventing two people from conducting business based on where one of those people is from.

    In the case of the school teachers, you are declining to involve yourself in a prospective transaction.

  • Joshua||

    It's Michelle Bachmann. Of course it's immigrant bashing.

  • jtuf||

    I think we should raise the number of Diversity Visas to 1 million per year and open the Diversity Visa Lottery to people from all nations.

  • jtuf||

    including the bogus distinction between illegal and legal immigration

    How about the bogus distinction between illegal immigrants in America and aspiring immigrants in other countries who decided to not break our laws? The USA turns down over 10 million aspiring immigrants from the Diversity Visa program every year. Amnesty should be off the table until after we raise the number of immigration visas.

  • MWG||

    "The USA turns down over 10 million aspiring immigrants from the Diversity Visa program every year."

    ...and there's the root of the problem right there.

  • David E. Gallaher/Ruthless||

    We didn't need ObamaCare. We don't need ImmigrantCurse.
    Reminds me of the tug of war during the '30's between Nazis and commies.
    Am reading The Declaration of Independents. It shows a detour around the old/new Nazi/commie smash-up.

  • jtuf||

    which makes it sound like there is a class of people out there who are congenitally wired to not care about our immigration laws, when the truth is that our immigration laws are wired to not care about them.

    I agree that our immigration laws need to be more lax, but I'm not upset by attempts to enforce those laws. Opposing law enforcement seems like a good strategy when you don't like the law in question. It becomes a bad strategy when you do like the law in question. Consider a socialist who refuses to distinguish between legal welfare that goes through the government and "freelance welfare" that he forcefully takes directly from local businesses. That socialist could say:

    which makes it sound like there is a class of people out there who are congenitally wired to not care about our immigration property laws, when the truth is that our immigration property laws are wired to not care about them.

  • ||

    Good point. Unfortunately it seems likely that no Reason writer will ever act as if they're aware of it.

  • ||

    Can't you oppose ilegal immigration AND expedite green card issuance to foreigners staying on a visa?

    There's a difference between "guest workers" staying on work visas and most latino illegals who just hopped across the border. We had a say in admitting the former group.

    Let's be contorversial for moment - how many Americans would seriously oppose granting citizneship to Indian engineers on a temp work visa? How about a North Korean family that snuck into the country illegaly to flee from certain death? Oh, not many. Americans are suckers for a heart warming immigration story.

    But take a look at the chest thumping "La Raza" bunch who insists that Uncle Sam is the devil and the border crossed them, and you understand why Americans are generally cool to immigration reform.

  • ||

    The Mexicans who the border crossed were offered citizenship at the time of the border change, actually.

  • ||

    I guess a million and one times is OK to say this: I don't care where you come from or what you look like, if you're willing to come here and "be an American".

    Now, that's not jingoism. By that, I mean be willing to work hard and carry your own weight,, stay in your own yard unless invited, swear allegiance to your adopted country, advocate for the rule of law and practice what you preach, etc.

    You don't have to give up your culture, your language, your style of dress, your choice of foods; although it would probably be smart to at least learn conversational English, at least for the sake of your own children. If you want to be a citizen instead of a legal resident, then I EXPECT you take your citizenship seriously. Otherwise, it's your damn life, not mine.

    But, DON'T fucking come knocking on my door, expecting a handout, then spit on the hand that feeds you.

  • Bill||

    Do Libertaians have places they live in, do they lock the doors when they leave, or do they just leave the front door open so anybody can walk in and take whatever they want and shit on their carpets?

  • MWG||

    You're confused about how private poperty rights work.

  • ||

    Private property is an arbitrary rule of excluding people from areas delineated by imaginary lines. It's a good rule, but it has no more inherent logical justification than restricting who can cross national boundaries.

  • MWG||

    Actually it is. One is based on the individual, the other is based on the collective. Governments (the collective) do not have rights the same way the individual does. Therefore, it is a poor analogy to compare locking you door to protect you property to locking the border.

