Immigration

Colin Powell: Wrong on Iraq, Right on Immigration

|

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in USA Today:

Powell, a moderate Republican, urged his party Sunday to support immigration generally because it is "what's keeping this country's lifeblood moving forward."

In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, he said a path to legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants in the U.S. because they "are doing things we need done in this country."

He added: "They're all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I'm sure you've seen them at your house. We've got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status."…

Elsewhere in the same piece, Powell notes that opponents should attack President Obama "on policy, not nonsense."

More here.

I think Powell is right about immigration. Whether they show up through official channels (next to impossible, if you're low-skilled and Mexican) or not, if you work hard and contribute to the country (including paying Social Security and income taxes, which about two-thirds of illegals do pay), you should get a shot at becoming legal. Better yet, absent criminal records and communicable diseases, they should be allowed to enter the country presumptively as legal, a shift that would concentrate migrants at official checkpoints and allow border patrol agents to more effectively do their jobs. And, yes, the feds should end the drug war, which is responsible for just about all the violence on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Reason's reality-based guide to immigration reform came out in 2006 and is still relevant to this debate.

Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is bringing a vote on his plan to attach the DREAM Act to a defense-funding bill, which would offer a path to citizenship for some illegals, to a vote tomorrow. Reid, who called illegals "free loaders and scam artists" in 1993, is clearly angling for some Hispanic votes in a tight reelection bid. So what? Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who backed the DREAM Act earlier in the '00s, tossed over his generally good record on immigration in a tight primary fight with J.D. Hayworth.

As AOL's Politics Daily reports, the Dems are actively courting the Hispanic vote. It'll be a shame if the GOP simply abandons a large, growing, and ideologically diverse (and in many ways, a very socially conservative) group of voters. In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanic votes and he had pulled just about half in at least one gubernatorial race too. The ugliest immigrant-bashers – the Tom Tancredos and Steve Kings—are Republicans but there's no reason to cede that vote to the Dems. I say that not because I care if the GOP wins anything but because it's better to have more groups represented by more parties.

NEXT: Cuba and the Death of Communism

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. Once a government offers free hospital care and welfare benefits to illegal aliens, the citizens will resent the drain on their resources, increasing feelings xenophobia and racism.

    That “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” sentiment on the Statue of Liberty needs to be removed until the time we once again reward hard work more than gaming a welfare system.

    1. …welfare benefits to illegal aliens…

      What welfare benefits to illegal aliens?

      1. You don’t think that “community organizers” who are trying to Cloward & Piven the system are above giving food stamps and other bennies to illegals, do you?

        I’ve seen where one citizen applying for food stamps is asked only how many people live in her household without regard to legal status.

        1. Perhaps you should add “paranoia” to “feelings of xenophobia and racism”.

          1. Prolly so, the more “free healthcare” and socialism that Hitler gave to Germany, the more racist and paranoid that country became.

            1. Wow. Straight to the Hitler card. Impressive.

              No better way to buck up a weak argument than go with the Hitler card.

              1. I could have used Lenin/Stalin’s Soviet Union, but ever since “Springtime for Hitler” I cannot resist the comedic effect of bringing in the Third Reich.

      2. If Powell and Reason get their way, they won’t be illegal any more.

        And what could go wrong with removing barriers to immigration between a third world crapfest and a country with extensive social services?

        1. “And what could go wrong with removing barriers to immigration between a third world crapfest and a country with extensive social services?”

          Probably about as much as showering the country in tax cuts while we still have a welfare state…

          1. Nope, that answer gives the game away. It admits that it would screw things up.

            The proper pro-immigration response would be to say that people are a positive good and people who want to come here and work make this country better by definition. The lazy folks? The ones who don’t want to work for a living? Do you think that they have the gumption to work with coyotes or cross a desert?

  2. Does USA Today really have hyperlinks to explain what republican, NBC, and, Meet the Press are?

    Is this some kind of joke, or are we really that dumb?

  3. Sure, because without lots of low skilled, low paying immigrants, Powell and others might have to pay more to have their lawns mowed. I mean, what a wonderful supporter of human rights!

