Capitalist Pig Jonathan Hoenig: Immigrants are "Unquestionable Economic Benefit"

Investment guru and Fox News regular Jonathan Hoenig - head of the Capitalist Pig fund - makes the free-market, libertarian case for open borders:

Along with eliminating the entitlement state, open immigration in the United States would be an unquestionable boon to the economy. Because there is no limit on the amount of wealth and prosperity that can be created, we should welcome more immigrants to this country.... 

The term “illegal” itself simply doesn’t apply.  There is nothing objectively criminal about being a foreigner, working at a construction site or renting an apartment. Beyond screening for Islamic terrorists, those with infectious diseases or other obvious risks, the doors to this country and the ability to work and live here should be open.

Hard-working immigrants are an unquestionable economic benefit.  The fact that foreigners are eager to pick crops, clean houses, bus tables and produce allows more of us to afford cheaper food and better services, affording us even more wealth to enjoy and invest.  It’s not the immigrants, but the taxesspending and entitlements (most of which immigrants don’t even receive) that have drained the economy dry.

Read the whole thing.

Alt-text answer: It's Alexander Graham Bell, who was played by Don Ameche in the movies so memorably that members of the Greatest Generation sometimes refered to phones as "the Don Ameche."

And watch Hoenig's interview with Reason TV, where he talks about why hedge funds are good for America and how Ayn Rand (who could have been deported as an illegal alien) has influenced his thinking:

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.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Along with eliminating the entitlement state, open immigration in the United States would be an unquestionable boon to the economy."

    Isn't it supposed to be, in order to have open immigration, you must eliminate the entitlement state in order to have said boon to the economy?

  • ||

    Nope.

  • Drake||

    Yep.

  • Jeff||

    Yes.

  • robc||

    Nope.

    2-2, and I break all ties.

    I win.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Yep

  • Atanarjuat||

    Is this the "LAOL" you guys keep using in your handles?

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Nope, we're the "yokeltarian" clan here on reason. Also known as "law and order libertarians"

  • Atanarjuat||

    Is this the "LAOL" you guys keep using in your handles?

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm sorry we have put you in jail Jose, but you see we have citizens on welfare so we have no choice.

  • Zeb||

    Well, it's pretty hard to measure, so everyone is talking out their asses a bit, but I'd have to guess nope. Lots of immigrants are paying taxes (and not filing returns) and getting little in the way of services. If the system weren't set up to encourage them to steal SS numbers or work under the table, they'd probably pay even more. I'd have to guess that that more than offsets the costs of immigrants who do use some government services.

    But I don't really mind, because open immigration is the right thing to do regardless. Two wrongs don't make a right.

  • carol||

    Yep.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nope.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes.

    The socialist's useful idiots will disagree.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    "Along with eliminating the entitlement state, open immigration in the United States would be an unquestionable boon to the economy."

    Well, there's the rub. Pick any two:

    -Open borders
    -Welfare state
    -Solvency

  • Calidissident||

    Open borders and solvency. Obviously.

  • John||

    When the immigrants are immediately granted citizenship and can vote themselves benefits, those two are a bit hard to obtain.

  • ||

    Everyone who comes to the United States is immediately granted citizenship? People who are born here can't vote themselves (and others) benefits?

  • John||

    That is kind of the point of amnesty isn't it? And yes, people who are born here can vote themselves benefits too. And that is a problem. But since immigrants tend to be on the public dole at even higher rates than natives, immigrants make the problem even worse.

  • ||

    That is kind of the point of amnesty isn't it?

    If you actually read anything about the amnesty proposals, you would see the lack of the word "immediate".

    But since immigrants tend to be on the public dole at even higher rates than natives

    Except that's backwards, immigrants are shown to take less and give more than native-born Americans.

  • John||

    Not true. Immigrants are on the public dole at a much higher rate than natives. They are poorer than natives generally as well. It is just the facts.

    I have no problem with real open boarders. But the welfare state has to go first if you want that.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Except that's backwards, immigrants are shown to take less and give more than native-born Americans.

    How do you retards come up with this shit?

  • Randian||

    Math and statistics?

  • Randian||

    "we can't lower taxes until we eliminate the welfare state"

    Does that logic work too?

  • Jeff||

    Well, yeah. "Starving the beast" didn't work and, in fact, it had the opposite effect.

  • Randian||

    But the existence of a welfare state does not justify taking X% of income from Groups A, B, and C.

    Because two wrongs don't make a right.

  • John||

    Randian,

    The fact that open borders with a welfare state would result in massive amounts of outright theft makes that wrong worth avoiding. Get rid of the welfare state and then go for open borders.

  • Randian||

    Freedom of movement and freedom of association aren't to held hostage based on evidence-free projections.

    What percentage of immigrants moving here would take welfare John? Give me a proven number.

  • Drake||

    Shouldn't the proponents of open borders have to prove it wouldn't?

  • Jeff||

    Well, in the presence of a welfare state, Groups A, B, and C are going to get fucked either way, whether it's through direct taxation or indirect taxation down the line through monetary debasement.

    Paying for it up front seems more honest, and it also gives an incentive for people to think about how much the government spends instead of just sticking it on the national credit card and engaging in generational theft like we've been doing.

  • ||

    Not true.

    Not according to Cato. They do admit this is true for "low-skilled" immigrants, but what sort of immigrants do you think are being offered a "path to citizenship"? Not the ones continuing down the path of low skills.

  • John||

    They do admit this is true for "low-skilled" immigrants,

    Then you admit the argument. Thanks.

    but what sort of immigrants do you think are being offered a "path to citizenship"?

    Illegals and they tend to be low skilled. There are not a lot of illegal software code writers out there.

    And if we had open borders, it would be the low skilled who would come for the welfare.

  • Randian||

    Then you admit the argument. Thanks.

    no, wrong. You said "immigrants are on the dole at a higher rate than natives". This has been proven false.

  • Sidd Finch||

    no, wrong. You said "immigrants are on the dole at a higher rate than natives". This has been proven false.

    where?

  • Randian||

    Here, Sidd: link.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Link says no such thing. Darius has already admitted as much.

  • John||

    No it hasn't. Not at all. Low skilled ones are on there at a higher rate. And those are the ones that would come for the welfare.

    And again Randian, why would they not come welfare. It is the rational thing to do. You are asking me to believe people would somehow out of the kindness of their hearts act in a manner against their self interest. If some other country opened its borders and gave welfare that gave me a higher standard of living that I have now, I would move there. Why wouldn't I? Why do you pretend it wouldn't be a rational thing to do?

  • Randian||

    The more rational thing is that they would come here to work and make even *more* money than welfare provides.

    Why doesn't this cross your mind like, at all?

  • John||

    The more rational thing is that they would come here to work and make even *more* money than welfare provides.

