Immigration

Pro-Immigration Stances Bedevil Conservatives, American- and Foreign-Born

|

Over at National Review, whose history of immigrant-baiting goes back at least to the days when Brit-born editor John O'Sullivan published anti-immigrants pieces by Peter Brimelow, proprietor of the odious (and cash-strapped) site Vdare.com, John Derbyshire pans libertarian Republican Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who's running for the GOP presidential nod in 2012.

Here's NR's John Derbyshire on Johnson, who bothered Derb with his stated willingness to let Mexicans enter the country freely to work:

Johnson is a driveling idiot on the National Question. Libertarians really need to drop their globalist fantasies and get to grips here….

Johnson's sin is to approve of letting more people into the country rather than fewer. And for saying things such as, "I think immigration is a good thing." To which the pedantic Derb replies:

There is no debate, to the best of my knowledge, between people who are for immigration and people who are against it. The debate is about what our immigration policy should look like….

Gee, that's really helpful. Actually, there are lots of people who are against immigration, at least from certain parts of the world. People such as…John Derbyshire, who quotes himself to that effect:

[Libertarians'] enthusiasm on this matter is suicidal to their cause. Their ideological passion is blinding them to a rather obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly American doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of the Third World. If libertarianism implies mass Third World immigration, then it is self-destroying. Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies.

Maybe I'm reading between the lines here, but I think it's fair to characterize the above as pretty anti-immigrant. Derb gets riled up when Johnson says stuff like this:

I think that illegal immigration is really the issue. We need to make documentation of illegal immigrants as easy as we possibly can. There're all sorts of ways we could do that, starting with the employer. Let's make it easy to document illegal immigrants so that they become tax-paying immigrants.

That sounds pretty good to me, but then again I'm a suicidal libertarian who's all driveling on the "National Question." The Derb though, isn't fooled by such palaver, crying "Amnesty!" in thunder:

So far as I can extract any meaning from that, it seems to be a call for amnesty and open borders. If the entire population of, say, Saudi Arabia wants to come and settle in Albuquerque, Gary Johnson is apparently just fine with it.

Good luck to you, Governor. I've put you down on my list of politicians I'll vote for … when hell freezes over.

Zinnnng! Oh, Derb, you've done it again! Whole thing here.

And don't think it's only Brit cons what fears the huddled masses of the Third World. Here's Reason contributor(!) W. James Antle III writing in The American Conservative about how Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is even worse than Sen. John McCain on immigration:

Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona's Sixth District, is the only major Republican running for Kyl's Senate seat. He has already raised over $1 million at this early stage of the race, scaring off potential competitors. Flake is in many respects an impeccable conservative, especially on fiscal policy. Yet according to NumbersUSA, Flake has a worse recent record on immigration than even McCain. In fact, his grade is worse than all but two members of Arizona's congressional delegation—both liberal Democrats.

Unlike Kyl, Flake is an amnesty true believer. He has sponsored or voted for pardoning illegal immigrants at least six times. Flake teamed with Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) in introducing the STRIVE Act, which would have given amnesty to the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants present in the country, subject to the usual dubious conditions, while creating a generous new guest-workers program….

Yet if Flake has an easy ride to the GOP senatorial nomination even in a state like Arizona, it will reflect poorly on efforts by immigration-control groups to make amnesty as unpalatable to Republican voters as tax increases.

More here.

Worse still, Flake wants to let Americans travel to Cuba! Aye caramba!

Read Reason's immigration archive to get a sense of why we believe what we believe when it comes to the free movement of people. It's enough to note here that if conservatives push immigration as key issue, they will have trouble culling many libertarians to their sides. And check out Gustavo Arellano, the "Ask a Mexican" columnist who can legally become president of these United States. Would that be such a bad thing? I don't think so. Do you?

 

Advertisement

NEXT: A Fashion Crime That Could Get You a Year in Jail

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. He’s right you know, libertarianism is sure to be anathema to people who flee their oppressive/traditionalist societies seeking freedom and opportunity in the United States.

    1. Ya, and surely people seeking freedom and opportunity are a threat to the “national cohesion” Derb talks so much about.

      1. They’re looking for freedom and opportunity, all right. All over the world.

    2. He’s got a point. Latin Americans generally have much more communitarian cultures, and this seems to survive the journey across the border. Their politics in this country rarely resemble libertarianism.

      As long as welfare benefits are in play, then mass immigration (legal or otherwise) of unskilled peasants is going to present problems. Personally, I favor getting rid of the bennies rather than sending the peasants back where they came from.

      1. Communitarian doesn’t necessarily imply welfare. Strong family support networks are a benefit in a libertarian society.

        I’ll agree that offering welfare benefits creates perverse incentives, but I don’t think that’s nearly as big a problem as immigration opponents portay it as. There are already strong barriers for immigrants to get welfare.

        1. What about the rights of a community of individuals to decide that they don’t want their culture to be overwhelmed and subsumed by an alien culture, with widely divergent norms, language, etc?

          1. In Libertarian World that community should have no trouble purchasing an apartment building and requiring that any tenants are only WASPy WASPs. I’ll enjoy mocking them while eating a burrito.