    This is the worst of arguments. When unemployment was at 5%, perhaps there was a shortage of labor. At 10% it is hard to see how it benefits any but the wealthy.

    If you are not competing with all of these immigrants, sure you like it. You can go down to the Home Depot and hire Manuel Labor for cheap. If it makes life harder for the lower classes, including those who immigrated legally, to bad for them, you need your cheap housekeeper.

    1. those who immigrated legally

      Suckers.

    2. “This is the worst of arguments. When unemployment was at 5%, perhaps there was a shortage of labor. At 10% it is hard to see how it benefits any but the wealthy.”

      Yeah, and while we’re at it, why don’t we throw up massive restrictions on imports, kick out any and all foreigners (legal and otherwise)? It’ll be a boon to the American economy. Lets get Americans back to work!

  4. “… absent criminal records …”
    — Seems to me that the “illegal” part of “illegal immigrant” infers a criminal act – which should result in a criminal record.

    Also, did Powel just admit that he employs illegal immigrants? Isn’t that illegal?

    I’m all for changing the immigration laws to fix them, but I’m not a fan of rewarding criminal behavior.

    1. Prosecutorial discretion has replaced “We are a nation of law, not of men” as the guiding legal philosophy.

      1. add regulators to that list too

    2. “Seems to me that the “illegal” part of “illegal immigrant” infers a criminal act – which should result in a criminal record.”

      Well you’d be wrong.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

  5. Powell is just another member of the Washington “elite” who thinks that obeying laws are for others. Just like he could lie and break laws to support going to war in Iraq he also does not think that immigration and employment laws are beneath him

  6. “Seems to me that the “illegal” part of “illegal immigrant” infers a criminal act…”

    Maybe, and if the government put some arbitrary tax on air you’s pretty soon start to find “illegal” brethers too.

    Making arbitrary laws that hinder peoples’ natural impulse to live makes a mockery of the concept of the rule of law.

    1. That would be, ‘ “illegal” breathers’

  7. That “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” sentiment on the Statue of Liberty needs to be removed until the time we once again reward hard work more than gaming a welfare system.

    Do you have any evidence that anything approaching even a sizable minority of illegal immigrants are receiving welfare benefits?

    No, of course you don’t. I see the point about the welfare system as an abstract concern without concrete evidence. In any case, two wrongs don’t make a right. I recognize that, if we were to make drugs legal today, that I would wind up funding a few users drug habits, but the existence of the welfare state should not be an excuse to infringe on liberty.

    I’m all for changing the immigration laws to fix them, but I’m not a fan of rewarding criminal behavior.

    Do you want everyone who goes 5 MPH over the speed limit pulled over too?

    1. Do you have any evidence that anything approaching even a sizable minority of illegal immigrants are receiving welfare benefits?

      No, of course you don’t.

      Of course, I don’t. It’s not likely that the progressives who run the welfare state will release such information, or even collect such data in the first place.

      Without trying, I have seen both seasonal (legal) Mexican workers get food stamps in between harvests and illegals getting WIC benefits for their anchor babies, as well as being counted to increase foods stamps for a citizen or legal alien.

      1. Without trying, I have seen both seasonal (legal) Mexican workers get food stamps in between harvests and illegals getting WIC benefits for their anchor babies, as well as being counted to increase foods stamps for a citizen or legal alien.

        Without even trying? You sure seem to know a lot about them (seasonal & legal, illegal, WIC benefits, anchor babies and all) for a guy who isn’t even trying.

        1. It is easier to see in some places. Washington state, for instance, is very liberal in handing out benefits, no (or very few) questions asked.

    2. …the existence of the welfare state should not be an excuse to infringe on liberty.

      I don’t think it should be a philosophic reason to infringe on liberty, I am pointing out that it cannot help but be a practical or economic reason to do so.

      I don’t think a government has the right to tell people they have to wear seat belts or they cannot smoke, but if government is picking up the costs of accidents and lung cancer treatments, it has financial reasons to do so.

      Bad government begets worse government.

  8. If you are not competing with all of these immigrants, sure you like it. You can go down to the Home Depot and hire Manuel Labor for cheap. If it makes life harder for the lower classes, including those who immigrated legally, to bad for them, you need your cheap housekeeper.

