Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) Makes Me Ashamed to Be an American and Proud to Be Descended From Immigrants

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has never been shy about discussing immigrants in the crudest, most vile terms possible. Back in 2006, for instance, in a discussion of a border fence, he talked up the benefits of electrifying it, because we "do that with livestock all the time."

As noted at Fox News Latino via Reason 24/7, he's up to old tricks, admitting that, sure, some immigrants - even illegal ones! - aren't born criminals. But "for every one who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."

Mmm, cantaloupe.

The original interview is with Newsmax and here's the longer passage:

"Some of them are valedictorians — and their parents brought them in. It wasn't their fault. It's true in some cases, but they aren't all valedictorians. They weren't all brought in by their parents.

"For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert," King tells Newsmax. "Those people would be legalized with the same act."

courtesy Georgetown Book Shopcourtesy Georgetown Book ShopHe also goes on to argue

"There isn't anyone that can fairly characterize me as anti-immigrant," the Iowa Republican tells Newsmax. "That's a label that the open-borders people have tossed around. They're conflating the terms anti-illegal immigrant and anti-immigrant as if it were the terms healthcare and health insurance."

Hmm, so how many legal immigrants does he want then? Curiously, he doesn't talk so much about creating new venues for legal immigration. He has managed to rack up 100 percent ratings from anti-immigration (legal and illegal) groups FAIR and USBC, got an A+ rating from another closed-borders group ALI, and has pushed legislation making English the official language of the United States and ending birthright citizenship.

He's also insisted"My comments are anything but ignorant. They may have been the best informed in the entire United States Congress."

I think there are many legitimate reasons to be against the comprehensive immigration reform bill kicking around the Senate these days. But it is not worth having discussions with elected officials who talk about immigrants the way that King does.

To call him a moron is really an insult to morons and simpletons everywhere. Some of them can't help themselves - they were just born dumb. I suspect that King doesn't want to help himself. Are you really supposed to take a congressman seriously who makes such wild and erroneous claims about criminality among illegals and also makes bizarre physiognomic comments? I don't think so.

Not that the facts seem to matter much in discussions of immigration, but if you're interested, pick up a copy of Humane and Pro-Growth: A Reason Guide to Immigration Reform. It's full of our best coverage over the past few years and shows how open borders greatly benefit all of us.

Watch the recent interview with Grover Norquist we just posted today for a refreshing alternative perspective. And watch this great talk about immigration policy and history by the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley. It's from a 2009 Reason conference.

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.

  • Nazdrakke||

    So I didn't even get to the piece yet because what kind of bullshit headline is that? Seriously, dude.

  • kinnath||

    He is a fucking embarrassment to Iowa.

  • Irish||

    Steve King is a fucking moron, but I'd point out that America is far more welcoming to immigrants even today than almost any other country in the world.

    Saying you're 'ashamed to be an American' because of his idiotic stance seems a bit ridiculous to me considering that his idiotic stance is basically the norm in almost every other country.

  • John||

    I honestly don't think there is any country where it is easy to migrate to. Canada maybe. Israel certainly, but only if you are Jewish.

    And if Nick thinks xenophobia is an American phenomenon or actually pretty benign here when compared to the rest of the world, he is dumber than I thought he was.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Canada Singapore and some other countries are much easier to get into.

  • John||

    But the list is pretty short.

  • MWG||

    The US is actually better than I thought, but we're no Qatar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ation_rate

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Easy for whom? For the wealthy, it's quite easy to relocate anywhere you want. Many countries will even give you a visa intended just for the rich who want to immigrate.

    The poor? Fuhgedaboutit.

  • Brandybuck||

    So because other countries suck at immigration, we have to suck at it too?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I agree. There are many more compelling reasons to be ashamed to be an American.

  • ||

    For example, people like you, Episiarch, Warty, and SugarFree all live here. Now that says something fucked up about our country.

  • ||

    I wouldn't call what Epi does "living."

  • ||

    He exists. We'll leave it at that.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Oh Jimbo please. None of them are avaricious consumers of tentacle porn...unlike you.

  • ||

    Well, at least it's gay tentacle porn. I'm not a yokeltarian monster.

  • RBS||

    Awe, Epi has a new fanboy.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Nigga please.

  • RBS||

    I'm not sure why that posted under you, I was referring to Zakalwe.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ahh. Dammit, I burned one the three times I get to use the word "nigga" on a mistake?!

  • RBS||

    Now you're down to one.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That one doesn't count!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Personally, I find it obnoxious when someone feels the need to repudiate his country or region based on something that a politician says. Politicians have been saying stupid things since Ur was founded, and will never stop. If you're going to be "ashamed" of your country for such a quotidian reason, then you were never really invested in it in the first place.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, it's one of Nick's more annoying habits. I get that he's sort of the angry, super serious libertarian guy but come on.

  • Dweebston||

    Any chance at all he's being glib, a smack in the face to King's brand of vulgar nationalism?

  • RBS||

    Maybe, but when Nick is offended he tends to crank it up to 11.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Irish,

    Steve King is a fucking moron, but I'd point out that America is far more welcoming to immigrants even today than almost any other country in the world.


    Why don't you ask someone who is actually seeking to emigrate, for a change, instead of guessing?

    I can tell you that things have not been as difficult as they are right now, with the exception of the Progressive Era.

  • Irish||

    Why don't you ask someone who is actually seeking to emigrate, for a change, instead of guessing?

    I can tell you that things have not been as difficult as they are right now, with the exception of the Progressive Era.

    Whether or not America is less welcoming relative to itself 100 years ago is irrelevant. The question is whether it is more welcoming compared to other nations.

  • John||

    For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert," King tells Newsmax. "Those people would be legalized with the same act."

    Hyperbole aside, that probably is somewhat true. How many valedictorians are there? And I am quite sure more than a few illegals smuggled some drugs in for a little starter money when they got here. And to that I say, so what? King considers that an insult to immigrants because he is no doubt a drug warrior. I am not really sure why Nick does. It would seem to me that proper response here is, damn straight they smuggled drugs in and the only reason they did that is our idiotic drug laws. Since when is bringing drugs into the country some kind of immoral act? It isn't to me.

  • Irish||

    Saying 'many illegals smuggle drugs' is different than saying there's a 100-1 differential between valedictorians and cantaloupe legged pot smugglers.

  • John||

    I said hyperbole aside. The overall point was that illegals often smuggle drugs. And that is most certainly true. But hardly an insult, at least not from Reason's perspective. And even if it were not true, since when is drug smuggling immoral?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There's just no reason to speak so glibly. Sure, some immigrants smuggle drugs. So do some Americans. So what?

  • John||

    Exactly. The proper response to this statement is "So what?". Being offended grants the assumption that there is something wrong with smuggling drugs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just don't John.

  • PH2050||

    "...there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert."

    That's great news. I'm looking for some field workers at my future hemp farm.

  • ||

    WTF is "who weigh 130 pounds — and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes" even supposed to mean? That they're small but freakishly strong? I mean what a fucking weird thing to say regardless of everything else horrendous about it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Obviously the Mexicans are planning to sneak into American and crush our heads between their freakishly huge leg muscles.

  • Hugh Akston||

    TheLuchadorMenace!

  • kinnath||

    Nick, to put things in perspective: as stupid as Steve King is, I would donate money and campaign on his behalf if it would get Pelosi out of office.

  • Paul.||

    Hmm, to vote for Dumb or Dumber...

  • Cytotoxic||

    "B-b-but there are a couple of news stories about illegals smuggling drugs so King is 100% right!"-gist of actual article on Breitbart.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Ah, Breitbart, it's like the raw material liberals use to construct their strawmen.

  • ||

    It really is. Half the time I call a progtard out on his ridiculous bullshit statement about what "conservatives" believe, he can pull up a Breitbart article to show where he got it from. It's quite deflating.

  • Irish||

    In terms of sites with a Team Red bent, I think Townhall and Hot Air are pretty good. They don't go the dipshit route of Breitbart, and Townhall actually has people like Thomas Sowell write for them periodically.

    Also, Katie Pavlich is pretty hot. That's another positive for Townhall.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Thanks. I really need to just visit better sites instead of Bb.

  • RightNut||

    Ya you post there alot....not stalking you or anything.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Stop stalking me!

  • Cytotoxic||

    It was a phase.

  • RBS||

    Not bad at all.

  • Nazdrakke||

    For Team Red I go to HotAir sometimes, but Ace of Spades can be alright as well. They tend to go nutz about some things, but at least they are frequently entertaining about it. Plus the frequent changing position of: those commie libertarians suck vs libertarians are sorta alright, I guess, is fun to track.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It's weapons-grade straw material, really.

  • Andrew S.||

    I'll hand this to Rep. King: He's the least xenophobic, racist representative with the last name of "King" in the House.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    It's good to be the King.

  • Ted S.||

    Peter King likes immigrants if they're Micks.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    You just can’t trust those damn Catholics.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    FUCK YOU, IOWA.

  • kinnath||

    well, at least Harkin is retiring after the 2014 election ;-)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I still prefer the other Steve King.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Not as scary.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some of these people in the older generation still haven't read the memo.

    Now that all the computers come with the interwebs preinstalled?

    Everything you say in public is accessible to everyone--even the people who don't like you.

    ...and everything you say can and will be used against you by your enemies in the court of public opinion.

    ...and all that stupid shit you say now has a shelf life of forever.

  • creech||

    Depends on how gerry-mandered your congressional district is.

  • ||

    American, under his new handle, will be coming along any minute now to tell us that we should enact protectionist economic policies because, and this is a direct quote from the Norquist article earlier, "It's called patriotism."

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Don't forget about racial intelligence -- we can't let *those* kind of people come here, ya know!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    American has a view of the economy that approaches feudalism -- where the economy grows linearly depending solely on how many smart people and thus how much science is undertaken by the economy. Last time I asked him how that worked out for the Soviets and 14th-century China, he vanished without a trace.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    That sounds less like feudalism and more like Platonic "aristocracy" -- so, in other words, feudalism from the perspective of the aristocrats.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I meant in terms of base understanding of economic concepts, not structural similarity.

    I mean, that's a level of economic understanding that serfs would have had.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    I still think you're on to something, with American identifying as one of The Best.

  • Tony||

    I can kinda get being so fucking dumb you are incapable of shedding your actual racism, but why grown adults in public office can't figure out how at least not to sound like a racist moron when speaking in public completely escapes me. Unless of course Republican representatives have no incentive not to talk like xenophobic douchebags since their gerrymandered districts expect just that from them.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It's adorable you attribute gerrymandering to one side only.

  • Irish||

  • Tony||

    only the Republicans gerrymander

    Strawman police, where are you when I need you?

  • A Serious Man||

    That talking point has really come to life in the last year, hasn't it?

    I guess it makes sense since how else is Team Blue going to explain the beating they will likely take in 2014? It sure as shit can't be the failure of the Anointed One in the White House.

  • Tony||

    How gleeful you sound at the prospect of Republicans running all of Congress. Because they've done such a bang-up job at governing, I suppose?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    We're gleeful for your tears, Bluetard. We'll gladly turn on them like we did from 2001-2008 AND be able to enjoy you crying in the corner and masturbating to your own sense of smug self-satisfaction.

  • Tony||

    While it's disturbing how well you know my masturbation habits, I'm almost to the point where I welcome at least a couple years of total Republican control. Sure, lots of people will die, starve, and otherwise be put into misery, but at least it will be the last time they're ever put in charge for generations.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That's awesome.