            1. Of course, since this is Libertarian World the burrito will have fois gras. And bacon.

              1. Only if it’s deep-fried.

                1. In the fat of endangered animals that aren’t because they’re factory farmed.

                  1. Is the factory employed with children?

                    1. Their tiny hands make it easier to force feed the penguins for foie gras.

          2. What about the rights of a community

            No such thing, dumbass. Every individual has the right to not be Mexican. That’s it.

            1. Mexicans don’t have that right. QED

              1. They can get citizenship in another country and renounce their Mexican citizenship.

                Holy shit, I just had a brilliant idea for solving the deficit — the government can make someone a citizen without their permission, right? Like, no one ever asks a baby if they want to be American. So, we can change our citizenship laws to automatically grant citizenship to everyone in all the richest nations in the world. Then, because unlike other nations, America taxes income that its citizens earn in other nations, the U.S. can levy income tax on the entire developed world. Boom, deficit solved.

                And it’s not like they can do shit about it. They can’t vote because they aren’t actually a resident of any district. They can’t attack because they have no military to speak of. Damn, Obama should totally hire me.

                1. Genius!

            2. So Israel *should* allow a right of return to any Palestinian? (Hell, I guess it should allow any Arab, even one whose ancestors didn’t come from Palestine, to come to Israel.) Since the members of the community have no more than the right of its individuals not to be Arab.

              1. Yup. The fake “right of a community to exclude others from entering its vicinity” is not a property right.

                1. So, countries can’t kick out foreign soldiers either, until they actually start killing people?

          3. “What about the rights of a community of individuals to decide that they don’t want their culture to be overwhelmed and subsumed by an alien culture, with widely divergent norms, language, etc?”

            Then each of those individuals, respectively, can refuse such people use of their property. What they can’t do is tell willing neighbors what to do with theirs. That’s the issue.

            1. This is so much like the prostitution, and gambling debates.

              If you think prostitution and gambling are immoral, then don’t participate in it and refuse to allow it to occur on your property!

              1. I think it’s easier for some strains of libertarianism to see this than others. There are some that cling to a kind of “dual-ownership” model of country – where people individually have absolute property rights but that there is a secondary and conflicting sense in which we, as a country, collectively own all aggregate property within given geographical parameters.

                So they have to do this odd dance of opposing violations of liberty with recognizing absolute property rights, but then condemning liberty, in some cases, by invoking the secondary, collective notion of national property.

                1. I tend to see this as more of a conservative/Republican nuance. Property rights with a nice side of nationalism.

              2. It’s different than legalizing prostitution and gambling in an important way – even if no immigrants step foot on to my privately owned land, I still have to pay taxes to cover welfare, extra schooling, more law-enforcement, etc.

                1. It’s different than legalizing prostitution and gambling in an important way – even if no immigrants step foot on to my privately owned land, I still have to pay taxes to cover welfare, extra schooling, more law-enforcement, etc.

                  Poor argument. The acceptance of the welfare state concedes greater spending on countless “needs”. There is a significant probability that you will pay more taxes for the former two issues just as you would for immigration.

                  Government licensing and regulation of “legal” gambling and prostitution. Government health coverage for gambling and sex addictions.

                2. It’s different than legalizing prostitution and gambling in an important way – even if no immigrants step foot on to my privately owned land, I still have to pay taxes to cover welfare, extra schooling, more law-enforcement, etc.

                  So your issue is with the welfare state, not immigration.

                  1. >So your issue is with the welfare state, not immigration.

                    Not necessarily. Even without the welfare state, we would still need to pay taxes to support law enforcement and prisons.

          4. Rights are individual and inherent…communites have no rights.

            I am really going to just start pasting my whole natural rights argument…or maybe I need a shortened term or an abbreviation.

            Not to open up the whole SLD thing again

            1. Rights are individual and inherent…communites have no rights.

              And what about corporations? Do they have no property rights because they are not individuals? Should I have the absolute right to travel upon any property as long as it is not owned by an individual? Groups of individuals practicing their right to own property in common is OK when that group is a “corporation” but if it is a “community” it can not own property or have property rights?

              Is there a right to free association? If I call it a “community” no, but if I call it the “Reason Foundation” you betcha?

              Emigration IS an inherent and negative right. Immigration is neither.

              1. There is a difference between a voluntary association such as a corporation and an involuntary association such as living in the territory claimed by a government.

                Now that you know that there’s a difference, you should be able to work out the rest.

                1. There is a difference between a voluntary association such as a corporation and an involuntary association such as living in the territory claimed by a government.

                  Now that you know that there’s a difference, you should be able to work out the rest.

                  People are forced to be a part of a community? No shit? Does that mean that the city I moved from a few years ago is looking for me and wants me back?! I didn’t even notify ANYONE. Apparently, you don’t understand what the word “forced” means. Are there laws here against emigration?

                  Nothing is more pathetic than someone with a clearly inferior argument attempting to be smug.

                  1. Indeed, I do have a choice what community I live in. What I don’t have a choice in is what laws I get to live under. Those are imposed by the sovereign government on the community.