    This is actually an argument in favor of providing current illegal residents a path to citizenship. Low wages and no negotiating power are a direct result of illegal immigration laws, because the employer can always threaten to call ICE if the employee does not like the arrangement.

  9. How does Colin Powell know that the guys doing his home repairs are in the country illegally?

    1. And if he does know that when he hires them….didn’t he just confess to hiring illegals?

      1. He most certainly did.

  10. Oh, and, I agree with MikeP!

  11. Seems to me that the “illegal” part of “illegal immigrant” infers a criminal act – which should result in a criminal record.

    I’m all for changing the immigration laws to fix them, but I’m not a fan of rewarding criminal behavior.

    I presume that you always drive the speed limit. The average American commits three felonies a day. By allowing all of our fellow countrymen walk free on the streets, we reward criminal behavior.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonfoundation-20/

  12. Without trying, I have seen both seasonal (legal) Mexican workers get food stamps in between harvests and illegals getting WIC benefits for their anchor babies

    You are aware that “anchor babies” are a complete and total myth, right?

    1. Anchor baby a myth?

      OK, if you and Barack say so.
      But I have seen foreign nationals here illegally with citizen children, and they do collect WIC and other welfare benefits.

      1. I have seen foreign nationals here illegally with citizen children…

        You live with Mexican immigrants or something? You sure claim to have seen a lot.

        1. I used to live in an ag based rural county with many immigrants. A majority are legal, but the number of illegals is to large to ignore.

      2. “Anchor baby a myth?”

        Yes, the idea of anchor babies is that they allow the parents of said ANCHORS to ANCHOR themselves in the US. The simple fact of the matter is that having a baby in the US will NOT keep a parent from being deported.

        Hence, the anchor baby myth.

    2. “”””You are aware that “anchor babies” are a complete and total myth, right?”””

      Good news, since “anchor babies” don’t exist then we can have the Supreme Court” reinterpret the 14th Amendment (they are good at that) and declare that children born of illegal aliens are not citizens since if they don’t exist it won’t hurt anyone.

      1. “Birthright citizenship” and “anchor babies” are not synonyms, you fuckwit.

  13. I presume that you always drive the speed limit.

    The citizenry’s behavior and attitude on speed limits reminds me of most American Christians: breaking the rules, within reason, is permissible.

  14. But I have seen foreign nationals here illegally with citizen children, and they do collect WIC and other welfare benefits.

    That does not make them “anchor babies”. Do you know that having an “anchor baby” is impossible under federal law?:

    Brush up and get back to us.

    1. OK, your link points out that that an anchor baby doesn’t get the Mom citizenship. It said nothing to my point of said baby being a gateway way to welfare and WIC bennies.

      Except for an occasional government publicity stunt to show they do their jobs, most illegals when discovered are not arrested and deported. An anchor baby is not needed to stay in the country, but it sure helps bring in the bennies.

      1. An anchor baby is not needed to stay in the country, but it sure helps bring in the bennies.

        OK…so, do you know what the definition of “anchor” is, or don’t you?

        1. Whether it be to citizenship or to bennies, an anchor helps one to hold fast.

          1. If I owned a boat, I would certainly want an anchor that worked better than those do.

            Mothers with anchor babies are deported on a regular basis.

  15. Mr. Gillespie writes, “it’s better to have more groups represented by more parties.”

    It may be so, but it isn’t clear to me why it should be even given the fact that the two party system will continue to dominate American politics for the foreseeable future.

    I certainly don’t mean to imply that I favor or would support political parties that excluded groups on arbitrary demographic grounds like race or ethnic origin. But the inevitable effect of both political parties being more inclusive of more groups, however defined, will be for them both to move further toward the political center such that the real difference between them is arguably insignificant.

    Of course, only a wild eyed idealist could hope for either major political party to define itself and its platform without any thought of courting the votes of particular demographic groups. But those of us who are unhappy with the political center should consider whether measures that only go to strengthen its grip on American politics is a per se good thing.