    Why doesn't this cross your mind like, at all?

    Because that is not the case. Life is about expectations. If someone offered me a comfortable life for free, I wouldn't work even if working made me more money. People make decisions on the margin. If it is work or poverty, I will work. But if it is work or a pretty easy life for free, I will take the easy life.

    Further, what is an easy life is relative. For example, when they first opened car plants in Mexico they paid something like ten times the local wage. They quickly found out that they had to lower the wages because the wages were so much more than anything their employees had made, their employees would just work for a few months, save what to them was a fortune and quit. I dare say someone who lives in the slums of Sao Paolo would be so happy to have the standard of living that the average American welfare recipient has, they would see no benefit whatsoever in taking a paying job. Why would they when they already have more than they ever dreamed?

    Life is a bit more complex that the fairy tales you tell yourself Randian. Libertarians are just senseless on this issue. You think that having a policy that avoids a totally foreseeable consequence is the same logic as eugenics. Open borders are just a religion to you people. The perfect policy that must be pursued at all costs at all times.

  • Zeb||

    You guys are arguing past each other. These two statements are not contradictory:
    Immigrants are on the public dole at a much higher rate than natives.

    immigrants are shown to take less and give more than native-born Americans

    It is quite possible that immigrants are on the dole more than native born citizens and that at the same time immigrants, taken as a whole, pay more in taxes than they use in government assistance.

  • Cytotoxic||

    IMMIGRANTS US THE DOLE AT A LOWER RATE THAN THE NATIVES INCLUDING BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I AM TIRED OF EXPLAINING THIS FUCKING POINT.

  • johnl||

    The dole isn't all there is to the welfare state. We have free primary and subsidized secondary education. An unskilled worker isn't going to pay, in his whole life, the taxes to pay for his kids' education. This is why a guestworker program is smarter than open borders.

  • Randian||

    I really don't care. A person's possible, maybe, projected and conjectured use of the dole is not a permissible justification to curtail rights. Otherwise you would be in favor of aborting poor black babies.

  • Calidissident||

    If your argument is "We're not ending the welfare state, so we can't have open borders" then I really don't see the point to almost anything we discuss. We're not getting open borders either. Or an end to the war on drugs, or any other host of issues that get discussed here every day.

  • John||

    One affects the other. We can end the war on drugs without any down side or anything approaching the upside. But open boarders without getting rid of the entitlement state would be a complete disaster. You really don't think people would come here just to live on welfare if they could? An American welfare check life is a lot better than what 90% of the world has. Why wouldn't they come.

  • Randian||

    Then that would cause us to fix our fiscal problems pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

    Two wrongs don't make a right. The welfare state is wrong. Immigrant restrictionism is wrong.

  • John||

    Then that would cause us to fix our fiscal problems pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

    If bankruptcy is a fix, sure it would.

    And both being wrong has nothing to do with it. You cannot do one without the other. They are linked. Basically your argument boils down to "if going bankrupt is the price we must pay for Libertarian purity, so be it". Sorry but no thanks. I don't owe the world welfare.

  • robc||

    They arent linked.

    They are two separate things. I would prefer to fix both, but will take either one.

  • Randian||

    Then limit immigrants access to welfare. That doesn't mean shutting down the border.

    Furthermore, all you are doing is making a (from your ass) projection that a certain percentage of immigrants will take welfare. If that's the criteria by which you restrict rights, then why not force abortions on single moms? What do you think the percentage of their children is that is going to be on welfare?

  • Willie Screwer||

    "I don't owe the world welfare"

    I wonder how long before the UN starts promoting global welfare, which they will administer and pay for with some fucking global-wide tax?

  • robc||

    But open boarders without getting rid of the entitlement state would be a complete disaster.

    Would it, or would it lead to an anti-immigrant backlash that puts severe limitations on welfare?

    Seems like it would obviously* follow.

    *at least slightly more likely than starve the beast working.

  • John||

    Would it, or would it lead to an anti-immigrant backlash that puts severe limitations on welfare?

    And an antiimmigrant backlash wouldn't lead to limitations on immigration?

  • Jeff||

    Nope. If we keep doing stupid shit and the system collapses, it will make people turn more libertarian. Or something.

  • robc||

    How is being moral "doing stupid shit"?

    Closed borders are immoral.

  • Jeff||

    The welfare state is immoral, and inviting all the impoverished masses of the world to come suck on the tit of it is fucking stupid. Randian seems to think that fiscal collapse will just cause us to get our house in order, but I rather doubt the outcome would be so rosy.

  • Randian||

    You do realize that you can *reform* a welfare system before it collapses, yes?

    Or do you think that the Social Security / Medicare age is written in stone?

    Anyway, a newsflash for you: the majority of welfare benefits go to old, white seniors. SSI/SSDI/SNAP and other "welfare queen"-stereotyped programs are a very small percentage of the budget.

  • Jeff||

    You do realize that we have a government which can't even pass a budget, don't you?

  • Randian||

    So now your special pleading for limiting the freedom of movement and freedom of association is government incompetence?

    That's a paltry excuse for violating fundamental natural rights.

    "First eliminate the welfare state, then we can talk about ending the War on Drugs"

    Sound the same to you? It should.

  • Jeff||

    Ideally, that'd be the proper order of it. Or even better, end them simultaneously. I mean, I know we're supposed to pretend that libertarianism is winning the day when it comes to drugs and sex and whatnot. But it's not. Libertinism is.

    People gladly claim ownership of their bodies when it comes to doing fun stuff, but not so much when it comes to paying their medical bills. When they're sick then, oh, we all belong to each other or whatever socialist nonsense.

  • Randian||

    That's a long non-answer. Do you advocate ending the war on drugs IF AND ONLY IF we end the welfare state FIRST.

    I know what the ideal state is. I want to know whether you hold drug liberty hostage to the welfare state the same way you hold freedoms of association and movement hostage to the welfare state.

  • Jeff||

    Where did I argue that we should hold anything hostage to the welfare state? I simply think your confidence that it will only spur us to get our house in order that much more quickly is pure cockeyed optimism. More freedom is certainly preferable, but this is putting the cart before the horse policy-wise.

    But I forgot. Everything is a purist pissing contest around here, especially on this topic where we all have to prove that we're DEFINITELY NOT REPUBLICANS.

  • Randian||

    So, I'll ask again: do you or do you not support the line of thinking that we cannot end the Drug War before we end the Welfare State. Yes, or no?

  • Jeff||

    No, of course not. The War on Drugs deprives people caught up in its net of not just some but all liberty by incarcerating and killing them. And from a policy standpoint, whatever the increased costs (if any) to the welfare state from ending prohibition would be more than offset by the savings from not jailing everyfuckingbody.