    A more accurate analogy would be to compare the nation to a condo complex. It's none of you're business who I decide to have over.

  • Jim||

    Forget it, MWG. I've repeated a handful of times further up-thread that collectives do not have the rights of individuals, but people who support the collective of course refute that opinion.

  • MWG||

    Collectivism: the nasty offspring of the left and right's own versions of statism.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Well, then, we can safely ignore *all* of our laws, from the constitution on down, since the collective, not having rights, had no right to impose them on us.

  • Joshua||

    Governments are charged with duties and obligations by the citizens. These are not rights.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Ok, then... given that the "collective" has no rights, by what right does the "collective" charge the government with the authority to make laws applying to individuals?

    Hey, I didn't give my consent!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm not sure this line of argument holds up. Don't collectives own property, too? Are you saying collectives that own property can't enforce who is allowed on that property?

  • Monty||

    Why wouldn’t a collective have the same rights as the individuals that comprise it? Corporations/collectives are people.

  • ||

    ^this^

  • ||

    How many times do we have to go through this? Listen, the Fugitive Slave Act is the law of the land. If you don't like it, write to your congressman to change it. In the meantime, Negro slaves who escape to the North must be returned to their rightful owners. I thought Reason supported property rights. Those who offer succor to these escaped slaves are breaking the law. Period.

  • A Serious Man||

    Um Walter Block slave contracts aside, you can't own a person. Are you going to defend the Nuremberg laws too? I hope this Is faux-Tulpa.

  • tarran||

    I doubt the real Tulpa penned that even though it is consistent with some of his other arguments.

  • MWG||

    Tulps, you're a riddle wrapped in an enigma. What is your stance on immigration?

  • Doug||

    While Michele Bachmann took immigrant-bashing  illegal immigrant-bashing to a new height today, ...

    C'mon Shikha, you have no excuse for this kind of sloppiness.

  • ||

    I'm one of the skilled American IT workers who trained 4 Indian IT workers to take over my own job. I've now been forced to relocate to a border state. While I won't be voting for Bachmann since she lied about Pawlenty, who I did not support either. She is not bashing immigrants!

  • ||

    I'm one of the skilled American IT workers who trained 4 Indian IT workers to take over my own job. I've now been forced to relocate to a border state. While I won't be voting for Bachmann since she lied about Pawlenty, who I did not support either. She is not bashing immigrants!

  • Let's say...||

    ...three hundred million assorted foreigners decided to come here, all at once (well, not literally, as that would be impossible... say, over a period of X number of days, however you want to divvy it up by number of people per hour are able to walk in from northern/southern borders and/or onto our shorelines).

    Roughly double the current population, in - let's say, a month, just to pick a timeline (that would be ten million a day, which may or may not be possible, and don't ask me; I'm just putting forth a scenario).

    Question:

    Would we be able to even sustain a third of such an influx, let alone the whole three-hundred million new warm bodies?

    Bonus questions:

    Would a state of martial law be declared?

    If so, would the Oath Keepers really be able - or willing - to live up to their promise to not engage in such activity?

    Where would all of the able-bodied adults (assuming roughly a quarter of said immigrants would be children) live or work, or would they even be able to find dwellings or jobs?

    Would our current infrastructure even support a semi-virtually-overnight near-doubling of the population?

    Assuming that even a tiny percentage of these people might be criminals (and I mean REAL criminals, as in murderers and thieves and rapists), even one out of one hundred thousand would be three thousand - enough criminals to fill a decent-sized prison. Do we happen to have a prison currently totally vacant and in decent operating condition?

    Do we have enough government school seats to put all teh chilrenz?

    I could posit more questions, but I'm pretty sure just asking the general theory will end up in a barrage of racism charges and/or TEAM RED allegiance - both of which are unfounded, but still - so, maybe I shouldn't hit "submit" at all.

    Meh... fuck it. I'll ask it anyway.