  16. Legalize drugs. Legalize people. Offer a seat to our standing army. It’s been standing long enough.

  17. Powell is pretty much the last word in go-along Organization Man. I view him as a very good indicator, if you need one, of which way the winds are blowing inside the Beltway, if you care.

    If you also take that as an indicator of which side of the argument is the wrong side, well, . . . .

  18. I’m slightly against amnesty. I am strongly for raising the number of diversity visas to 1 million per year and opening up the diversity visa lottery to people from all nations.

  19. if you work hard and contribute to the country (including paying Social Security and income taxes, which about two-thirds of illegals do pay), you should get a shot at becoming legal.

    Libertarianism is the only known suicidal political faction in America. What’s going to happen to the causes of small government and liberty once any poor illiterate fruit-picker who makes it to the U.S. is eligible to vote for Democrats?

    1. Stomping your foot and demanding the world you would like to live in materialize in front of your face is a helluva lot easier than having to figure out how to deal with the world as it actually is.

    2. What’s going to happen to the causes of small government and liberty once any poor illiterate fruit-picker who makes it to the U.S. is eligible to vote for Democrats?

      He’ll be working for a Republican. Just like he is now.

  20. One wonders what would happen to Gillespie’s arguments if it was possible for Manuel Labor down at Home Depot to compete with him for his job.

    1. Yeah, because libertarians like Gillespie et al, are known for being the type of political hacks who only hold opinions they directly benefit from. This becomes crystal clear when you look at all the libertarians today in power…

      1. Well since you seem to be keenly aware of Nick Gillespie’s interests, perhaps you can enlighten me: what political views does he hold that are contrary to his personal preferences?

        1. “Well since you seem to be keenly aware of Nick Gillespie’s interests…”

          Your the one who suggested that Gillespie’s views would be different were cheap labor in direct competition with him. I’m pretty sure Gillespie is against any government protection from foreign competition in terms of goods, services, AND labor.

    2. Name one libertarian who argues for open borders for low skilled immigrants while arguing for limited immigration of the higher skilled.

      1. Seriously? You’re going to try to argue that the impact of unrestricted immigration on the professional class is the same as its impact on unskilled and semi-skilled labor? Really? Come on.

        Name one person in America on a temporary skilled labor visa who edits and writes for a libertarian magazine.

        1. In case it isn’t evident, the US does not have unrestricted immigration. If it did, its impact would of course differ between professional classes and the unskilled. What’s your point?

          Name one person in America on a temporary skilled labor visa who edits and writes for a libertarian magazine.

          Why do I need to name such a person? I again fail to see your point.

          If open borders types have their way, there wouldn’t be a “temporary skilled labor visa”. There would simply be unlimited visas for anyone of any skills to reside and work wherever they can find agreeable accommodation. Open borders folks know that.

          1. In case it isn’t evident, the US does not have unrestricted immigration. If it did, its impact would of course differ between professional classes and the unskilled. What’s your point?

            The point is that the professional class, of which Gillespie is a member, will have little to fear in the way of competition for jobs if the borders are opened. But the professional class will enjoy decreased prices for the servants they employ and the products manufactured or harvested using unskilled labor.

            1. The point is that the professional class, of which Gillespie is a member, will have little to fear in the way of competition for jobs if the borders are opened.

              That lack of fear explains why there is unlimited skilled immigration and no such thing as H-1B visas.

              But the professional class will enjoy decreased prices for the servants they employ and the products manufactured or harvested using unskilled labor.

              As will the unskilled class. And the total gains from lower costs will, as always, outweigh the losses.

              1. That lack of fear explains why there is unlimited skilled immigration and no such thing as H-1B visas.

                Cute. Very cute sarcasm there, but you’re losing me. Are you trying to argue that journalists, attorneys, and physicians will face the same job market competition that pizza delivery guys will face, given unrestricted immigration?

                And the total gains from lower costs will, as always, outweigh the losses.

                Even if you’re right, there’s no telling where the “total gains” are going to go. Aggregate utility may increase, but for the individual unskilled American worker, utility may decrease. A low-skilled American worker losing a $500 week job and a rich guy getting $501 per week in cheaper stuff results in a positive “total gain,” but it sucks to be the unskilled guy.