    I think that is a much more desperate situation than the immigration one, and the solution is clearer: just stop it.

  • Randian||

    Well, I don't base the recognition of rights based on the utility or emergency of the situation.

  • Willie Screwer||

    "Anyway, a newsflash for you: the majority of welfare benefits go to old, white seniors."

    With open borders and a little time, that will likely change.

  • Drake||

    How? Why?

  • Randian||

    Do you support forced abortions among a certain population, John? Why or why not?

    I don't see anyone advocating that we force a one-child policy on everyone because a child *might* wind up welfare (and with public schools, that probability approaches 95%).

    If limiting immigration based on what an immigrant *might* do is OK, why not forced abortions?

  • John||

    Randian,

    That is the dumbest thing you have ever posted on here. Making American an attractive country to move to and collect welfare, will shockingly enough cause people to move here and collect welfare. It is really that simple.

  • Randian||

    That is the dumbest thing you have ever posted on here.

    You say that to five people six times a day.

    Now answer the question - the odds are very, very good that a new child is going to be a drain on the public till (a significant one, considering schooling), so why is freedom of birth so sacrosanct but freedom of movement isn't?

  • robc||

    And an antiimmigrant backlash wouldn't lead to limitations on immigration?

    It might. If the borders were opened via constitutional amendment, it probably wouldnt.

  • John||

    Sure Rob. Just take away people's right to have a say in their government. That will work out well I am sure.

  • robc||

    Just take away people's right to have a say in their government.

    How is a constitutional amendment taking away people's right to have a say in their government?

    You sound like the moron saying the constitution is outdated and we should ignore it.

  • SKR||

    um how about the 1996 welfare reform act?

  • Brandybuck||

    When the immigrants are immediately granted citizenship and can vote themselves benefits


    That's a fucking strawman and you know it! Immigrants are never granted immediate citizenship, and non citizens can never vote. Jeepers Cripes and his mom Jeez Louise!

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ Reason likes to pretend that we don't have an entitlement state.

  • ||

    No, some people like to pretend that immigrants are an economic drain just because there's a welfare state.

  • John||

    That is only because we don't have open boarders. If we had true open boarders as Reason wants, they would cease to be an economic plus. As it is, only those who have a job can get in. It is pretty difficult for a true welfare case to get in. But with open boarders that would no longer be the case.

  • sarcasmic||

    board·er 1 (bôr d r, b r -). n. One who boards, especially: a. One who pays a stipulated sum in return for regular meals or for meals and lodging. b. One who goes ...

  • ||

    Ah, the "we don't have open borders" argument. Right up there with "the Drug War's all that's keeping us from drowning in dangerous drugs" argument. In what world is our immigration system actually succeeding in keeping people from coming and staying here in any significant amounts? We don't have a closed border, we have an attempt at a closed border that fails (and will continue to fail) at keeping out people just as much as it does drugs.

  • John||

    In what world is our immigration system actually succeeding in keeping people from coming and staying here in any significant amounts?

    It is keeping them from coming here specifically to get us welfare. If they want to come here, they have to come here illegally and they have to work since illegals can't get welfare. That is the point. If they could come and collect welfare, a lot of people would take that deal.

    This is the problem with Libertarians. They assume that because they would never move to a country just to take its welfare, no one else would. They just don't get not everyone is like them.

  • Randian||

    The rest of the world is lazy, John. We get it - you're not very smart.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    "The rest of the world is lazy"

    Pretty much, yeah. And their shitty economies bear this out.

  • John||

    No Randian. People are lazy. Americans refuse to work because welfare is easier? Why would immigrants not do the same?

    If Canada started offering more money in welfare than you currently make now, you wouldn't move there and take them up on their offer? Would it not be a rational move? Well welfare in America is better than the average life for many people in Central America/. Why would they not do the same thing you would?

    Try again Randian. I get it that you are not very smart. But I know you can understand this argument has nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with rational behavior and human nature.

  • Randian||

    What percentage of Americans are on welfare, John? What is it about you that just assumes that everyone else is lazy (except you, of course) and just wants to take welfare?

    You do know that welfare benefits really aren't even all that great, right?

    You do know that most people want to engage in productive work, right?

  • John||

    What percentage of Americans are on welfare, John?

    The exact number of people who cannot get a job that pays them more than they make on welfare. That is how many.

    And the number of people who would come here to live on welfare would be the number of people who could live here better on welfare than they could working at home. And that number would be pretty high.

    It is called rational decision making.

  • Randian||

    Except, of course, you assume that they couldn't come here to *WORK* and make even more money. Like the rest of us do.

  • John||

    Sure they would work, if they had the skills to make more money working than on welfare. But not all of them will. And you know as well as I do the corrosive effect of welfare and the dependency it creates. Do you really think, given the experience of the last 70 years, importing a class of welfare dependents is a good idea?

    Again, get rid of welfare and then we can talk about open boarders.

  • Randian||

    But not all of them will

    Not all newborn children will either. So I suppose we should have done those forced abortions?

    Do you really think, given the experience of the last 70 years, importing a class of welfare dependents is a good idea?

    You have yet to in any demonstrate that even a majority of new immigrants would be on welfare, let alone get away with calling all of "them" a "class".

  • Zeb||

    Well, then don't give welfare to immigrant non-citizens. When they enter the country, give them a card that says they can work, but if they try to sign up for welfare they get a bus ticket back to Mexico, or wherever. Doesn't seem so hard.

    And before you say "that's just not going to happen", I'd like to point out that neither is the welfare state going away.

  • Randian||

    What percentage of Americans are on welfare, John? What is it about you that just assumes that everyone else is lazy (except you, of course) and just wants to take welfare?

    You do know that welfare benefits really aren't even all that great, right?

    You do know that most people want to engage in productive work, right?

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    If you count food stamps and WIC, a huge number of Americans are on welfare. And most of them share a characteristic we're not supposed to mention in polite conversation (hint: it has to do with skin tone).

    And no, many people do NOT want to engage in productive work. Just a few weeks ago there was an "african-american" fellow who called in to a conservative radio show I listen to to complain about republican outreach to minorities (that was the topic of the hour).

    Anyway when the host explained that republicans will help minorities by creating more job opportunities, the man asked why he would want to work, when he could just get a welfare check. The host asked him if he wouldn't rather do something productive with his life, and the caller just flat-out admitted that no, he'd much rather sleep all day and cash a govt check.

    THAT is the mindset of many people, and it's what made a paradise of places such as Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico.

    If you want to see those stunning economic success stories replicated here, by all means, continue to encourage the people who made it possible to come here in huge numbers.

  • Calidissident||

    Since we're speaking hypothetically about something that isn't going to happen, why can't we allow people in on the condition that they aren't eligible for public benefits?

  • robc||

    ^^^and this.