                    I assure you, the reasons I live where I live have little to do with the government that claims the territory — except that the US government sucks less than most national governments. I am an involuntary subject of the government that claims the territory I live in, and that government’s deciding for no good reason that I cannot use my property to transport, house, or employ certain persons is a violation of my and their rights.

                    There is no analogy with corporations or foundations.

              2. The difference is all members of a corporation are voluntary members. Within a community there may be ‘members’ who are part of the community only by virtue of where they live – that is, the community makes a claim on a geographical area that includes other people’s property. These involuntary members might want to invite foreign nationals onto their property – and there’s no reason why the community should have any say. That is freedom of association.

          5. What about the rights of a community of individuals to decide that they don’t want their culture to be overwhelmed and subsumed by an alien culture, with widely divergent norms, language, etc?

            Strong property rights so you can buy some land, build an underground bunker and seal yourself away from the scary people who look and talk different than you.

            1. You really are bent on proving Lenin correct. When the time comes to hang the libertarians, they will have imported the cheap labor rabble with which to do it.

          6. What about the rights of a community of individuals to decide that they don’t want their culture to be overwhelmed and subsumed by an alien culture, with widely divergent norms, language, etc?

            What of it? How does legislation look that prevents your “culture from being overwhelmed and subsumed”?

            I work down in Burien, Wa. Burien has a large, lower income hispaniclatino (sorry, NPR style rules in play) population. The other day I was sitting at a light and above me was a large, prominent billboard advertising a food product (don’t remember) entirely in Spanish. The whole billboard: Spanish. No english whatsoever.

            As a libertarian my immediate thought was how fucking cool that is. This is capitalism at work. No one forced them to write the sign in English and Spanish. No one is forcing them to take it down (yet). No legislative process took place to force advertising that was previously ignoring a minority community.

            Sorry dude, capitalism (when it’s allowed to work) figures out what the needs and desires of a community are, and that’s that. If that means my “culture” is “overwhelmed and subsumed”, too bad for me. I’ll get over it and brush up on my Spanish.

            Sounds like an opportunity for niche marketing, no?

            Hasta!

            1. I agree with you in the abstract, but I’m not sure it would work in real life.

              Derbyshire may have a point when he suggests that immigrant politics will tend towards larger government and more handouts.

              We live in a country where people are increasingly bold about claiming the public treasury for their own. Can we count on labor markets to regulate immigration levels if government cheese is an easily-obtained alternative?

              1. Jeez, being on welfare sucks and ain’t that easy for an illegal immigrant to get. Now corporate welfare and public employee unions, there’s a real problem to worry about.

            2. As a libertarian my immediate thought was how fucking cool that is. This is capitalism at work.

              *snip*

              Sorry dude, capitalism (when it’s allowed to work) figures out what the needs and desires of a community are, and that’s that. If that means my “culture” is “overwhelmed and subsumed”, too bad for me. I’ll get over it and brush up on my Spanish.

              If that’s capitalism at work, then I submit that it constitutes an argument against unbridled capitalism. I’m afraid most of us wouldn’t consider that “fucking cool”.

          7. What about the rights of a community of individuals to decide that they don’t want their culture to be overwhelmed and subsumed by an alien culture, with widely divergent norms, language, etc?

            You have no such right.

        2. My two points (communitarianism and welfare) were meant to be independent. I should have made that clearer.

          In my observation, Latino politics are somewhat enervated because “the way things really get done” is through an especially strong web of personal and familial interconnections.

          I’m hopeful that the initiative shown by Latino immigrants will combine with an exposure to American culture and political ideals to create more libertarians. But I recognize there are cultural factors weighing against that, too.

      2. Fair point. I think some policy that welcomes anyone that wants to work, but deports them the moment they seek bennies or commit a felony crime, is more workable than rounding up every single illegal immigrant, sending them home, and posting the national gaurd along the southern border.

      3. There’s a difference between a community that fosters the voluntary taking care of each other and one that votes for the state to do it.

        The former is very libertarian, the latter not so much.

        I live in a small town where its quite possible I’m the only white guy for 10 miles in any direction. These Mexicans seem to be very much in the maximize personal liberty camp.

      4. “Their politics in this country rarely resemble libertarianism.”

        Neither do the politics of native born Americans.

        1. ^This*

          *sniffs =(

        2. Of course, when trying to prove that immigration is generally not a bad thing for the existing residents of an area, using the words “native” and “Americans” in the same sentence is probably a strategic blunder.

  2. Conservatives: Government is the problem, not the solution! Unless the issues are drugs, immigration,…

  3. If you didn’t care for Derb’s take at NR, he amplifies it here.

    And for your viewing pleasure, Friday in Paris.

    I’m sure the French are just thrilled with you Enlightened Cosmopolitans?. As are we all.

    1. Uh oh, Slap the Retarded made poopy in his pants again!

    2. I didn’t get to watch the end of the video. How are the production values when the mooslimbs in the streets slowly morph into a plague of rats?