  • ||

    A hypothetical is supposed to have relevance to the matter at hand.

  • jtuf||

    Would we be able to even sustain a third of such an influx, let alone the whole three-hundred million new warm bodies?

    The percent of the USA population that was foreign born peaked at around 14% (plus or minus 1%) from 1860 to 1920 (source: the USA Census Bureau) without the nation collapsing from immigration. In 1990 (the most recent year available) the population was 8% foreign born. That means we can add another 6% of the population (18 million) before we exceed historic norms. This number assumes no natural growth from births exceeding deaths and does not factor in the age structure of the population. I think we could safely raise the number of immigrants we accept to 1.5 million per year for a decade without any negative consequences. If we accept more than that, we'll be going beyond historic peaks, although I suspect we can handle it anyway.

  • Georgia Resident||

    This is specious. The country was far less crowded then. The maximum that people ever paid for housing was usually a third of their total income (which was lower back then than it is now). The country is more than three times as crowded now. We're a little uncomfortably full as it is. We don't need to let in people until we turn into China and India. I know libertarians like to think we're more prosperous than those countries because we're freer, and that's undoubtedly part of the reason, but being a much less crowded country, with more resources for each person, and resultant higher wages and lower living expenses certainly helps.

  • ||

    "The maximum that people ever paid for housing was usually a third of their total income"

    Yeah, and that would be the way it is today if we didn't spend the last three decades trying to get everyone into a house.

  • jtuf||

    If you add all the space taken up by cities and suburbs, the total is less than 10% of our country. There are more acres of forest in America today than there were half a century ago, because our improved agricultural efficiency let us grow more food on less land. People contribute more to our economy than natural resources do. That's why the USA is a supper power and Canada is not. The current lack of affordable housing is a result of restrictive building policies, not an excess of people.

  • tarran||

    Let's say, what about the danger that all the oxygen in the room you are currently in could migrate over to one corner and leave you asphyxiating?

    Do you carry around tanks of oxygen to save your life should that happen? Or do you blissfully ignore the danger?

  • Georgia Resident||

    It's an improbably danger. By contrast, the consequences of overpopulation are well defined and have historical precedent. The same can be said of the dangers involved in uncontrolled influxes of outsiders. There's a reason you don't see any pure-blooded Neanderthals or Denisovans running around. The Cro-Magnons moved freely into their territory, and as a result displaced most and absorbed the rest.

    That's just one early example. The replacement of Khoisan peoples in Africa by negroid Africans and even, yes, the Amerindian peoples of north America by Europeans represent clear cases of race replacement by outsiders. I'm not much into moralizing about past events, so much as insuring the survival of my own people in the present and future. We are essentially submitting to our own destruction, as it is.

  • ||

    But by "your people" you mean people you've never met, never will meet, who don't care about you, who happen to share similar genetic traits. Hardly something worth fighting voluntary action for.

  • ||

    Wow, nice trick by the author. How come I never figured out that the trendy-century of journalism can make "right and wrong" look like a thing of the past...... and the notion of being void of any moral patriotism is the kind of earthling, political-correct decency ideal for our time under the sun.

    Laws be damned ------ some sick manifestation to rape the country with droves of foreigners, among their tongue, their culture, their people..... you see the point?

    Deport these anti-American foreigners! Mass deportation and full enforcement is a FRIEND to America!

  • yelly||

    I'm one of the skilled American IT workers who trained 4 Indian IT workers to take over my own job. I've now been forced to relocate to a border state.
    Nike Free 7.0 v3 Womens Running Shoes - Black/White Nike Logo
    Nike Free 7.0 v3 Womens Running Shoes - Black/White/Blue

  • Federal Dog||

    "including the bogus distinction between illegal and legal immigration,"

    I take you at your word that you cannot grasp basic logical distinctions (legal v. illegal).

    Stop whining until you get basic training in logic.