    There is no reason we couldnt change welfare to only apply to citizens.

  • Brandybuck||

    Uh, we already do.

  • John||

    Of course we can Calidissident. I would not say otherwise. But good luck getting liberals to agree to that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Quite often the immigrants themselves are hardworking, productive members of society.

    It's their children who, once the public schools have their way with them, become a drain on society.

  • Calidissident||

    John, we're discussing something that's not going to be passed anyways, so what's your point?

  • Calidissident||

    John the word is "borders" not "boarders." We're not talking about pirates

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Maybe he is talking about pirates!

  • sarcasmic||

    DAR!

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, he's referring to the US as a flop house, and open to foreign boarders.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You idiot, he's obviously referring to the insidious influence of foreign surfers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No, some people like to pretend that immigrants are an economic drain just because there's a welfare state.

    Do the ten states with the highest levels of immigration have the smallest governments? the least welfare?
    Or the opposite.

  • Drake||

    They also like to pretend that "open borders" would give us cross-section of different cultures and skills.

    It will simply pour in so many Latin American immigrants they will not need to assimilate, and the U.S. becomes as awesome of Mexico.

  • Calidissident||

    You sound an awful lot like a certain other poster

  • Brandybuck||

    You know, that same argument was put forth as a reason not to free the slaves. Not the entitlement state, but the burden they would place on public institutions.

  • Homple||

    Capitalist Pig Jonathan Hoenig: Immigrants are "Unquestionable Economic Benefit."

    Can't argue with that. The question is, who benefits and who loses?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ah zero sum economics. The one thing Team Red and Team Blue can agree on.

  • John||

    So because things are not zero sum, there are never any economic winners and losers? No such thing as economic dislocation?

    Really Hugh, you are better than that.

  • Randian||

    I didn't know that it was government's job to stand in the way of creative destruction using force.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    It's the government's job to stand in the way of that destruction if it is being perpetrated by non-Americans.

    Our govt doesn't represent the world, it is supposed to represent America. Creative destruction of an American by another American is fine. Done by a foreigner, it is a hostile act that should be stopped by legal force.

  • Calidissident||

    Someone being born in a different place from someone else doesn't make an act hostile

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Yes, it does. That's the point of having borders.

  • Brandybuck||

    LoneWacko, is that you? Where have you been?

    p.s. And stop linking to the RLC you fucktard!

  • robc||

    It's the government's job to stand in the way of that destruction if it is being perpetrated by non-Americans.

    No, it isnt.

    Creative destruction is available to everyone.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Yes, it is.

    There. Now we've reached an impasse. It's a matter of opinion.

  • robc||

    As I said above, I break all ties. I decreed it so.

    And it isnt a matter of opinion. Governments have no moral right to prevent economic advancements, even if those harm their citizens.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    It is a matter of opinion. I think the government has every moral right to protect it's citizens from competition. Prove me wrong, using equations, or the scientific method.

    There is no mathematical formula for determining morals. All morals are by definition a matter of opinion.

  • robc||

    I think the government has every moral right to protect it's citizens from competition.

    Premise: All men own themselves.

    Using basic logic that even you can figure out, it clearly follows from that premise that competition is a fundamental right. Therefore, governments have no right to protect its own citizens from said competition. Governments can protect their citizens from force or fraud, but baring that, they are morally powerless.

    If you dont accept that premise, you are neither a libertarian nor 4freedom.

  • robc||

    All morals are by definition a matter of opinion.

    False. Morals either come from God or Nature. In either case they are facts, not opinions.

    The opinion is whether we are properly applying them.

  • MJGreen||

    In that case, every state is supposed to represent its citizens, and every city its residents, etc. So Texas should protect its jobs from Californians, and Austin protect its jobs from Houston folks. Etc. etc.

  • Zeb||

    Our govt doesn't represent the world, it is supposed to represent America.

    No, our government is supposed to impartially apply a set of laws.

    Creative destruction of an American by another American is fine. Done by a foreigner, it is a hostile act that should be stopped by legal force.

    Should we see if any foreigners had anything to do with the collapse of the mortgage bubble and then throw them in jail, deport them or bomb their home countries? That seems to be what you are arguing for here.

  • John||

    Didn't say it was. But lets not pretend there are not economic winners and losers to any policy.

  • Randian||

    I don't see Hugh saying anything like that, do you?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that mercantilists would disagree.

  • ||

    There are always individual winners and losers, but people on the whole are better off through trade, not worse off. They aren't the same thing.

  • ||

    Oh, this was supposed to be to John. Oh well.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Immigration =/= trade

  • sarcasmic||

    It’s not the immigrants, but the taxes, spending and entitlements (most of which immigrants don’t even receive) that have drained the economy dry.

    Don't forget all the government barriers to economic activity. Until some of those are knocked down, this is the new normal.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    What a bunch of cosmo liberal crap.

    Reason is great when advocating for legalized drugs, ending economic regulations, and defending 2A.

    But this hippie peacenik pacificst garbage (see last article) and this "Oh if only we import millions more poor people who will use food stamps and vote for democrats in overwhelming numbers!" line they take is simply absurd.

    Do you WANT the democrats to wield perpetual power? Because that's what unchecked immigration will do. Brown people vote democrat. I know that isn't the politically correct thing to say, but it's true, and you can't argue with facts. The more brown people we have, the more democrats will have power, and the worse off everyone will be, period.

    Look, you can't have a nation in the modern world without borders that are enforced. I don't care about freedom for other nations; we'll worry about that once we're free here. America comes first. And we will never expand freedom at home until we stop actively importing huge numbers of objectively anti-freedom people to work here for dirt-poor wages, degrade once-vibrant neighborhoods, and blight both the economic and political landscape everywhere they congregate.

  • Randian||

    Nativist, fact-free troll is a Know-Nothing.

    Quelle Surprise.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Quelle Surprise."

    Furiner! You must be one of them Cuebeckers, eh?

  • Randian||

    Bob Uecker? Is that what you meant?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ooh! can I be Mr. Belvedere?

  • Randian||

    As long as you don't streak through China.

    I think that's right.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Fact-free? Do you argue that brown people do not, in fact, majority vote democrat? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd liek to sell you.

    And I'm proud to be a nativist, though I think you mean it as an insult. I put America, and Americans, first.

  • Calidissident||

    Because everything would totally be fine if we just elected Republicans to office. Just look at the 2000's

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    It'd be a helluva lot better than we have now.

    Which would you rather have, Bush, or Obama? The Medicare expansion, or Obamacare? The budget from 2005, or the budget from 2012?

    This false equivalence stuff is really getting old. Republicans aren't as good on liberty as many of us would like, but it's absurd to pretend there isn't an objective difference between the two parties, and Republicans are better than Democrats on virtually every single topic, even if only marginally.