      1. Anything that you’d like to dispute about the video? If blithering idiots like you actually cared about the issue to look at it dispassionately you may have found the number of cars torched in the banlieux of Paris every night, or the increase in anti-semitic torture murders, nazi graffiti on synagogues, etc etc.

        BTW there is a libertarian case for immigration restriction. You don’t have to agree with it, but you should know that it exists. Look up Hans Hermann Hoppe.

        And yeah stop denying facts.

        1. Hans HErmann Hoppe’s argument is not libertarian. He conflates people renting their property to others with trespassing. He conflates people losing trading partners if they choose to limit their interactions with a particular ethnic/national group with forced integration.

          Throw in his unwillingness to explain how his policies are to be enacted without aggressing against innocents, and you’ve got a sophisticated argument built n a foundation of question begging and false dichotomies.

          1. That is not a conflation. It IS equivalent. Property includes the right to include and exclude. You can’t socialize your costs of inclusion by involving me in your decision. Libertarian open borders moral theory only applies to an amalgamation of private property owners each enforcing his own “immigration” policy unperturbed by a central authority (government). It has no bearing whatsoever in a socialist land-owner vast central government redistributing wealth and income freely and restricting actual property owners the right to exclude

            1. Ah, so essentially you propose to counter the trespassed of the Bismarkian Welfare state by agressing against people who decide to move to the U.S.

              As to your argument that I am ignoring the right to exclude, I addressed that years ago in an essay titled Dismantling a ‘Libertarian’ Argument for Restricting Immigration

              The passage where I address your argument:

              Forced Integration
              Dr Hoppe repeatedly describes two undesirable outcomes of an open borders policy. The first, invasion, we have dispensed with. The second, forced integration is far more interesting. What is forced integration? It occurs when a person is compelled to do business or associate with someone whom they do not want to associate with. This can be the result of compulsion, as occurs when ? under the dictates of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ? a shop owner is no longer permitted to exclude people from his shop based on the color of their skin and opens his shop to dark skinned people ou of fear of arrest.

              However, forced integration can mean that a shop owner is forced by the changes in the demographics of potential shoppers to make the choice between closing down his shop or allowing people he would prefer to exclude into his shop. In the latter case he is not the victim of violence. If a racist who wishes to exclude whites from his shop had historically turned a profit, but due to the passage of time now finds the pool of non-white potential customers no longer supports his business, and concludes that his business would be profitable if it invited whites into the store, then his choice of liquidating his business, expanding his client base, or selling his business is no different than the one faced by his neighbor the cooper, who finds that the invention of something called the 50 gallon drum has resulted in the evaporation of 99% of the demand for barrels and must make drastic changes to his business if he wishes to keep it.

              Unless a person lives as an autarchic hermit, he or she has to interact with others to survive. The need for these interactions opens the possibility that sometimes a person will be confronted by choices or people that are disagreeable. In a free society, mere disagreeableness does not provide a person with the grounds to intervene in the affairs of others. A person who wishes to avoid the sound of Spanish is free to decide how much they are willing to pay to ensure they never hear the tongue spoken in their presence. They may find that the cost is more than they are willing or able to pay. However, the fact that they find such a thing disagreeable in no way gives them license to aggress against their neighbors.

        2. Dude, our big pool of potential legal immigrants are Catholics, not Muslims, so why are you talking about Muslim immigrants in Europe like its relevant to American immigration policy?

          1. You really don’t get it, do you? The point is, the alien culture in both cases is *less* inclined toward liberty. The Froggies may have already given up much of their liberty, but the muzzies will most definitely make it worse. Meanwhile, Latino immigrants just don’t have any Austrian school of economics or Anglospheric ideas of personal liberty. Sorry, they just don;t.

        3. “If blithering idiots like you actually cared about the issue to look at it dispassionately you may have found the number of cars torched in the banlieux of Paris every night, or the increase in anti-semitic torture murders, nazi graffiti on synagogues, etc etc.”

          So much for ‘dispassionate’, right?

          1. So, care to dispute anything? Like the fact of immigrant violence in France? Should that be ignored? It is a fact not an opinion, so how you choose to deal with it is upto you but you can’t ignore it. You must take it into account when formulating your deontological opinions on immigration.

            1. Nothing to dispute. France has had issues of rioting with immigrants.

              The US is not France and our history of absorbing immigrants is quite different. Immigrants here, commit less crime than US citizens.

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..-and-crime

    3. Sieg Heil!

  4. I believe the correct term for Derb in an immigration discussion is “admitted illegal immigrant John Derbyshire”. I find it amusing that Derb endorses immigration policy that would get his ass booted back to England if he had to live up to them.

    1. For a second you actually made me favor his immigration policies.

    2. For a second you actually made me favor his immigration policies.

      1. Worth repeating.

  5. Wider gates, taller fences, STFU John Derbyshire.

    1. and taller ladders

  6. Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies.

    And yet, every time there’s a conflict in any of these places, Conservatives claim that their people are “striving for freedom”, as evidenced by their desire to immigrate to America.