                1. I can’t speak for journalists, but between the bar and medical licensing, the other two occupations have extremely restricted labor markets even among citizens. Yes, they do whatever they can to prohibit competition and would not appreciate unfettered immigration.

                  So maybe they won’t face the same competition as a pizza delivery guy due to the regulatory capture successes of their industries.

                  But I suppose we should go back to your original question. If Nick Gillespie weren’t a journalist but was a handyman — yet we still somehow read his opinion here — would he still be for open borders?

                  I would think so, provided he has either principles or an adequate sense of economics.

                  Study after study shows that only the high school dropout has such low skills that he is not helped by immigration — that his real wages take a few percent hit due to legal and illegal immigrants. But everyone else in the economy sees real wage increases due to immigrants.

                  Nonetheless, an enterprising high school dropout who can speak English could surely outcompete ninth grade educated migrants who can’t. And he can leverage them to make himself more valuable by contracting out their labor — provided it was legal.

                  Free migration means more diverse labor markets, which means greater opportunities for comparative advantage and consequently greater real wages.

  21. Four points

    a) Powell may be a registered republican, but he actively campaigned for the current occupant of 1600. Powell never espoused ‘moderate’ policies even when he was being talked about as a potential candidate.

    b) There is a path to citizenship for the illegals. It is go home and follow the legal process.

    c) I could support immigration reform for the US, if the reform was to implement Mexico’s immigration policies.

    d) People who misquote Lazarus’ “New Colossus” poem seem forget that the brief statement refers twice to barriers. First a gate and second a golden door. If Lazarus really was a supporter of illegal immigration then these would not have been referenced. Instead she would have said something like:
    “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    “Sneak past my lamp, you homeless paperless to avoid being accosted, avoid all legal doors”

    1. “There is a path to citizenship for the illegals. It is go home and follow the legal process.”

      You are aware that uneducated workers stand virtually no chance of coming here legally, right?

      1. How many more do we need?

        1. Apparently quite a few, since nearly everyone of them is steadily employed.

          1. I have no choice but to call B.S. on this.

            1. Go ahead. You’d be wrong, but when has that ever stopped anyone at H&R.

              1. No, he isn’t.

                _The unemployment rate for illegal immigrants in March 2009 was 10.4 percent ? higher than that of U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants, who had unemployment of 9.2 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively.

          2. And the reason for that?

            Because they cost less to employ than citizens. Were they made legal they’d suddenly find themselves priced out of the market–which would require a whole new crop of illegals to fill it.

            This is what happens when the price of labor is kept artificially high.

            1. The two-thirds of illegal immigrants who pay their payroll taxes don’t “cost less to employ than citizens” except to the extent that they accept a lower wage.

              Making them legal might raise the wage they ask for because they’re no longer at the mercy of their employer. But their asking wage won’t rise to the point that it disemploys them, so it won’t rise to the same level as that of citizens’.

              1. They work for less, they don’t get benefits….that says ‘cheaper’ to me.

                And, once they’re legal, an illegal will be cheaper. As I stated. Just because you think the amount isn’t that high doesn’t mean that an employer will agree with you.

                And where does this ‘2/3’ figure come from? Are we keeping such a precise eye on illegals to know which are paying taxes? This stat sounds like supposition–an ‘estimate’.

                1. Who said they don’t get benefits? If they’re paying payroll taxes, I would think they’re getting exactly the same benefits as their legal coworkers.

                  And if quotas are eliminated, there will be so few illegal aliens — and they will be such damaged goods because they will be illegal for a reason — that they are very unlikely to be hired over the legal.

                2. And where does this ‘2/3’ figure come from?

                  You’re right about questioning the two-thirds. Apparently it’s closer to three-quarters

                  The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

                  1. You recognize, of course, that illegals only contribute to the overall solvency of these programs because they’re not eligible to collect benefits, a benefit that would be destroyed by giving these folks citizenship.

                  2. But, from the same article–

                    The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t have an estimate of how many illegal immigrants pay income tax.

                    So that number is an ‘estimate’–and the reasoning behind that estimate isn’t explained, it’s just thrown out there to be accepted as true. Thanks, no.