    There is no Ron or Rand Paul analogue in the democratic party.

  • robc||


    There is no Ron or Rand Paul analogue in the democratic party.

    Thomas Jefferson and Andy Jackson.

    Like Ron, they are no longer in politics.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Ron has the benefit of still being alive. And you conveniently ignored Rand. And Amash, though I didn't mention him by name.

  • robc||

    I ignored Rand because I considered that a fair point in your favor.

    That Ron is still alive matters none at all, unless you think he is going to run for office again sometime down the road.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Bush was undoubtedly better than Obama, and I would take him any day over the Dems...

  • Calidissident||

    Bush's budget increased every year. If he was president still, we wouldn't have the 05 budget. We would have on that looks very similar to the current one. And Bush even had the "benefit" of a Republican Congress for most of his term. The Pauls and Amash are a rounding error in the Republican Party. They're not the ones calling the shots in the party. Marginal differences between two shitty parties is not justification to use force against people

  • VG Zaytsev||

    This false equivalence stuff is really getting old. Republicans aren't as good on liberty as many of us would like, but it's absurd to pretend there isn't an objective difference between the two parties,

    Yep, the cosmos and ancaps here pretend that there's no difference between the filthy statists Adenauer and Pol Pot; that there is no difference in living under a government headed by either one.

    It's completely retarded moral masturbation.

  • Drake||

    Nice off-topic non-answer.

  • Calidissident||

    L4F is the one justifying immigration restriction based on voting patterns. He has to prove that voting D rather than R justifies restricting their ability to move here

  • Drake||

    Which? That Latino immigrants vote D? Or, it justifies placing limits on the number who can immigrate?

    The first is easy although I don't think the second is that important.

    I believe that there is a healthy level of immigration that can be assimilated into American society. One of the many problems with California is that they have greatly exceeded that level.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    A new claimant to the Red Tony throne has appeared.

  • Randian||

    Drake? I filtered the other one. He's obviously a sock.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Republican with Libertarians4freedom in his handle.

  • SugarFree||

    American/Slappy/Patriot got himself a new handle. The fact that it is always an ironic handle makes it easy to spot.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that and always carefully skirting the edge of blatant racism.

  • SKR||

    he's not that careful.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, as I read further I can see that.

  • Brandybuck||

    Fact: Only citizens can vote. But thanks for letting us know it's not about the immigration but about skin color, you racist puke.

  • MJGreen||

    Can we disenfranchise Americans who vote Democrat? If not, why respect an Americans' voting privileges over a non-American's freedom of movement and contract?

    Bleh, nevermind. You're right, we ain't nevah gonna be free here until we stop people from moving and working jobs we don't want them to work!

  • Zeb||

    As I said yesterday (in slightly nicer language), if you judge the merits of a policy based on which team will get more votes because if it, you fucking suck.

  • SKR||

    well when the other option is hanging out with racist fucks like you, whatelse are the 'brown people' going to do?

    You want 'brown people' to vote Republican? Then we need to deport all the knuckledragging racist douchenozzles like you to the bottom of the ocean.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Eliminating the minimum wage would help. If you're paying your immigrant labor over the counter, they're not going to be as cheap, and you're not going to be able to hire as many. While not every immigrant goes immediately on the dole, a significant increase in on-the-books population means a not necessarily equal but still significant increase in those drawing from already strained entitlements.

  • ||

    Kind of sorta off-topic: I'm taking a women's studies class about women in Israel and right now I'm listening to the professor, a former Knesset member from Israel's Meretz party describe the debate between social democracy and neo-capitalism.

    You can imagine the perspective she has on it.

  • ||

    Lecture slide:

    The Social Democratic philosophy supports individual rights and freedoms but emphasizes that it has to go together with distributive justice and solidarity.

    Or in other words, it doesn't support individual rights and freedoms.

  • robc||

    Did you point this out?

  • ||

    I will. To her credit she opens the lecture up for discussion when she talks about philosophical issues like wealth redistribution and affirmative action.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm taking a women's studies class

    Get a life.

  • ||

    Yeah, but I need the units to graduate and this was the only poli-sci one open that fit my schedule.

  • sarcasmic||

    One of my first college courses was an English class taught by a Women's Studies undergrad. She had us write papers about Thelma and Louise, the political impact of Madonna, and other barfalicious topics.
    I skipped a third of the classes and squeaked out a passing grade.
    I'm dry heaving just thinking about it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Do yourself a favor and tell her exactly what she wants to hear. Unless she falls into small percentile of college academics who will actually tolerate dissent, you can expect your grade to "reflect" your opinions on the subject.

  • ||

    I think as long as I demonstrate that I understand the principles she's espousing I'll be okay, even if I am critical of them.

  • ||

    Or maybe not, I just spoke out against wealth redistribution as being hostile to liberty and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is not a zero-game and got a very cold look from her in response.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    got a very cold look from her in response.

    Yeah, quit while you're behind.

  • ||

    I say your grade be damned. Even if her opinion won't be changed, there are a lot of other students in there who could be open to some other points of view if they actually heard them as opposed to the nonsense this teacher is spouting.

  • SKR||

    just document everything and protest if she screws you.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I always did the exact opposite. It's a lot easier to make novel (to them) arguments from the opposing view.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've gotten very creative at taking classes that wont raise my ire. I'd hate to pay someone to piss me off; I can come here and read tony's posts for free.

    My school has one of the best philosophy depts in the country so there are all kinds of cool classes that fulfill requirements. A lot of the professors specialize in the philosophical nature of science and knowledge, which is pretty interesting. This semester I'm taking a class that investigates myth and philosophy in the medicinal sciences.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    There's a lot of nice talk about fancy morals and abject principals, but here's what it really boils down to:

    Is Mexico a better place to live than the United States? Yes or no.

    If the answer is "no", as I believe most people would agree, then we should not take in any of the people who helped to make Mexico what it is (i.e. "worse").

    We should only allow immigrants from nations that are at least as, if not more so, rights-respecting than the United States (and that is a very short list, to be sure).

    We should never allow citizens in from nations who are objectively worse-off than we are, because they are part of the problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bastiat 101: society != government

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    You don't even have to point to Mexico. Let's go with a place that's all white people, so no one can play the "racism!!!!1111!!!11one1!!" card: Sweden. Sweden's a nice place. Well-educated, productive, law-abiding people.

    Let's say we imported tens of millions of Swedes into America. What would the political climate look like after a generation? Would it be more or less disposed towards freedom? Hint: it would look a lot more like Sweden.

    Sadly, as bad as America is, it's pretty much the last best hope for liberty. And diluting America with non-Americans isn't going to result in more liberty.

  • robc||

    It would look a lot like Minnesota.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's Minnasoter to you!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    It would look a lot like Minnesota.

    You're not helping your cause. How's Minnesota doing in terms of liberty?

  • robc||

    Better than most of the world.

    According to the Mercatus list posted the other day, it ranks #34 amongst the 50 states, only 2 spots worse than my home state at #32.

    Far better than California with all those dirty Mexicans. But far worse than Texas with all those dirty Mexicans.

  • Randian||

    I don't have any interest in requiring political fealty oaths at the border.

    Anything you just said could apply equally to poor pregnant single females and forced abortions. Why don't you support forced abortions?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Because the right to life (or, if you wish, the right to bodily autonomy) is stronger the right to live in the country of your choosing.

  • Randian||

    "Because" is not an answer. You made an assertion, not an argument supported by evidence.

  • robc||

    They come from the same place, right to self ownership.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    You made an assertion, not an argument supported by evidence.

    This is nonsense. How would you go about proving that any particular right takes precedence over any other? You can't use the scientific method to "prove" that the right to life trumps, say, the right to vote.

    They come from the same place, right to self ownership.

    There's no right to place your self-owned body on land that does not belong to you.

  • robc||

    There's no right to place your self-owned body on land that does not belong to you.

    Agreed, but if the owner invites you in, there is no power granted to government to prevent you from entering it.

  • Randian||

    Rights do not conflict. If you find a right conflicts with another, check your premises.

    There's no right to place your self-owned body on land that does not belong to you.

    I have the property right to have any guest I want on my land, and it's none of YOUR business who that person is.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    If they have to cross over a national border, which is collectively owned by all the citizens of America, then yes, it is our business.

  • Zeb||

    a national border, which is collectively owned by all the citizens of America

    That is simply not true. The idea that the whole country is somehow collectively owned by everyone is fucking stupid collectivism at its stupidest.

  • SKR||

    so all the land belongs to the state now? Efutue serve domine!

  • Randian||

    Can any of the nativists here tell me why it's OK for the United States to use force to keep people from other countries out, but it's not OK for me to use force to keep Michiganders out of my state, or maybe black people out of my neighborhood?
  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    it's not OK for me to use force to keep Michiganders out of my state

    Free movement across state borders is something that we agreed do as part of the federal system. We don't have that kind of agreement with Mexico or Canada.

    maybe black people out of my neighborhood?

    If those black people are citizens, see above. But I have no problem with you and your neighbors collectively purchasing all the land in an area and entering into an agreement that forbids certain people from entering onto that collective land. Private property rights!

  • Randian||

    But I have no problem with you and your neighbors collectively purchasing all the land in an area and entering into an agreement that forbids certain people from entering onto that collective land. Private property rights!

    You don't believe in private property rights. You won't let Jose from Oaxaca stay on my land without your "State's" say so.

    That isn't private property rights. The United States isn't a kingdom and the federal government doesn't own all land.

    Free movement across state borders is something that we agreed do as part of the federal system. We don't have that kind of agreement with Mexico or Canada.

    That's another "just because" answer. Give me the justification.

    And that's easily rectified - we can rescind the agreement with the states or we can enter into an agreement with Canada or Mexico. There, I solved the problem by your own terms.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    You don't believe in private property rights. You won't let Jose from Oaxaca stay on my land without your "State's" say so.

    Jose can stay on your land if you can manage to get him there without crossing any land that American citizens collectively own.

    That's another "just because" answer. Give me the justification.

    Why do people have any "rights" of any kind? Don't just say "just because." Give me the justification.

    we can rescind the agreement with the states or we can enter into an agreement with Canada or Mexico. There, I solved the problem by your own terms.

    If that's the change we make, then that's the law. But it's not the law, and I don't want it to be.

  • Randian||

    Jose can stay on your land if you can manage to get him there without crossing any land that American citizens collectively own.

    What the fuck?

    "Americans" do not collectively own "America", you collectivist dick.

    But it's not the law, and I don't want it to be.

    OK, *why*?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    "Americans" do not collectively own "America", you collectivist dick.

    Then who owns the land that Americans don't privately own? The world? Humanity at large? Sorry, I'm the one who pays taxes to build those roads, maintain those parks, and police those streets. The masses of humanity don't have a right to gambol about on our roads.

    But you disagree. Who's the collectivist dick now, me, or the guy who thinks that everyone in the world has the right to walk down the street in front of my house?

  • Randian||

    YOU. You think the fact that you support a violent entity means that you get to have a say in what private people do.

    Hypothetical: I charter a private plane, fly it down to Mexico, pick up Jose from Oaxaca, fly him back and land on my private airstrip.

    Are you going to claim that because you pay taxes it's your business who is on my plane and my private airstrip?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    You flew over public land, son.

  • Randian||

    So, yes, in other words, any incidental contact with "public" lands entitles you to get into my business.

    Oh, sorry Pete, you drove down a public road, and the majority of the country just voted that you have to die. Sorry about your rights!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I'm sorry, what are these "rights" of which you speak? You need to prove that they exist, not just assert that they do. You also need to prove - not just assert - that your ranking of their relative importance is correct.

  • ||

    You flew over public land, son.

    Are you saying you agree that the FAA is a bunch of bullshit and the skies are free for everyone to pilot through?

  • Zeb||

    The government owns the roads, parks and border posts, not all Americans. If I own that, I want to sell my share. How do I do that? If I can't sell something, then I don't own it. And if I do own it, why can't I let Jose cross it to get to my property?

  • SKR||

    why is crossing public property even an issue? If a Mexican crosses the US to Canada does the US have the power to seize Jose against his will and the will of his host because of movement through a geographical area? fuck no. Why should my house be any different than a Canadian house?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Yes. Jose is free to use the navigable international waterways that exist between Mexico and Canada. I can think of two big ones. He has no right to use American roads without America's permission.

  • Randian||

    He has no right to use American roads without America's permission.

    Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato

  • Zeb||

    So how does getting "America's permission" work? Does every citizen get a veto? Is there a vote every time someone wants to enter the country or use the roads? How do I exercise my share of the control of the border? And why doesn't that share give me the power to let whoever I want come into the country so I can let them be on my property?

    You seem to be falling for the standard authoriatarian fallacy that the government is the people. It's not. Decisions cannot be made collectively among 300,000,000 people and there is no social contract. I hate to go all purity test here, but how can anyone claiming to be libertarian use a phrase like "America's permission" without laughing?

  • robc||

    But you oppose some foreigner buying US land and moving to it?

    Do you not support private property rights?

    Or me renting to said foreigner? What about my private property rights?

  • Randian||

    Well now we know - he believes that "Americans" collectively "own" "America"

    "Collective ownership", of course, being an oxymoronic term. There is no such thing as collective ownership.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The right to property is the right to exclude. If you don't think that American citizens don't collectively "own" America's common areas, then you think that no one can be excluded from anywhere that is not private property. That means anyone from anywhere in the world can walk down the street you paid for, requiring the police protection you paid for, and consuming the emergency services you paid for.

    Nope. There's a middle ground between "private property" and "everyone in the world gets to go wherever they want." But look, if you reject the concept of the state entirely, then I'm done talking with you, because that's nonsense on stilts.

  • Randian||

    If you don't think that American citizens don't collectively "own" America's common areas, then you think that no one can be excluded from anywhere that is not private property.

    Ding ding. We have a winner.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Then we're done, because I'm not interested in debating anarchists. The premises of the argument are absurd.

  • Randian||

    Just out of curiosity, if the majority voted that the "collectively owned" land of the United States was to be used exclusively for hunting white men (or blacks, or gays) would that make it OK?

    How about for eating babies? Can we just do anything "we" like because "we" decided that this land is "collectively owned"? Just curious.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I told you I'm not debating anarchists. Find someone else.

    But I'll borrow a page from you book: what makes you think that there's a right not to be hunted for sport? You're going to have to prove it, not just assert it. And you'll need evidence. If you can do that, I'll gladly engage with your question, my usual practice of not debating anarchists or Communists notwithstanding.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Randian look. In a perfect libertarian world I would agree with you.

    The problem is, we're all arguing past eachother. You're arguing principals, Pete and I are arguing the reality on the ground.

    The reality is, govt exists, and isn't going anywhere. Groups of people called citizens believe that this gives them the power to command others within a certain geographic distribution.

    Given that unalterable reality, open borders will never come to pass, and would fail if it did.

  • robc||

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
    With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Is Mexico a better place to live than the United States? Yes or no.

    If the answer is "no", as I believe most people would agree, then we should not take in any of the people who helped to make Mexico what it is (i.e. "worse").

    Red Tony claimant, some of the people who have helped make Mexico what it is are in this country and in positions of power. How do you think all of those guns that the Mexican police and military defectors take with them when they sign up with drug cartels get there? Our tireless State Department and Direct Commercial Sales. Why is there a black market premium on marijuana and cocaine? Because the government put one in place. How is it that the Zeta Cartel became one of the most powerful and feared drug cartels in seemingly record time? Because the US government trained its members in counterterrorism and special operations.

    We should only allow immigrants from nations that are at least as, if not more so, rights-respecting than the United States (and that is a very short list, to be sure).

    By short, you mean non-existant. Sorry as it is to say, there is no nation with greater respect for natural rights than the United States (and we're doing everything we can to correct that).

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Ok, I hear a lot of, "But Africa and South America are messed up because of our interventions!"

    Well, why weren't they as advanced as the Europeans who first made contact with them? Colonisation hadn't happened yet, and yet they were every bit as backwards and primitive in comparison to the whites of their time, as they are to us now.

    They have always been, and will always be, inferior.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Ok, I hear a lot of, "But Africa and South America are messed up because of our interventions!"

    Quit yelling at the cloud, grandpa Simpson. I never mentioned Africa, as the US didn't get a slice of that particular colonialist pie. South America, our interest were anti-communist, for whatever that was worth.

    Well, why weren't they as advanced as the Europeans who first made contact with them?

    I think what you are to chickenshit to just outright ask, is "why didn't the Africans have guns?" Because as we all know, weaponry is the first and last benchmark of any civilization.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    Pretty much yes, guns are the end-all-be-all, because those with them get to impose their will on those without.

    Though it isn't just guns: it's also advanced political institutions, reading and writing, ship-building, you know - civilization.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Pretty much yes, guns are the end-all-be-all, because those with them get to impose their will on those without.

    Well, glad to see you've stripped off any pretense of being in favor of liberty, Mary Stack.

    Might makes right and all that.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Sorry as it is to say, there is no nation with greater respect for natural rights than the United States (and we're doing everything we can to correct that).

    ...by importing people who voted for Hugo Chavez.

    You wouldn't know irony if it yanked out your taint hairs.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    ...by importing people who voted for Hugo Chavez.

    You wouldn't know irony if it yanked out your taint hairs.

    And you wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it shot one in your eye.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Now you've really lost me. You're arguing for open borders, no? And given that open borders will lead to more Chavez voters casting ballots in our elections... where's the sarcasm?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    No, I was addressing the racist idiot who seems to think Mexico is a shithole because brown people live there, not because of a history of anti-liberal (in the classical sense) governance, with a generous helping of foreign interference (including the good old U.S. of A).

    Read up and see that I said nothing about "borders", "Venezuela", "hugo chavez" or anything else you are under the mistaken impression I said.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The idea that Mexico's (and every other Latin American country's) problems are the fault of some other country, or historical injustice or whatever is part of the reason why their culture is fucked up. It's about locus of control. And people that believe in an external locus are more likely to be collectivists.

  • MJGreen||

    Fuck your 'we' shit, slaver.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Social Democratic philosophy supports individual rights and freedoms but emphasizes that it has to go together with distributive justice and solidarity.

    Just as long as Society gets its cut.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Is this country more, or less free and financially solvent since Reagan gave millions of illegals amnesty? Do we have a smaller or larger welfare state?

  • Randian||

    post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Fail.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Straw Man meet Straw Man. You Ayn Rand fanboys truly have no grasp on reality vs theories.

  • Randian||

    If you have some sort of proof for your bad attempt to draw causation, let's hear it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He was asking if there was correlation between more open borders with higher levels of immigration and smaller government.

    So far there's a negative correlation and the burden of proof is on open border cultist to explain why it will be different with even higher levels of immigration.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Similarly, the idea that amnesty is going to help the GOP with Hispanics is nonsense.

    How many times has the GOP presidential candidate won the popular vote since 1988?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We should never allow citizens in from nations who are objectively worse-off than we are, because they are part of the problem.

    Speaking of skewing the mean, you're dragging the average IQ down. Fuck off.

  • Randian||

    Can any of the nativists here tell me why it's OK for the United States to use force to keep people from other countries out, but it's not OK for me to use force to keep Michiganders out of my state, or maybe black people out of my neighborhood?

    How are these different? And please keep in mind that I am looking for a moral and ethical justification, not an appeal to authority.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    "Can any of the nativists here tell me why it's OK for the United States to use force to keep people from other countries out"

    Because we would essentially be the only country with open borders, and a welfare state to boot. Fair and Free trade is different, because both countries allow the free flow of goods.

  • Randian||

    That isn't a justification. That's a utilitarian argument.

    And all you're doing is using one wrong to justify another.

    "We can't end the Drug War without ending the Welfare State first. Think of all the druggies who will go on Welfare!"

    Valid? Of course. Wrong? Yes.

  • robc||

    Also, fuck utilitarianism.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Nope, because most druggies are already voting citizens. Apples, meet oranges.

    Certainly different than giving big government sympathizing, 3rd world illegal immigrants, voting rights.

  • Randian||

    Rights are not justified by political fealty.

    And you said was "druggies are citizens and immigrants are, so rights to one and no rights to the other"

    Did you stop to think that you are violating my right to free association? Did you know I'm a citizen?

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    "Rights are not justified by political fealty"

    Practically speaking, in the real world that we live in instead of the perfect fantasy one, yes, they are justified by political fealty. Otherwise the US govt has the duty to intervene anywhere in the world at any time that anyone's rights are being violated.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    And its called sovereignty, its in the Constitution, ya know. American citizens, just like citizens of every other sovereign, civilized nation, come first.

  • Randian||

    That's also a "just because" answer.

    Is not Ohio sovereign? Is not my neighborhood?

    And please keep in mind that I am looking for a moral and ethical justification, not an appeal to authority.
  • Anonymous Coward||

    Unfortunately, sovereignty only means that someone has the supreme authority to make and enforce laws in a given geographic area. If I declared myself King of Spokane, declare that everyone will pay me 90% of their property and income, then kill everyone who refuses to pay, am I not sovereign?

  • sarcasmic||

    Only if you could kill with consequence. Because that's all government is. It's the people who kill without consequence.

  • sarcasmic||

    *without

  • Anonymous Coward||

    People who kill without consequence and have the excuse of legitimacy, whether that legitimacy is divine right, martial power, or the rule of law.

  • sarcasmic||

    Might makes right.

  • Sidd Finch||

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  • Randian||

    OK and...? That's not an argument either.

  • sloopyinca||

    Team Red (also known as "Team Law And Order", preparing to fold like a cheap suit on Fast And Furious lawsuit.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I've said it before but I think it bears repeating. Richard Nixon's two great failings is that he was too far ahead of his time, and he was a member of the wrong party. Otherwise, Watergate would just be a "Right-Wing-Nut Talking Point"/"redneck AM Radio".

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Well, ask the average liberal what, exactly, Watergate was about. You'll hear something about a deleted audiotape (who cares?) and a break-in that Nixon didn't have anything to do with. They can't tell you what the actual crimes were.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Because magic invisible lines!

  • Ryan60657||

    Why doesn't Tracy Oppenheimer do more Reason.tv gigs? She is a bit easier on the eyes than the Jacket.

  • sarcasmic||

    Aye!

  • sarcasmic||

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....chool.html

    Police are called to dog fight and people are surprised when the cops open fire right in front of a school.

  • Calidissident||

    I see some people are starting to bring up the Constitution, national sovereignty, etc. So I'll post the same question I did yesterday (I didn't get an answer btw) - where in the Constitution do immigration restrictionists find justification for their laws? And before anyone says it, "naturalization" is not synonymous with "immigration"

  • Sidd Finch||

    the preamble

  • Calidissident||

    The preamble is not a grant of power to the federal government. The government's powers are described in Article I, Section 8.

    Seriously, this is like the first argument liberals make whenever someone asks them to defend all their programs and agencies

  • Sidd Finch||

    If I'm understanding the immigration debates of the last couple decades, "naturalization" has indeed become synonymous with "immigration."

  • Zeb||

    I don't think you are understanding. There are lots of immigrants living in the US who are perfectly happy to have permanent resident status and aren't rushing to become citizens.

  • sarcasmic||

    where in the Constitution do immigration restrictionists find justification for their laws?

    "General welfare... regulate commerce... necessary and proper"

    I think that covers just about anything anyone wants the government to do except BoR restrictions that they can't weasel out of.

  • Libertarians4Freedom||

    I hate to say it, but essentially, yes, you are correct.

    The founders did a terrible job writing in phrases that could be interpreted so incredibly broadly. I have no doubt that they never intended those words to be used as they have been, but their intentions are moot: what they actually wrote is a blank check for the govt to do whatever it wants that is not stricly prohibited. Bork understood this.

  • John||

    here in the Constitution do immigration restrictionists find justification for their laws?

    Article I

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

    It is right there. It is an enumerated power. Now some argue that that just means they determine who is a citizens. But that argument was settled in 1870 with the Page act of 1875 that restricted immigration of those with criminal records from Asia. And interestingly no one ever questioned its constitutionality at the time. Congress has always had power over immigration.

    I really don't get the argument that it is not in the Constitution. The power is right there.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The constitutional arguments are presented well in Scalia's concurrence/dissent in Arizona v. United States

    As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitution- ally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:

    “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).

    See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).

  • Calidissident||

    Did you not read what I wrote? Naturalization is not synonymous with immigration. It simply does not mean the same thing. The fact that the Supreme Court said differently in 1870 doesn't change that. Seriously, this is another of the first things liberals do when defending Constitutionality of something: "It's been broken all along!" and "The Supreme Court said so!"

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    where in the Constitution do immigration restrictionists find justification for their laws?

    You've got it backwards. Excluding outsiders is inherent in sovereignty. To the extent that the Constitution doesn't mention taking this power away from the states, they still have it.

  • JeremyR||

    Ask the Native Americans how unlimited immigration worked out for them.

    This time, we're the Indians.

  • Cytotoxic||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

  • Cytotoxic||

    And here, immigration restrictionists make arguments based on the notion that foreign people are a contagion and then get bitch when they get called out as xenophobes or make arguments based on using one statist policy set to justify another and then get upset when they are called out as hypocrites.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    And here, libertarian anarchists make arguments based on the notion that the libertarian project has a snowflake's chance in hell when we import millions of people who have voted for socialists in their home countries, and then label anyone minarchists as "statists" because they recognize the need for some quantum of government.

    Libertarian Purity is Our Future!

  • Randian||

    No importing necessary. I just don't believe peaceful people should have guns put to their faces.

    You do. You love the State. You lick its boots while it stamps your face.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Peaceful? So can we deport foreigners who commit violent crimes?

  • Randian||

    As long as you're deporting citizens too, sure. Equality under the law and all that.

    What do I care what happens to duly-convicted violent felons?

  • Zeb||

    Sounds a lot like "we had to burn the village to save it". "You can't bring about a libertarian society unless you give up your libertarian principles" seems a bit problematic. If I wanted to worry about electoral strategy, I'd join a team. I'm more interested in being moral and respecting people's rights.

  • Randian||

    "In order for us to have a free society, we have to put up thousands of guards with guns, artillery, concertina wire and thousands of miles of big thick walls!"

    That sounds like prison to me.

  • waaminn||

    Sounds liek a pretty solid plan to me man wow.

    www.irAnon.tk

  • Gladstone||

    I don't know the whole pro-immigration argument always struck as similar to the 19th Century arguments that everyone should vote even if that means they'll vote for more free shit.

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