    In my opinion, while many of these people may bring non-libertarian values with them, the reason they come to America is largely because of libertarian impulses. They DO want freedom. They do want the chance to earn their own living. It IS the land of opportunity to them. They aren’t coming for welfare programs. They are coming so they have a chance to earn a living in a country where they don’t have to pay bribes for the right to mow someone’s lawn or open a gas station. And all that is fundamentally libertarian on the most basic level. Even if they’ve never heard a coherent philosophy of liberty articulated to them.

    1. First paragraph is excellent point. And you’re right. Johnson himself pointed out that his state actually saves money on illegal immigrants because they don’t take tax credits and also resort to welfare at a lower rate than the average American.

      1. yes, it’s a great point. libetarianism is simply not attractive to me.

    2. Really, even if they did have a point, the solution would be for Americans to become more culturally assertive (in America, at least). If there is a problem, it is with the non-libertarian side of mainstream America encouraging that aspect of immigrant culture rather than stamping it out through social pressure. IOW, don’t blame us, blame the left.

      1. unless ur name is dances-with-wolves, then ur people were immigrants too.

        1. Pioneers, please. My ancestors were pioneers, not filthy, disease-ridden immigrants. Anybody who joined this club country after me is leeching off a system they never paid into!

        2. Huh? Dances With Wolves was a white guy played by Kevin Costner, wasn’t he?

        3. And? The concern (in the sense of “concern troll”, considering the source) raised was that an influx of immigrants from areas hostile to libertarianism would result in a country hostile to libertarianism (ie, the status quo, but more of it).

          Just pointing out that even if you think that is factually true, and even if you think that it is a problem that must be solved, there are ways to solve it don’t involve curtailing immigration.

        4. unless ur name is dances-with-wolves, then ur people were immigrants too.

          Yeah, and look how well letting Whitey into the continent worked out for the Indians. That’s not exactly making a case for the positive benefits of immigration, you know–unless you’re arguing that the whites improved the place.

    3. This was true for my family. The ones who like the restricted freedoms and more socialist economic policies aren’t trying to flee them.

    4. Hey, that’s the quote I was going to use!

      That sentence struck me as so wrong I didn’t care to read the rest of the fisking. How is not libertarian to rely on one’s extended family rather than the state? Immigration has almost always been about opportunity, not welfare. If that’s no longer the case, limit the welfare, not the immigration!

      I better stop now, or I’m going to have that damn Neil Diamond song stuck in my head for the rest of the day. “Today!”

      1. It doesn’t get shown as much as it should, but there was a SNL skit with Will Ferrell as Neil Diamond on VH-1 Storytellers explaining his songs; in it “Coming to America” is revealed to be anti-immigrant. It was damn funny.

      2. I know! In some alternate universe, there has never existed a book called “The Myth of the Rational Voter.” What does it prove? Oh simply that there’s a demand curve for rationality, and since the cost of irrationality is minimal to non-existent for a person as a voter, the voter will be more irrational as a voter than a consumer. Oh also that there are SYSTEMIC biases in people not random ones which cancel out.

        Now, lets see. What else did it prove? That education is highly correlated with more libertarian views ON THE MARGIN.

        So how might the above apply to tens of millions of low-skilled, less-educated peasants be made voters? BEATS ME MAN! OPEN BORDERS FTW!

        The ONLY, and I mean ONLYYY solution for blithering blind idiots who defend open borders UNINTELLIGENTLY with the sneer of a leftist Democrat, is to promote non-citizenship for migrants. Then they can simply obey Ricardo’s comparative advantage in economics (given that welfare is restricted them as well), and will not pose political externalities via the vote.

        1. Pretty funny that you bring up The Myth of the Rational Voter, given that one of the most pernicious systemic biases cited therein is anti-foreign bias.

          And I am curious why you think it is rare for open borders types to promote non-citizen immigrants. In my experience, it is the common view. Citizenship is not a right. Free migration is. Government is obligated to secure the latter. It is not obligated to grant the former.

          1. “Citizenship is not a right. Free migration is. Government is obligated to secure the latter. It is not obligated to grant the former.”

            If you read Con’s other posts on this thread, it’s pretty clear that he’s not aware of the difference.

            1. I am plenty aware and its precisely what I’m arguing for, given removal of anti-discrimination statutes, welfare, and affirmative action.

          2. If its a common view, MikeP, then why is it never mentioned in posts such as these by Nick?

            1. Because it is deep in the nuance and pragmatic details well beyond the fundamental question what legitimate authority government has to abrogate freedom of movement.

              You’ll read about it in 5-page interviews. But for the most part, at the margin and in today’s world, the question simply isn’t relevant in most articles about current events and immigration.

              First, people do not immigrate today to vote or to get welfare. Therefore questions of immigration today have little implication on questions of citizenship. Such details are usually required only in response to ridiculous hypotheticals like all of Pakistan moving to the US.

              Second, the US has a proud history of inclusion and citizenship. While there is no obligation for the citizenry to bestow citizenship on future immigrants, it is part of what has shaped the American viewpoint, and it would be a shame to lose it because of a few anecdotes.

              But in detailed questions pitting open borders against easy naturalization, the former should trump the latter every time.