                    And it seems to be saying that a lot of the illegals who are ‘paying’ taxes are doing so with the aid of some type of identity theft–real SS numbers that don’t match the name. So Manuel Labor is wandering around out there commiting identity theft and fraud? Oh, yeah, he should go to the head of the line.

                    And benefits? Why give them a paid vacation? Or health insurance? I wasn’t talking about government benefits–but, let’s

                    What happens to the actual owner of the SS number if the illegal does something stupid–or even more illegal? What if the illegal uses it to get disability and then the actual owner is hurt and needs it?

                    1. And what if the government wasn’t so unbelievable stupid that it would pursue peaceful people based on their using ITINs on their employment documents?

          3. What is the employment rate of unskilled illegals?

    2. b) Can you suggest a path whose expected length gives at least a 50-50 shot at getting legal residence before death?

      d) Gates and doors are not barriers: they are ways through barriers. And of course the poem is arguing for legal immigration: except for Chinese immigration instituted the year before it was written, there was to class- or quota-based limit on immigration.

      1. b) Can you suggest a path whose expected length gives at least a 50-50 shot at getting legal residence before death?

        Yeah – recognize that life isn’t necessarily a proposition of getting everything you want. Especially when the thing you want is the possession of somebody else.

        1. Giving a person legal residence does not take it away from anyone else.

          1. Letting someone else live in my house isn’t taking it away from me, either. But then, it’s still my prerogative to decide if I want anyone else living in it.

            1. Boy howdy, letting someone else live in my house isn’t taking it away from you. I find having people in my house is a pain in the ass and usually expensive.

              But, the country is NOT MY FUCKING HOUSE. If it was narrow minded pricks like you wouldn’t be living in it.

          2. No, no, there’s this big barrel full of legal residence (the government keeps it right next to the social security trust fund) and there’s only enough for US.

            Besides, you start letting beaners dip their hands in trying to take any and they’ll get it all dirty.

  22. Rectum Powell is a gutless, self serving sycophant.

  23. This is the worst of arguments. When unemployment was at 5%, perhaps there was a shortage of labor. At 10% it is hard to see how it benefits any but the wealthy.

    At what unemployment level should we start recognizing people’s right to free movement?

    1. People do not have the right to free movement into the ‘property’ of others. The ‘nation’ is the ‘property’ of the nation-state that is recognised to have ownership of it.

      Do you understand the tragedy of the commons? What you and yours want for immigration policy is that tragedy writ large. It holds the world as a huge commons onto which anyone can move anywhere and do whatever to make a living without regard to those who were there before them.

      1. The ‘nation’ is the ‘property’ of the nation-state that is recognised to have ownership of it.

        No. It’s not.

        At least it’s not for anyone who believes in any concept of individual rights.

        1. The government can – and does – dispose of its real property.

          So here’s my question: if the government sold nearly all its real estate to the public, and the new owners decided that only American citizens would be allowed on this property, is it your belief that anyone’s “individual rights” had been harmed?

          1. Nope.

            Provided that there’s no imagining that the government owns commons or, especially, rights of way.

            1. Okay then. The government sells all the interstates to private companies. Those companies prohibit illegals from traveling on those roads. You’re fine with that, right?

              1. Yes, I am. The interstates are not essential rights of way. There are other ways to get to every property.

                It would be pretty dumb of the private companies, though, as they leave lots of tolls on the table for no actual gain.

                1. The interstates are not essential rights of way. There are other ways to get to every property.

                  You’re starting to lose me here. Are you saying that the government has to guarantee that every property is accessible over a public road?

                  1. Not over a public road, but over a right of way. The property is no good if you can’t get to it.

                    That’s plain old common law and part of any bundle of property rights. And if there’s any question about easements and rights of way, they are clarified in the deed.

        2. There is some weird lefty idea about individual rights in regard to nations and borders that has a vicegrip on parts of libertarianism. So many of you seem to feel that national boundaries should be ignored in order to allow the workers to have free movement…..which strikes me as marxist rather than libertarian. It arbitrarily removes the rights of everyone who has worked to make X nice in favor of those who didn’t make their place nice, but who appreciate that X is better than where they are.

          Worse, you all seem to think that the people in X have some obligation to, not just allow the workers in, but to keep X nice–and continue to work to make it better.

          1. So many of you seem to feel that national boundaries should be ignored in order to allow the workers to have free movement…..which strikes me as marxist rather than libertarian.

            You don’t say…

          2. In the words of the famous nonMarxist…

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

            Rights preexist and precede governments. That includes the rights to migrate, reside, and be employed wherever one can find mutually agreeable terms.

            It also includes the rights to transport, house, and employ people regardless of a condition of birth — a condition such as place.

            1. Nice try, but you’re trying to put words in his mouth. While the signers of D of I might have believed there are inalienable rights, they just as clearly didn’t number a right by non-citizens to immigrate among them.

              1. There is nothing whatsoever in the link you provide that limits immigration.

                1. And there’s absolutely nothing in the D of I, nor any of our other founding documents, that indicates our founders regarded it as an inalienable right.

                  However, while massive immigration wasn’t an issue they had to address, there’s plenty to indicate that had circumstances been as they are today, a President Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have had a second thought about building a fence and putting armed troops on the border. Certainly there’s no reason to believe they, like every other government currently in existence at the time, questioned that the government had the authority to restrict the entry of, or expel, undesirable aliens.

                  Given that at the time, residency was one of the few, if not the only, prerogatives of citizenship, you’d have a hard sell making a convincing argument that they believed that the power to grant citizenship didn’t go hand in hand with the power to expel undesirable aliens.

                  1. there’s plenty to indicate that had circumstances been as they are today, a President Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have had a second thought about building a fence and putting armed troops on the border.

                    Oh? Do tell.

                    you’d have a hard sell making a convincing argument that they believed that the power to grant citizenship didn’t go hand in hand with the power to expel undesirable aliens.

                    Well, if I were to try to make such a convincing argument, I could probably do no better than to point to a Naturalization Act that takes it utterly for granted that aliens reside indefinitely in the US while mentioning absolutely no way to limit their entry or residence.

                    So thank you for that.

            2. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

              Funny how your endless recitation of rights just runs roughshod over this, no?

              1. just powers…

                Where “just” means exactly those powers that “secure these rights”.

          3. Here’s the problem you need to deal with. I’m part of the same X as you, and I think it makes X a better place to let most of these people come on in.

            1. Considering that any poll on the matter indicates that, overwhelmingly, more of us agree with him than with you, I submit the problem is *yours* to deal with.

              1. Shame. One of the nice things about it here in X used to be that we didn’t decide everything by majority. We here in X used to care about the individual rights of the minority.

                1. Oh, we don’t have a problem with the rights of the minority here in X.

                  We simply dispute that anything and everything claimed as a right by a minority legitimately is one.

                  1. Your going to have to show me the opinion poll where a majority of Americans said they agree with your website’s agenda of keeping the country ethnically European.

                2. We here in X used to care about the individual rights of the minority.

                  Care about them, giving them venues for expression, and making sure that their right to air their opinions is not the same as caving in and allowing them to tyrannize the majority.

                  We, in this country have always had respect for the ideas of the minority, and, in saner times, did what we could to address those ideas–provided that adressing them did no harm to the nation as a whole. Now, the insanity put forth about ‘tyranny of the majority’ has us acceding to the whims of any and all minorities who can whine loud enough–with little or no regard to the welfare of the nation as a whole.

                  1. You sure are full of fear of other people who are different from you.

                    1. Well, since that is the majority of the population, shouldn’t I be? After all, my views are being trampled by the majority, yes?

                      Seriously, though, if the best you can do is veiled accusations of racism/xenophobia, why bother posting? Surely there’s some porn that would have enjoyed those electrons you just wasted?

      2. Sigh, this again. Analysis by analogy is always fraught with logical pitfalls.

        In this case, the analogy breaks down due to a vast difference in scale. You can’t simply equate the national commons with property owned by individuals or groups of individuals. The sheer number of people with the national commons and the complex way in which the power to make decisions about that commons are distributed makes the nature of the problem space very different.

        1. Ah, so you’re saying that you believe that we are not a nation of individuals, organised into groupings of individuals. We are some other thing, some collective of a different type, do I have it right, comrade? And, because of this, we have no need of archaic structures such as nation states or borders because the Workers must be free to excersize their right to mobility, da?

          1. Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?

          2. I was saying that you can’t just vote on everything in a huge democratic country without great risk of (a) tromping on the freedoms of individuals (in this case, freedom to find work, to employ the best person for a job, to travel, etc.) or (b) making dumb decisions (in this case, excluding a bunch of people who are helping out the economy).

            1. Actually, you were saying that we couldn’t just equate the national commons with property owned by individuals or groups of individuals. , when, in point of fact, that is what we are, and what we have done. The government in this country is not seperate from the people, by design, thus we are, in common, owners of everything that is called ‘public property’ in this nation. While the administration of that property is delegated to our elected representatives, we are still owners and are within our rights to decide who comes into/onto our property.

              Again, this strange push to allieviate us from our status as ‘owners’ of this country strikes me as a very leftist idea. Why undermine this foundation of the idea of private property?

              1. This “strange push” is leftist only in the same way that classically liberal notions of rights were leftist compared to the feudalism they replaced.

                The Crown does not own the old country. The People do not own the new country. The country is a dominion comprising different properties that are held privately, held by the state, or not held at all administered by a government that has powers that are few, limited, and defined.

                This state of affairs is so far removed from the foundation of the idea of private property as to be laughable.

                1. Properties that are not held at all?

                  1. Commons and rights of way.

  24. Is Ayn_Randian’s position on illegal aliens influenced by the fact that Ayn Rand was herself an illegal alien?
    She entered the US on a temporary visa to visit family and stayed long past the allowed six months. Then, when facing deportation, she arranged a marriage of convenience with a spineless, starving actor who got a lifetime meal ticket. To her credit, that did keep the under-employed actor from going on welfare.

  25. Is Ayn_Randian’s position on illegal aliens influenced by the fact that Ayn Rand was herself an illegal alien?

    Yep. Totally. You nailed it, Senor Clever. Now, tell me how that has any bearing on whether I am right or wrong.

    1. but AR/TAO: why muddle a perfectly good misdirection based on wild speculation actually to weigh the merits of your argument!

      natch, “keeping an under employed actor off of welfare” is sure more productive than I have been, so please allow me to bow out with appropriate humiliation dripping off my brow

  26. What’s going to happen to the causes of small government and liberty once any poor illiterate fruit-picker who makes it to the U.S. is eligible to vote for Democrats?

    Why not just start deporting Legal Resident Aliens for their political views while we are at it? Wouldn’t want things to become “unbalanced”.

    1. +1

      We might be able to make this workable, if we can prove that voting for and supporting a politician who fails to uphold and defend the constitution is an act of treason.

    2. Hey, dig your own grave. If you want to mint millions of new citizens who will vote themselves your money and vote for politicians who will take away your liberty, I can’t stop you.

  27. Until Powell brought it up I had no idea immigrants were the ones “keeping this country’s lifeblood moving forward”. That’s compelling, we don’t want the country’s lifeblood remaining in place or, God forbid, moved backwards or sideways.

    1. Well, as a matter of fact, you don’t want that backwards of remaining in place to happen with lifeblood. Or with an economy. Thus the use of lifeblood as a metaphor — it kinda fits.

  28. I notice Powell doesn’t say how illegal Mexicans are “moving the lifeblood forward”. Does anyone know? Maybe it has something to do with those bouncy low-rider cars that are so fun to watch.

    1. I assume that because they’re poor, illegals are more likely to sell blood, thereby enabling the Eloi to recover when they need surgery.

    2. Jeez, how out of touch are you with reality. Illegal Mexican workers don’t have the time or money to be messing around with low-rider cars. Most of those guys in the low-rider cars are as native-born Americans as you are (assuming you are).

  29. “It’ll be a shame if the GOP simply abandons a large, growing, and ideologically diverse (and in many ways, a very socially conservative) group of voters”

    In contrast, over the past five years the Libertarian Party has nearly doubled its support among Hispanics to 12 people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.