  • MJ||

    "Let’s also ignore people like me at Reason who believe that all immigrants not proven to be Mohammad Atta and bird-flu carriers are good immigrants and should be allowed in the country pronto."

    How do we figure out who the Atta's and bird-flu carriers are without a process for legal immigration? And that people who ignore such processes would be by definition illegal immigrants? You can object to our current immgration laws as being too strict, but if you think there are at least some people who should not be allowed into our country then you cannot claim the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant is bogus on its face.

  • Joshua||

    Strawman. Shikha didn't call for ending all processing of immigrants.

  • MJ||

    She called the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants "bogus", which means the distinction between someone willing to go through processing and someone who is not is also bogus.

  • ||

    I don't want to "go through processing" to cross an imaginary line, and I'm not Atta.

  • Skip||

    Whats wrong with wanting these people to stay home and make their own countries better?

  • tarran||

    Nothing wrong with wanting.

    The use of violence to make them behave as you want on the other hand...

  • Atanarjuat||

    By doing so you're restricting their freedom. We libertarians don't like that.

  • Georgia Resident||

    If the US doesn't have mass immigration, we'll never get to be as crowded as India and China! And that would be awful. I know that I consider elbow room to be a source of misery to a population.

  • Georgia Resident||

    So wait, immigrants should get a green card for driving up housing prices (which, incidentally, is something that the ones with money will probably do anyway, without it being a precondition for permanent residency)? That is possibly the worst suggestion I've ever heard. Whatever happened to the whole "not using government policy to manipulate prices and validate malinvestments" thing? But I guess it's okay for government policy to manipulate prices provided it's pushing the price of labor downward and pushing the price of a basic necessity upward, while creating significant negative externalities in terms of an increasingly overburdened infrastructure, overcrowding, and pollution.
    IF immigrants are to be allowed to buy their way into permanent residency (and eventually citizenship), they should be required to invest in something that will raise the country's global competitiveness, like domestic manufacturing, or buying bonds to pay for infrastructure.
    Gotta love the fact that Reason's still in the tank for the cheap labor lobby. It's also incredibly hilarious that libertarians (who are 90% white, while the country as a whole is only 65% white and dropping) would want to speed the race replacement of white people, in the hopes that it might, just possibly, make the replacement population slightly more sympathetic to libertarian ideas. That's some smart strategizing right there.

  • tarran||

    What a fucking train wreck...

    (who are 90% white, while the country as a whole is only 65% white and dropping) would want to speed the race replacement of white people, in the hopes that it might, just possibly, make the replacement population slightly more sympathetic to libertarian ideas.

    My friend, I want to introduce you to the concept of dong the right thing regardless of whether or not it makes you richer in the short term.

    The point of allowing people to engage in commerce freely, to buy property freely, to start businesses freely is the principle that it is wrong to prevent people from doing what they want if they are not harming (injuring people or depriving people of their property).

    Unlike you, I don't say the amount of freedom people should enjoy is based on their skin color. Your view is a stupid one, based on historically inaccurate views on race and political philosophy and does, whenever put into practice, lead to poverty and misery.
  • ||

    only a moron thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about

    Shikha was not endorsing the house buy suggestion. She even talked shit about its technocratic nature.

    Allowing an increased number of individuals access to the country is not price manipulation, any more than allowing increased numbers of cars is.

    Libertarians are more philosophically minded than any other political group. We cry out against injustice even when it's often not in our own personal best interest.

    "race replacement" what are you talking about? They're not tossing whitey out. They're just allowing brownie in.

    I don't know of a single libertarian who things that immigrants are at all more likely to be sympathetic to libertarian ideas.

    Libertariana isn't about strategy. It's about doing the right thing.