        2. I have re-examined my comment, and I can find neither a defense of majority rule, support for a guest-worker policy, nor “the sneer of a leftist Democrat.” What I do find is merely a flippant assertion that the limitation of welfare benefits might be sufficient to keep immigration to manageable levels. I do not find a response to that in your reply.

          What I do find in your reply is some misanthropic bullshit about a “demand curve for rationality”. I do not consider my janitor to be a threat to the republic, nor 10,000 such men. In fact, he seems much less so than almost all the intellectuals I have had the misfortune to have known.

    5. Likely, they want what everyone wants: food, shelter and safety.

      Beyond that, I don’t think we can guess at peoples’ motivations.

  7. That sounds pretty good to me

    You should read the words in it, instead of swallowing it whole because someone you want to be seen disowning doesn’t like it.

    Forcibly enlisting businesses as immigration enforcement outposts and IRS rats so immigrants can be put to their proper use as things taxes are collected from isn’t “pretty good.” It’s completely fucked up.

    1. Forcibly enlisting businesses as immigration revenue enforcement outposts and IRS rats so immigrants citizens can be put to their proper use as things taxes are collected from isn’t “pretty good.” It’s completely fucked up.

  8. Off-topic, but does Ron Paul believe Eisenhower was a commie agent?

    1. Off topic, but does Maxipad have a burning desire to rimjob Ron Paul, which he masks with feigned hatred?

      1. That level of obsession can only result from sublimated sexual desire. That’s why he talks about male-on-male oral sex all the time.

    2. yes max he do

  9. What Herp Derb said about a Flake victory reflecting poorly on anti-immigrant groups-do you think that’s true? Would a Flake victory hurt their power just before a GOP primary? If so, we must help Flake win!

  10. Geez how could we be so stupid as to fight for the rights of those who might disagree with us?

    1. Principles are for dummies.

    2. Only broad, ethnically defined groups of people who stereotypically have political beliefs I agree with should be allowed to decide where they want to live.

      1. Yeah thats totally related to political externalities allowed them by the VOTE.

  11. Good luck to you, Governor. I’ve put you down on my list of politicians I’ll vote for ? when hell freezes over.

    The zinger there really should have been in all caps.

    1. Followed by a HURR DURR DERB.

      1. It’s why Al Gore invented the blink tag.

        1. Blink tags contribute to Global Cooling.

  12. I once read that the biggest shits during the Inquisition were the recently converted, who wanted to prove that they were true believers.

    The same can explain Derb.

  13. Send all those pointy headed intellectual english momma’s boys back to jolly old England.

    1. But he left England to get away from all the immigrants.

  14. Ron Paul on immigration:

    A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.
    RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

    We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked. Most of them, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious.? I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.
    quoted in Michael Scherer (2 June 2007) “Ron Paul is blowing up real good” Salon.com

    1. Secure borders means “don’t let terrorists in”, not “don’t let beaners in”.

      And there’s never a wrong time to insult the Federal Child Molestation Agency.

  15. Ron Paul

    Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
    Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
    Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
    Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
    Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

    1. Dude, this is something most of us disagree with Ron Paul about. We agree about a bunch of other stuff. Okay?

      1. Do you agree that Eisenhower was a commie agent?

        1. why do u think ike held back the berlin advance whilst the red army romped n stomped!

    2. So, he wants to increase legal immigration while still punishing/preventing illegal immigration?

      Also, monomaniacal much?

  16. “I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship.”–Ron Paul

  17. Max, we already know you have a raging hard-on for Ron Paul.

    Now shut the fuck up.

    1. Yes. We had enough of this on last night’s abortion thread. Max, you’re obssessing about a man who has virtually no chance of winning the election. Stay on topic or shut up.

      1. Reason keeps bringing him up. When his racist newsletter came to light Reason was all hand-wrining about it, and now he’s a respected man of the libertarian right again. Why the fuck is that? And fuck you, asshole.

        1. Please, give it a rest. You’re the one making this all-Ron-Paul-all-the-time. The words “Ron Paul” do not appear in the post above, nor I’ll wager in more than one of the last 20 posts.

          If you’re concerned that Reasonoids have forgotten about that particular skeleton in Ron Paul’s closet, then congratulations, you’ve reminded everyone. Mission accomplished. Move on!

          1. you would lose that wager, because Max brought him up twice.

            1. Doh! I meant the last 20 articles, but reason just made a liar out of me — they just posted another one!

  18. Well Max has illustrated why, but I was going to point out that Derb was one of his main advocates in ’08 at National Review. Too bad the borders issue has swung the way it has in the conservative movement. (and this, after Reagan was the president who granted amnesty)

    1. Reagan did grant amnesty, but only because it was accompanied by legal measures to make sure that it would be the last amnesty ever. Well, those measures were largely ignored, and here we are contemplating it all over again.

  19. Just goes to show how out of touch I’ve gotten with mainstream conservatism. I knew there was an immigration debate, but I didn’t know there was a National Question, capital N capital Q.

    1. General Chang: We need living space!

      Admiral Kirk: Earth, Hitler, 1938.

      General Chang: I beg your pardon?

    2. I’m more worried about whether the National Question is essay or multiple choice. I gotta know how much to study.

      1. It’s a Jeopardy style question.

        The answer is ‘Murrica for ‘Murricans!

  20. “Gustavo Arellano, the “Ask a Mexican” columnist who can legally become president of these United States. Would that be such a bad thing? I don’t think so. Do you?”

    As far as I know, Gustavo won’t even leave Orange County to come to L.A., let alone D.C.

    Also, Americans say “come to grips,” not “get to grips.” Derb should be deported for that one.

    1. Also, Americans say “come to grips,” not “get to grips.” Derb should be deported for that one.

      My culture is being subsumed!!!!11!1

    2. Gustavo won’t even leave Orange County to come to L.A

      Can you blame him?

  21. As a libertarian I might be on the outs here, but the United States needs to control its borders and be aware of who is here. Its a fundamental task of the sovereign to delineate where one polity starts and another stops and to have an accurate census of the denizens within its own polity.

    The United States fails badly on both those measures. And with the trend of increasingly isolating and ostracizing the illegal population already here, we are creating a polity that is not loyal or connected to the United States and yet is its fastest-growing demographic…all off the books so-to-speak. That is a toxic social disaster we are slowly building.

    So I’m a heretic among heretics: Build the Evil Wall, and then run the current illegal population through the big amnesty filter. Walls and amnesty…I’m CRAZY!

    1. As a libertarian I might be on the outs here, but the United States needs to control its borders and be aware of who is here. Its a fundamental task of the sovereign to delineate where one polity starts and another stops and to have an accurate census of the denizens within its own polity.

      In general, there’s nothing wrong with this. For instance, government is apportioned based on knowing who’s here.

      I think most libertarians are merely talking about process, making it easier etc.

    2. I agree with basically all of what you say, so maybe I’m a heretic as well. We do need some control of non-citizens coming across our borders.

      I believe we would not have this huge populatoin of illegal immigrants in this country if we had a simple, cheap, and easy way for those who are here to WORK to announce their presence in the country without risk of deportation. If we had such a method in place, then we could separte out the vast majority that come here to work, and concentrate our deportation efforts on those who are here only to try and collect government benifits or commit crimes.

      1. I’m a fairly open-borders type libertarian, but I do agree that it should be orderly in that the government should know who’s here.

        You make an excellent point about the illegal immigrant ‘problem’ being due to a lack of a legal avenue.

        Having been through the process on behalf of my wife and some of her family members, what we have now is a near prohibition on poor immigrants in this country. No different than the days of alcohol prohibition or drug prohibition. In all cases it’s created a huge black market.

        In the end, I shouldn’t have to prove to the government why someone should be allowed in. The government should have to prove to me why they should NOT… and it better be a better reason than they’ll take our jobs, or they might marry and a american and stay (as was the case of my sister-in-law for why she was denied a tourist visa).

    3. We’ve been hearing about a toxic social mess brewing forever and it never happens. It is the Right’s version of AGW.

      I agree that a nation has not only the right but the duty to filter out terrorists, other criminals, and the dangerously infectious from immigrating into it otherwise it has no right to keep out immigrants. Just let them in dammit.

      1. As someone who lived through the LA riots, I shake my head. You really don’t get it, do you?

    4. I’m all for building Hadrian’s wall along the Mexican border. It will give the archeologists something to wonder at in a few hundred years. Heck they can even make movies about it then.

    5. As a libertarian I might be on the outs here, but the United States needs to control its borders and be aware of who is here. Its a fundamental task of the sovereign to delineate where one polity starts and another stops and to have an accurate census of the denizens within its own polity.

      Why?

      The United States fails badly on both those measures. And with the trend of increasingly isolating and ostracizing the illegal population already here, we are creating a polity that is not loyal or connected to the United States and yet is its fastest-growing demographic…all off the books so-to-speak.

      I am not sure how you define “a polity that is not loyal or connected to the United States”. How does one demonstrate such loyalty or “connected”-ness? Undoubtedly, many could construe libertarians as being disloyal or disconnected with “America”, seeing as “America” and it’s values are highly subjective. Don’t support the War; disloyal. Don’t agree with pledging allegience to America; disloyal. Don’t agree with American exceptionalism; disloyal.

      1. Less connected because they have to be paranoid that their life can be turned upside down at any moment? I think he’s just saying that placing so many people into a shadow society is bad for America, that we should have more immigration but it should be on the up and up.

        1. Exactly. Its like on The Wired with drugs. People end up distrusting society because its out to get them, so they don’t help police solve real crimes, or pay their taxes, invest their money beyond their mattress, etc.

          When you have a dispossessed minority long enough and isolated enough you end up with something like the Kurds in Turkey or Arabs in Israel: Second-class citizens by fiat who have a second-class sense of loyalty or inclusiveness to wider society in response.

          Maybe not today or tomorrow, but give it enough time to fester and it will metastasize into something like that. The Drug War exacerbates that problem enormously now.

