Media

Set Tivos to Stun: Nick Gillespie on Stossel Tonight, Talking Immigration

|

Tonight on Fox Business's Stossel, Reason's Nick Gillespie will debate the author of Arizona's controversial new law requiring law enforcement to check for citizenship status, state Sen. Russell Pearce.

Other segments feature discussions of whether birthright citizenship should be ended and whether today's immigrants are assimilating at the same rate as past waves.

Stossel airs on Fox Business tonight at 9pm and midnight (Eastern) and again on Fridays and Saturdays. For more details, go here.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: House Will Vote to Extend Jobless Claims, Arizona Goes to Court, Floods in China

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.

  1. OPEN BORDERS NEW WORLD ORDER/ZIONIST/LA RAZA/FREEMASON/LIZARD PEOPLE CONSPIRACY!!!! ANCHOR BABBIES!!!! REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!! YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!

  2. In the words of the wise and sage Rupaul:
    Don’t fuck it up.

  3. Alt-text fail.

  4. Drivers license? Car insurance? We don’t need no stinkin’ car insurance. You gringos pay for your own car after we run ours into it. We love your country!

    1. Drivers Licence? Car Insurance? We don’t need no stinkin’ car insurance! Cars were not meant to be crashed, anyway!

    2. Sorry, Pedro. I know you can’t get insurance without a license, and you can’t get a license because insane state legislators won’t let you get one without proof of legal residence — even though the one has nothing to do with the other.

      I can offer no excuse for this abuse. I can only say that legislators suck, especially when they see an opportunity to demagogue.

  5. I look forward to seeing you on this episode, especially since I’m quite conflicted about the open borders issue and illegal immigrants. Most other libertarian positions seem like no-brainers, but I am ambivalent on this one. I like the fact that you seem to be able to answer questions on the fly as if you had a week to prepare for them. Always a pleasure watching that. When the answers aren’t coherent, I just get more confused.

    1. Think about the open borders concept this way-

      Why should the state be able to tell you who you can and can’t hire in your business? Why should the state tell you who you can and can’t rent/sell your property to? Why should another government restrict someone else from hiring you, etc., based on where you were born?

      It limits your freedoms in more ways than you might think.

      1. Or, should you be allowed to hire people who do not live in your state? Your county? Your town? Your street? Your house?

  6. Most other libertarian positions seem like no-brainers, but I am ambivalent on this one.

    It’s just as no-brainy as the rest. “No border!” and (most versions of) “Border!” are equally libertarian conclusions; what matters is how they’re reached.

    Before you pick one to sign up for, see if the position was arrived at based on a libertarian principle, or rationalized to avoid being identified with its opponents. It’s usually easy to tell. Especially here.

    And anything with the word “worker,” “guest,” “labor,” “temporary,” or “program” in it is fascist crap, no matter who supports it, or why they say they do. People are a commodity to be moved (by shove or nudge) as the state and capital determine they should be, or they’re people.

  7. I’m sure it’s been said before, but damned if Nick Gillespie and Rod Blagojevich weren’t separated at birth.

    1. Whoa whoa whoa! I and possibly many other Reason women find the Jacket quite attractive and the fugly-ass ex-guvnor hideous.

      1. Maybe Blagojevich is The Jacket’s Evil Twin?

  8. LOL, that dude just looks corrupt as the day is long

    Lou
    http://www.privacy-tools.be.tc

    1. Damn, shit just got real, son! (My guess is that the bot parsed the Blagojevich reference before spitting out this platitude)

  9. “They are here to steal our jobs!”
    — They are not YOUR jobs, asshole. You don’t own something that is offered by someone else.

    “They are here to enjoy our free services!”
    — If that’s the problem, why offer them in the first place?

    “They are here to commit crimes!”
    — You mean ALL immigrants?? If some are here to commit crimes, prosecute them, but don’t paint all immigrants with the same wide brush. That’s insane.

    “They are here but not to embrace the culture!”
    — That is their right – the first colonists did not come to “embrace” the native Americans’ culture. Then again, you certainly don’t have a lost of faith in the advantages of your culture if you come up with such an excuse… Lame.

    “They don’t pay taxes!”
    — Good for them! Emulate them. Or do you like paying taxes?

    Also, that is a lame excuse – it is far, far easier to set oneself up as a taxpayer with the IRS than it is to obtain a visa, so that excuse does not fly.

    “They should enter through the front door!”
    — Creepy objection. Sounds so East Germany, so “Papieren, schnell!”. Remember, a fence designed to keep people “out” can perfectly be used to keep people IN.

    1. Well said old mexican. Unfortunately, rational arguments only work to convince rational people.

    2. East Germany was Communist keeping their subjects within their boundaries. Americans are free to travel where they want. We are trying to keep out illegals. You also fail to mention the large amounts of MY taxpayer money that goes to schools, hospitals, welfare etc. being used by non-Americans. I hate paying taxes too but since I must pay them, I don’t like illegals mooching off the system that they did not contribute to. Also, if keeping out millions of illegals meant preventing just one rape, murder, or one robbery, then it would be worth it. You would think so too if you or your loved ones were on the wrong end of crime perpetrated by an illegal.