  • Georgia Resident||

    Guess what the other major "brownie" group they've let in (Hispanics) want to do? If you want an idea of their goals, all one has to do is listen to the rhetoric of politicians in overwhelmingly Hispanic areas, where they don't have to care what whitey thinks. They have a very clear plan to toss whitey out. In addition, whitey's currently getting screwed through affirmative action (which for some reason Hispanics qualify for), and will probably get screwed more as other immigrant groups agitate for their own privileges.
    "Libertarians are more philosophically minded than any other political group."
    That would read better as "libertarians are the most wildly impractical political group".
    "Libertariana isn't about strategy. It's about doing the right thing." And, of course, it prescribes what it thinks is the "right" thing to do.
    So it's more a religion than a political movement? Nice to know.

  • Georgia Resident||

    Additionally, I am well award that the author was not endorsing the house buy suggestion. I simply wanted to state what a terrible idea it was.

    And since she held that idea up as an example of what wonderful ideas the immigrants would come up with if we only let them, I think it counts as at least a half endorsement.

  • Georgia Resident||

    "aware"

  • ||

    The country is, at last count close to 70% white--and possibly closer to 80% when you consider that hispanics are non-white only when that statistic can be used to make it look like the US is quickly headed to 'majority minority' status. A good chunk of hispanics are white--ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he checks off 'hispanic' on his census.

  • Georgia Resident||

    Hispanics get affirmative action, and even most "white" Hispanics have a significant amount of nonwhite ancestry. Therefore, they are nonwhite in my book. And you obviously didn't look at the 2010 census. It showed non-Hispanic whites at 65% of the population.

    Incidentally, Arpaio is Italian, not Hispanic. Thanks for putting your ignorance on display.

  • tarran||

    Second time's the charm:
    What a fucking train wreck...


    (who are 90% white, while the country as a whole is only 65% white and dropping) would want to speed the race replacement of white people, in the hopes that it might, just possibly, make the replacement population slightly more sympathetic to libertarian ideas.

    My friend, I want to introduce you to the concept of doing the right thing regardless of whether or not it makes you richer in the short term.

    The point of allowing people to engage in commerce freely, to buy property freely, to start businesses freely is the principle that it is wrong to prevent people from doing what they want if they are not harming (injuring people or depriving people of their property).

    Unlike you, I don't say the amount of freedom people should enjoy is based on their skin color. Your view is a stupid one, based on historically inaccurate views on race and political philosophy and does, whenever put into practice, lead to poverty and misery.

  • ||

    It's OK. You tried.

  • Georgia Resident||

    "My friend, I want to introduce you to the concept of doing the right thing regardless of whether or not it makes you richer in the short term."

    Explain why it's the "right" thing. So far you've just made an assertion. In any case, most of these people are perfectly willing to restrict your "rights" to do the things you listed.

    "Unlike you, I don't say the amount of freedom people should enjoy is based on their skin color."
    Well, first of all, race isn't about skin color, but is more a matter of extended kinship. More generally, most societies have distinguished what rights people have based at least partly on kinship. Far be it from me to commit the naturalistic fallacy and say that what's natural is necessarily right, but it typically doesn't lead to good results if you take an unrealistic view of human nature.

    "Your view is a stupid one, based on historically inaccurate views on race and political philosophy and does, whenever put into practice, lead to poverty and misery."
    Hardly. My view (at least as it applied to immigration) was the dominant one for most of this country's history. An immigration policy such as the one I would advocate was the national policy from 1924 to 1965. That period, apart from the Great Depression, which was simply a result of overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy, was the period of most rapid per-capita economic growth in our history. This is not necessarily because of the immigration policy, but it proves that such a policy is perfectly compatible with national prosperity.

    Additionally, my views on race are probably quite a better informed than your slavish devotion to political correctness. Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, and others have amassed a large amount of evidence that indicates innate physical differences between the races of humanity in such important areas as cognitive ability and personality. If you actually wanted a good book to start reading about the heritability of intelligence, which also delves somewhat into the differences between races, I would suggest The g Factor by Jensen.

  • ||

    Your view of race is fundamentally flawed. That is to say that you do not understand the concept.
    http://people.oregonstate.edu/.....c-race.pdf

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement