Tonight on MSNBC: Tim Vs. Tucker on Immigration

Reason Web Editor Tim Cavanaugh will appear on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show tonight (11PM ET), discussing Tim's provocative LA Times op-ed, Borders Without Visas.

For more info on Carlson's show, go here.

More Tim on immigration, go here.

Comments

[hugo]

You realize no one watches that show.

[NOT Bill O'Reilly]

hugo

By that standard, "no one reads Reason Magazine".

That weasel Tucker Carlson will probably let Tim complete a sentence or two before turning off his mike and going in for the kill.

[johnl]

You guys should be trying to get Julian on TV. He really doesn't have the looks for print journalism.

[happyjuggler0]

I love the way he finessed Tim's article's points about security and economics by essentially ignoring them and changing the subject to culture of all things.

Unfortunately I suspect most anti-immigrant types probably missed the fact that he essentially conceded that debate to Tim.

[cutin]

people may talk about this but this is the big story now...

Enron's Lay, Skilling Found Guilty of Conspiracy and Fraud

[happyjuggler0]

Um, cutin?

Try scrolling down before you attempt to hijack a thread. Which is not to say you should be trying to hijack a thread anyway....

This thread is clearly more appropriate for your comments.

[Mendelism]

Wow, nice threadjack, cutin. And only five posts in.

Well done, Tim. Although I would probably never have watched Tucker Carlson's show if I hadn't seen the HnR promo, and for that I hate you.

You made a point to highight the fact that a significant number of turn-of-the-century immigrants returned to their homelands after emigrating. But I still wonder whether the viewers understood the problems introduced by "securing our borders" with regard to immigrants returning to Mexico (or Canada) after entering the U.S. to work. It's a fine point, and one that libertarians may take for granted, but policing the border under current immigration policy makes it more likely that individuals (and, increasingly, their families) enter the U.S. without plans to return home. If this point were hammered home to the (frighteningly large) number of folks who oppose immigration for reasons of xenophobia or racism (and I think watching 60 minutes of Tucker Carlson allows me to put him in this group), it could create a political wedge. If a majority of U.S. voters understood that "border security" meant that the immigrants who are in the U.S., or who enter the U.S. in the future, are likely never to leave, and that opening borders might result in a net reduction in noncitizens residing in the U.S., they might be more open to "open borders".

OTOH, I can understand not wanting to stoop to that line of argument.

[Mendelism]

Wow, nice threadjack, cutin. And only five posts in.

Well done, Tim. Although I would probably never have watched Tucker Carlson's show if I hadn't seen the HnR promo, and for that I hate you.

You made a point to highight the fact that a significant number of turn-of-the-century immigrants returned to their homelands after emigrating. But I still wonder whether the viewers understood the problems introduced by "securing our borders" with regard to immigrants returning to Mexico (or Canada) after entering the U.S. to work. It's a fine point, and one that libertarians may take for granted, but policing the border under current immigration policy makes it more likely that individuals (and, increasingly, their families) enter the U.S. without plans to return home. If this point were hammered home to the (frighteningly large) number of folks who oppose immigration for reasons of xenophobia or racism (and I think watching 60 minutes of Tucker Carlson allows me to put him in this group), it could create a political wedge. If a majority of U.S. voters understood that "border security" meant that the immigrants who are in the U.S., or who enter the U.S. in the future, are likely never to leave, and that opening borders might result in a net reduction in noncitizens residing in the U.S., they might be more open to "open borders".

OTOH, I can understand not wanting to stoop to that line of argument.

[Beating a dead horse]

You guys should be trying to get Julian on TV. He really doesn't have the looks for print journalism.

Perhaps. But as we all know, Julian won't fuck Tucker Carlson - amongst a host of others.

[taktix]

Give Tucker a little credit, he did write a decent GOP-bashing article for Cato's Letter.

I can't despise Carlson like other GOP'ers. He looks more deserving of pity than anger...

[Greg]

I doubt the emails for this one will be as good as last time.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

If this point were hammered home to the (frighteningly large) number of folks who oppose immigration for reasons of xenophobia or racism...
What exactly, or even approximately, is this "(frighteningly large) number of folks who who oppose immigration for reasons of xenophobia or racism?"
Please provide some cites, and, since one common and dishonest debate tactic is conflating "immigration" with "illegal aliens," discern between the two. Otherwise your unsupported assertion - most likely nothing more than psychological projection - is worthy of nothing but snickers.

[Julian Sanchez]

"But as we all know, Julian won't fuck Tucker Carlson - amongst a host of others."

Umm... OK, I give up... what is this a joke about? (True though it is, I should note, that I don't expect to sleep with Tucker Carlson anytime soon.)

[matt]

As far as TV talking heads go, I find Carlson to be among the least offensive. (Which, of course, isn't saying much, but the few times I've caught his show it was much better than O'Reilly or Dobbs.)

[johnl]

Really good Tim C. I was at a friends' house and they actually watch that show sometimes and I made them watch the segment. My friends commented on how the exchange was more polite than usual. I had been expecting more fireworks myself. It's almost as if Carlson was only pretending to disagree.

You could have hit a little harder on the "impossible to come to the USA legally" argument. Talking about your wife was cute and diffused the issue but it was also a dodge. The fact is that it is essentially impossible for an unskilled laborer from Mexico to get to the USA legally.

Your wire glasses look good on camera.

[Number 6]

Julian Sanchez-The answer to your question is available (in several threads) at grylliade.org There are lots of intelligent commenters over there, none of who expect to fuck you.

[Number 6]

Julian Sanchez-In the General Chatter section of grylliade is a thread titled FYI: Julian Sanchez. A dilligent poster there has dug up the relevant thread and linked to it there.

[hmmmm]

Le Mur,
And don't forget that Tucker ignoring the points made about security and economics will really make this crowd mad since those are the only 2 reasons this is even an issue, JS said so in his essay. That's it, security and economics, that's all it's about to 300 million people.

[kwais]

Tucker Carlson's show was one of my favorites on tv last time I was in the US.

I think that Tucker has some libertarian leanings, and some very strong reasonableness leanings.

He has some left wing chick come on his show and say what she disagrees with him about and he lets her talk freely and sometimes doesn't even really refute her.

Also now that H&R is a little more linked to Grylliade, how about modifying H&R so that you get notification if a thread you commented on commented on after you? That is a cool feature of Grylliade.

[Stevo Darkly]

Julian Sanchez-In the General Chatter section of grylliade is a thread titled FYI: Julian Sanchez. A dilligent poster there has dug up the relevant thread and linked to it there.

I posted a note there (on page 1 of the thread) that I hope Mr. Julian Sanchez may find time to read. I had no wish to do him any injustice.

[UnhappyAtTheBorder]

"If this point were hammered home to the (frighteningly large) number of folks who oppose immigration for reasons of xenophobia or racism..."

Even larger numbers oppose ILLEGAL immigration for other reasons. Matter of fact, I don't know anyone who opposes LEGAL immigration. Get a clue.

[Isaac Bartram]

I don't know anyone who opposes LEGAL immigration.

Yes, but and awful lot of folks seem to oppose making LEGAL immigration any easier for certain classes of people. Questioning their motives seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Isaac Bartram]

"AN awful lot of folks...", dammit!