  • ||

    Tony's got a point here. If only the boom years of 2006 to 2009 could have lasted forever...

  • Tony||

    "Confounding conventional wisdom, partisan redistricting is not symmetrical between the political parties. By my seat-discrepancy criterion, 10 states are out of whack: the five I have mentioned, plus Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Arizona was redistricted by an independent commission, Texas was a combination of Republican and federal court efforts, and Illinois was controlled by Democrats. Republicans designed the other seven maps. Both sides may do it, but one side does it more often."

    The fact that more people voted for Democrats yet Republicans retained the House suggests, at least, that Republicans are better at it.

    False equivalence is not independent thinking. It's poor thinking.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    The fact that more people voted for Democrats yet Republicans retained the House suggests, at least, that Republicans are better at it.

    Uh, no it doesn't. Not at all.

    That's poor thinking on your part.

  • wareagle||

    ah, an opinion piece. Who wouldn't take that as unvarnished fact.

  • Tony||

    There is a method presented. But you don't care, do you? You believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, despite evidence, because you are immune to normal standards of rational thought. And what you want to believe just so happens to be whatever Hannity tells you to believe.

  • wareagle||

    self-aware much? You take this as gospel because it confirms your beliefs. And as a bonus, we get a Hannity non-sequitur.

  • Tony||

    WTF do you care if the parties are not exactly balanced in their gerrymandering perpetration?

    Nothing gets you idiots riled up more than criticizing Republicans.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    WTF do you care if the parties are not exactly balanced in their gerrymandering perpetration?

    I care because it's not the truth. It is, in fact, a lie. What's worse it's a lie perpetrated to cover up the worst kinds of partisanship: the kind that says your TEAM is all goodness and light But Ahh If Only X, where X is gerrymandering/the population is stupid/Republican obstructionism/whatever.

    Grow up.

  • Tony||

    On almost any shady exploitation of the rules or cronyism, Republicans are the worse actor. Sorry, but it's just reality. It would be rather something if they were equal, actually. Anyone claiming they are is carrying water.

  • Eric||

    Seriously. Kinda cute how most of the posters here so quickly come to mama-team red's defense. Pavlovian almost.

  • Irish||

    Read my notes about his method. His method ignores the fact that Democrat votes actually ARE more compact, a fact which means a fairly drawn map could easily result in a bizarre delegation which differs wildly from the overall percentage of votes.

    His method is bad. The only way to see gerrymandering is to actually look at a map and see what districts look like. Doing it numerically the way he does is virtually impossible.

  • Tony||

    The adjectival form of "Democrat" is "Democratic."

    Yes obviously Democratic voters live more densely. All that means is that any map, no matter how clean, will have a bias in favor of Republicans. Add gerrymandering to that, and we get a House with a majority party in charge that a minority of voters actually voted for.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Holy shit you're obvs retarded.

  • John Thacker||

    Add gerrymandering to that, and we get a House with a majority party in charge that a minority of voters actually voted for.

    Except you'd be likely to get that even without gerrymandering, just with that factor plus majority minority district encouragement from the VRA.

    Yes, obviously Republicans did more gerrymandering after 2010, simply because in 2010 they won an enormous victory in state legislatures.

    1990 was entirely the reverse, since it was a good Democratic year (Bush midterm.)

    What the Republicans were more successful in was winning the state legislatures in 2010. They won a clear strong majority of the vote (Congressional and state) in 2010.

  • Irish||

    Yes obviously Democratic voters live more densely. All that means is that any map, no matter how clean, will have a bias in favor of Republicans.

    You just admitted that a fairly drawn map will favor Republicans. So you now admit that the Times article you just posted had bad methodology and that there's no proof Republicans do it more frequently than Democrats.

    This is awesome. You basically just gave me the entire argument. You are the worst debater I have ever seen.

    The adjectival form of "Democrat" is "Democratic."

    And the adjectival form of Republic is Republican. Since a mixed Republic is a far better form of government than a Democracy, a fact which has been proven dating all the way back to Cicero's Republic, I'm not sure what your point is.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A shitty method.

  • RightNut||

    Go read Scott Trende's piece on Republican control of the House of Reps, and then get back to us. I even linked it for you.

  • Irish||

    But that would require him to read a piece with decent methodology instead of an atrocious bit of partisan slander.

    He can't do that!

    From 1942 -- the last time a party won the popular vote but failed to win the House (the Republicans won the popular vote by 5 percent that year) -- through 1992, the Democrats had a huge advantage in seats won vs. their popular vote share, averaging 5 percent. The discrepancy was less than 3 percent on just five occasions. The gap at times dwarfed the 4.5 percent difference between seats and popular vote share the Republicans currently enjoy.

    Wow. That pretty much shits on Tony's argument, doesn't it.

  • Irish||

    His way of looking this up is fucking stupid.

    I have developed approaches to detect such shenanigans by looking only at election returns. To see how the sleuthing works, start with the naïve standard that the party that wins more than half the votes should get at least half the seats. In November, five states failed to clear even this low bar: Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    He then creates a 'mock delegation' in which he doesn't bother looking at the geography of the state. Guess what, Tony? Republican votes actually are naturally more diffuse than Democrat votes. The reason you'd expect weirder numbers from Republican states is because the compaction of Democrat votes into cities means that even in a fairly drawn map Democrats are likely to be forced into only a few districts that are hyper Democrat.

    If you actually read his reasoning, he hasn't proven gerrymandering at all.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Bingo.

  • John Thacker||

    Partisan redistricting was not symmetrical this cycle, because the Republicans won 2010 so heavily, thanks to Obamacare backlash.

    The NC map was just as partisan the other way every single redistricting prior to 2010, for example.

    Republicans just had more opportunity this year.

    The fact that more people voted for Democrats yet Republicans retained the House suggests, at least, that Republicans are better at it.

    Suggests, perhaps, but as Nate Silver and others have demonstrated, sheer packing of Democratic voters into urban areas at the moment makes it difficult to draw lines that don't give the Republicans an advantage. Add to that Section Two of the VRA encouraging majority-minority districts, and it's even harder.

    OTOH, as Silver also showed, the current trends in Electoral Votes and Presidential Votes means that a Democrat would win the Electoral College and the Presidency even if a Republican won 52% of the vote (using uniform swings from both of Obama's victories.)

    These things happen.

  • John Thacker||

    For example, NC Republicans won 57 percent of the aggregate vote for Congress in 2010-- and a minority of the NC Congressional seats.

  • cw||

    You make a point I can agree with - that King is a fucking dumb racist - but then you insinuate that only Republicans have gerrymandered districts.

    Can't you make a point without being a partisan shithead?

  • Tony||

    No I don't, although recently they are the worse offenders. You're the one being partisan by jumping to their defense.

  • wareagle||

    Repubs are the worst offenders recently because they are the more recent majority. You get how gerrymandering works, right? Look up NC 12 for Congress; there's some find Dem gerryrigging right there, a model for future line drawers to emulate.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I guess the Republicans have 30 governorships because of redistricting too, right? Or is that ALEC? I can't keep my Bluetard Dance Card straight.

  • cw||

    You're the one who singed out Republicans, so you started the partisan thread.

  • Tony||

    But I never said they were the only ones who gerrymandered. Just like they aren't the only ones who function by corporate bribery. Republicans are just better at that stuff. Also, they're racist idiots.

  • John Thacker||

    Democrats are just as good, when they win a majority. Go look at the NC districts from 1990 or 2000-- look at how the Democrats won a majority of the US House seats from NC with 43% of the vote in NC, thanks to the 2000 map. Look at Martin Frost's 1990 Texas Democratic gerrymander, that also allowed the Democrats to win 70% of the seats with 50% of the vote.

  • John Thacker||

    And Maryland's gerrymander is an amazing work of art that doesn't even make it in that partisan article you linked, thanks to his arbitrary criterion-- Maryland Republicans will always get a minority of votes, but it takes some very special district lines to hold them to the one seat. (Carving up Anne Arundel and Annapolis, making sure the rural and mountain counties are separated.)

  • cw||

    On the topic of stupid politicians, you have to wonder how Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein retain their seats with all the dumb shit they spew each day. But I guess that's what their gerrymandered congressional districts want!

  • Eric||

    You mean the state of California was somehow Gerrymandered for a senate seat?
    Jesus Christ...seriously?...

  • cw||

    Fuck, I fucked up there. Well, I guess I have egg on my face.

  • ||

    Also, they're racist idiots.

    It's worth pointing out here that the last surviving KKK member to serve in the United States congress was a Democrat.

    Also, Tony beats off at night to his eugenicist fantasies and can't get enough affirmative action. Pots, kettles, something something.

  • Inigo M.||

    LOL, dems are just a likely to be racist idiots. Ever since Gov. Wallace, however, they've learned to play the race card in a way that lets them fool more chumps in the general public.

  • kinnath||

    Because he is a Congressman, and he is actually speaking only to his district (regardless of what audience he was in front of when he made the remarks).

    His district is primarily rural. The local economy is agricultural (corn, beans, and pigs) that is all mechanical (so no one needs wetbacks to harvest crops) and has a rapidly growing wind-energy sector. It is socially very conservative (Santorum wiped Romney's butt in Northwest IA on caucus night).

    While he says incredibly stupid shit in public, he was apparently smart enough to figure out he couldn't carry the eastern half of IA, so he announced very early that he would not run for Harkin's open Senate seat in 2014 (much to my delight).

  • kinnath||

    Iowa has some of the cleanest district lines you'll see in any state. The east half goes for the Dems, and the west half goes for Repubs.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    You can say that again

  • kinnath||

    Iowa has some of the cleanest district lines you'll see in any state. The east half goes for the Dems, and the west half goes for Repubs.

  • Hugh Akston||

    At least we know what happened to HeWhoShallNotBeNamed.

  • Tonio||

    Lucy?

  • Tonio||

    "He" Derp. Nevermind.

  • ||

    Have you ever seen Lucy with his pants off?

  • A Serious Man||

    I thought Lucy was XXY?

  • ||

    You forgot the "SE."

  • cw||

    The irony is that in a free(ish) country, some individuals will say nasty things. So I don't really see the point in saying "I'm ashamed to be an American." Shouldn't you be glad that everyone is free to say anything he wants without state reprisal?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Well there's an entry for Dumbest Thing I've Heard Today.

  • John||

    I don't think so. If someone saying something stupid makes Nick ashamed to be an American, then he really ought to be ashamed to be a human being, since someone is saying something stupid all of the time.

  • cw||

    What makes you say that? I was just trying to say that it's good one can say dumb shit without being hauled to the gallows.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    I agree.

    It would be far better to say that you are ashamed of American public policy on the issue, American public opinion on the issue, ashamed of how Americans react to asshats like King, etc. Of course, I'm not exactly down with the whole "shame" thing to begin with...

  • cw||

    Agreed.

    Take, for example, us. I assume we're all Americans. But we think what King believes is stupid, and by extension, U.S. immigration policy. So what's the point in saying "I'm ashamed to be an American" if there are other Americans who agree wholeheartedly with you? It really makes no sense.

  • wareagle||

    it doesn't have to make sense; it only has to make you feel morally superior.

  • DJF||

    “””Are you really supposed to take a congressman seriously who makes such wild and erroneous claims about criminality among illegals “””

    Are you saying that there are not more criminal illegal’s aliens then valedictorian illegal aliens?

  • John||

    There are no criminal illegal aliens in Reason land.

  • Andrew S.||

    Are there more? Yes.

    Is there a 100-1 ratio of canteloupe calved, drug smuggling illegals? I'd love to see Rep. King prove that.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There are more drug-smuggling Americans than there are valedictorian Americans.

  • Inigo M.||

    And no doubt the great Rep. King would like to round them up and surround them with some surplus electrified border fence for the rest of their days. After all, he's got to keep the kiddies safe from that evil reefer.

  • Cytotoxic||

    On today's episode of 'Conflate the Statement..."

  • Homple||

    Representative King is an idiot, but so are those who think that conditions in the country today are anything like those in the day of the magnet cartoon on the ancient Punch cover.

  • cw||

    I know that some of the more conservative libertarians here believe U.S. immigration policy should not be open borders because all the immigrants would swell the welfare roles, so that we should first dismantle the welfare state before even considering open borders. But if that were true - that so many new immigrants would get on the dole - wouldn't that accelerate the welfare state's collapse and allow major reform?

  • wareagle||

    your statement assumes that Congress has an interest in reform, would not print more money to prevent said collapse, or do something else totally inconsistent with rational behavior. Which is why those folks are in Congress.

  • Tony||

  • DJF||

    I have seen collapsed countries and its not pretty and nothing says that a collapsed country will turn into anything I would like.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yup. How many collapsed countries have emerged as liberal states?

    The only example that comes to mind off the top of my head is Sweden after the Great Northern War.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    This question cannot be answered without more specific parameters.

    One fundamental problem with such thinking comes up when addressing endogeneity: Cultural, ethnic, and racial differences undermine support for the welfare state. You cannot just take current outlays, benefits, programs, etc. and extrapolate.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Maybe, but if I were a betting man I'd bet the other way.

    How easy is it to reform government schemes that benefit a large proportion of the population, in the context of a constitutional democracy?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The notion that immigration = more welfare is simply false anyway, so bust.

  • ||

    Not really. Because of the nature of our welfare apparatus, more people = more welfare. Their origin is irrelevant. If 10 million babies were born tomorrow or 10 million people were granted legal status tomorrow, the result is pretty well the same.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Shouldn't you be glad that everyone is free to say anything he wants without state reprisal?

    Not when that person is in a position to affect federal law.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    So, when someone's in a position of power, they should hide their feelings?
    I would much rather get a little more honesty from the scumbags.

  • RagingAlbino||

    Everyone's giving Nick crap for saying he's ashamed to be an American. For starters, it's probably a hyperbole. And I want someone to explain to me why any person-or even better 'HOW' most person can be proud to be an American? It's the same as saying I'm proud to be white. It's a ridiculous idea. I have accomplished nothing to be white just as I have accomplished nothing by being born hereso there is nothing to be proud of.
    I came through a vagina! Nick makes the same mistake by saying he's ashamed to be an American but so do all of you who seem to be proud to be one.

  • RagingAlbino||

    Sorry for the typos. Autocorrect and slow internet is a bitch.

  • cw||

    I agree that the very statement is silly. But there's still something irksome about being singled out for being a part of something (even if that something barely makes up your identity). I get that Nick's statement is really more a turn of phrase than a literal feeling he has, but I still find it annoying. It's like he's lumping all of us in for something some asshole politco said since we both share American citizenship.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And I want someone to explain to me why any person-or even better 'HOW' most person can be proud to be an American? It's the same as saying I'm proud to be white. It's a ridiculous idea.

    No, it isn't. The US is a propositional, not an ethnic, nation; thousands of immigrants from all around the world make the decision to become American every year and have every right to be proud of what their adopted nation stands for.

    Besides, who said that sentiment had to correspond to reason?

  • RagingAlbino||

    That's really what I was getting at though. People who are born as Americans have done nothing to be Americans, yet have nothing to be proud of.

  • Inigo M.||

    Wow, this politico should mate with the rep on the left who wondered if the combined weight of the military personnel on Guam might cause the island to capsize. Their offspring would probably be so stupid, he'd be a shoe-in to be elected President.

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