      1. Tried traveling to Cuba directly lately?

      2. If subjecting all Americans to a 6pm curfew prevented just one late night rape, murder, or robbery, then it would be worth it. You would think so too if you or your loved ones were on the wrong end of a crime perpetrated by an night walker.

        1. You would think so too if you or your loved ones were on the wrong end of a crime perpetrated by an night walker.

          No, actually, I don’t. Thanks for playing though!

      3. 1. Illegals pay more in taxes than the government services they consume. Most government services — including welfare, since 1996 — require legal residency.

        2. Immigrants, legal and illegal, increase US GDP by an estimated 2% each year.

        3. Immigrants have a workforce participation rate, higher than many native borns.

        4. Kicking out illegals and keeping them out will cost more than estimates of what illegal immigration costs the US.

        5. Immigrants are here to work not commit crime. Immigrants of all ethnic groups have lower crime rates than native borns by about 1/5.

        1. 1. Illegals pay more in taxes than the government services they consume.

          How can we know that? Do they report to some agency?

          2. Immigrants, legal and illegal, increase US GDP by an estimated 2% each year.

          Same thing here. I can see knowing what legal immigrants contribute–they’re a known factor, but illegals? How?

          4. Kicking out illegals and keeping them out will cost more than estimates of what illegal immigration costs the US.

          Attrition doesn’t cost anything. The threat to enforce the laws we passed gets them scurrying like roaches when the light comes on.

          5. Immigrants are here to work not commit crime. Immigrants of all ethnic groups have lower crime rates than native borns by about 1/5.

          That’s nice. What about illegals? Since they all start with one crime, they, all twelve million, are ahead of most Americans right out of the gate. What? We have to ignore that initial crime of crossing the border illegally? Do legal Americans get a one-crime pass too?

          Secure the border. THEN open a bigger gate.

          1. I suggest you check Let Them In out from the library, it’s well worth. The studies that supply the data are mentioned.

  10. What about restricting sugar intake to prevent crime? Or prohibition of alcohol to prevent crime? Surely that would be worth it.

  11. You’re misinterpreting everything. You said if subjecting Americans to a 6pm curfew prevented just one crime, etc, etc. We are NOT talking about Americans. We are talking about illegals. Quit replacing the “Illegals” with “Americans”. It’s not the same thing. And restricting sugar intake? Come on we are talking about the crime of coming over here ILLEGALLY. All of you keep going off track and creating these scenarios that have nothing to do with the subject. And no I haven’t tried traveling to Cuba. Restricting us from traveling anywhere is wrong.

    1. Come on we are talking about the crime of coming over here ILLEGALLY.

      It’s not a crime. It’s a civil infraction, like speeding.

      1. Giuliani points out to Glenn Beck that illegal immigration isn’t a crime:

        GLENN: Right. But isn’t illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

        GIULIANI: No.

        GLENN: Aren’t you saying —

        GIULIANI: Glenn —

        GLENN: You’re protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

        GIULIANI: Glenn, it’s not a crime. I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.

        GLENN: It’s a misdemeanor but if you’ve been nailed, it is a crime. If you’ve been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

        GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.

        GLENN: Is it —

        GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn’t.

        GLENN: Should it be?

        GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. We couldn’t prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you’d have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.

        1. I’ve heard conflicting answers to whether or not being an illegal immigrant is a crime or not. Can anybody confirm definitely one way or another? If my choice is to trust Rudy Giuliani over Glenn Beck, I choose to not to choose, as I don’t trust either.

          1. How about this?

            “Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings.”
            Immigration Enforcement within the United States, page 8

          2. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sponsored HR 4437 which would have made illegal immigration a felony but it died when Congress realized that a criminal case involves lawyers and juries which means lots of time and money to deport an illegal immigrant.

          3. The pointers to the federal crime are in the Arizona law, as the authors of that piece of tripe fished high and low to find something — anything — that they could duplicate into a crime in Arizona after their attempt to make trespassing on commons a crime received the ridicule it deserved.

            8 USC Section 1304

            (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
            Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

  12. You’re misinterpreting everything.

    No, he’s not. He’s arguing the normative question of whether the vast majority of illegal immigrants should be illegal at all.

    Assuming the conclusion — that their being illegal means they should be illegal — is misinterpreting everything.

  13. Oh boy. Expect a lot of booing from the audience on this episode. I remember the “What is a Libertarian” one where the mere passing mention of open borders riled the studio audience, but now a whole show? This should get interesting.

  14. Either we believe in free markets in capital and labor or we don’t. If we don’t, we can call ourselves whatever we’d like, but we won’t be advancing a politics that favors individual liberty and free, private choices.

    Preservation of individual liberty requires a small, limited government, not one that restricts workers’ travel across borders or holds voluntary arrangements between workers and employers as criminal acts.

    1. Hear, hear!

  15. Nick – Can you get yourself on the Bill Maher show and upset that echo chamber?

  16. Well, hell. These comments are themselves quite informative. I didn’t even know it was a civil issue rather than a criminal one. My daughter defended people charged under federal illegal immigration statutes, but I assume it was for smuggling people across the border. She was a federal public defender in San Diego.

  17. href=”http://www.handbagsmvp.com/prada-handbags-c-14.html”>Prada handbags , Juicy Couture handbags

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.