          1. I see your point, but I don’t understand the argument for MORE bad policy that assumes to control for earlier bad policies that created the present situation. Illegal immigration WILL continue and stepping up the regulatory state will only, IMO, increase the situation you describe.

  22. proprietor of the odious (and cash-strapped) site Vdare.com

    Hmm. I thought it was just me that thought those guys were just fancy-talking versions of LoneWacko. Never noticed Reason ever taking a shot at them. Kick ’em!

    I gladly havent’ gone to their site since people stopped posting links… the notice is funny>

    “”Freeloaders! Give VDARE.com money NOW!!!””

    I think maybe within their online readership, there was a substantial proportion who did so out of amusement, loathing, self-abuse, or whatever… which, I suppose, is probably the same reason I still occasionally read the NYT, but I digress… the point is, they were never as popular as they thought they were. Their passing will not be entirely regretted.

  23. Wider Gates, Taller Fences, until the place implodes from militarism, statism and incompetence.

  24. Immigration is a privilege, ask anyone who has stood in line for hours waiting for a tourist visa, anyone who’s spend $7,500+ getting a greencard, any investor that has the $1 million required for an investors visa, and any Cuban who crossed sharked infested waters to take advantage of the special arrangement we have with victims of Communism.

    Immigration is not a right, just like you don’t have the right to food, healthcare, and a college education in Harvard (unless you’re a Mulatto and your name is Obama), you also don’t have a right to come to any country illegally.

    Also, forget about reforming immigration laws, the INS is already processing a ton of paperwork, some immigrants have to wait YEARS to get their applications approved. You really want to open the door more so more people apply? We can’t afford it!

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. As always… barf.

      1. Love the ideological confusion presented on Grego’s blog. He’s one of them libertarians that believes in more government licensing, because without licenses for drivers, the US would be nothing more than dirt roads. Brilliant!!!

        1. Don’t speak for me, Ray Pew. I believe that if car drivers had to get licenses that pay for the roads bikers use, then bikers should do the same.

          If there’s no right to drive a car, there’s no right to ride a bike. Simple as that.

          1. Don’t speak for me, Ray Pew. I believe that if car drivers had to get licenses that pay for the roads bikers use, then bikers should do the same.

            You really think that driver’s licenses cover the expense of roads? Hilarious.

            What about pedestrians? Should they be prevented from walking on the side of the road? Be required to have licenses?

            If there’s no right to drive a car, there’s no right to ride a bike. Simple as that.

            Ever critically analyzed the claim that “driving is a priviledge and not a right” or do you just accept this claim as valid because that is what the law says?

    2. Greg-

      1. Remember, liberty always comes before nation state. You and any association of people do not have a right to a nation state as the existence of the nation state itself violates the fundamental properties of liberty and libertarianism.

      IOW, you do not have the right to the establishment of some COMMUNIST / MARXIST bureaucracy so that it decide who to admit and who to turn back. You know that in order to fund the COMMUNIST / MARXIST immigration agency, the wealth of those who make and produce will be confiscated.

      Solution? STOP ALL WELFARE.

      1. Libertymike, I agree with you if you STOP ALL WELFARE, but what happens when those immigrants become citizens and vote for more welfare? Maybe we need a constitutional amendment, something like this: “The government owes you nothing.”

    3. Immigration is not a right

      Lets assume this is true. Where do you derive the right to PREVENT someone from immigrating to an area?

      1. governments don’t have rights, they have authority (or not).

        1. governments don’t have rights, they have authority (or not).

          Everyone has such potential, individual, collective or government, but it doesn’t establish any valid claim to the action. This is merely a statement of what is.

          1. no, it was pedantry.

      2. Well, on a lesser scale, Miami did it to spring breakers. Miami used to be spring break capital but then the cops started harassing the young ruffians. Well deserves since Miami gets enough tourism without putting up with a bunch of inebriated hoodlums that trash hotel rooms, vomit in alleys, and rape girls.

        So, the city treated them like the grabage they are and now they invade Panama City and Cancun.

    4. Immigration is not a right, just like you don’t have the right to…

      You don’t have the right to have those paid for, but you surely have the right to them — exactly analogous to the right to migrate.

      Also, forget about reforming immigration laws, the INS is already processing a ton of paperwork, some immigrants have to wait YEARS to get their applications approved.

      That’s because the INS CIS must apply onerous requirements and fit people within quotas. A simple background check and no quotas whatsoever makes the process orders of magnitude easier and cheaper.

    5. D…did he just say mulatto?

      Greg, I have to apologize for ragging on you all these months. At first I wrote you off as some bullheaded, reactionary Team Red cheerleader.

      But the fact that you have adapted so well after falling into a time portal in the 1920s and emerging here in the early 21st century is truly an amazing feat. You even have a blog, something your rusticated contemporaries in the post-Great War America couldn’t have conceived.

      1. He’s even acclimated to our vernacular, as the number four employed in such a manner cleverly indicates that he’s a “libertarian” who’s strongly in favor of “freedom”!

        Ha! Get it?

      2. Yes, I said mulatto, when did the PC police decided that word was politically incorrect? Should I have used the term “biracial” instead? Stop being so Orwellian, the word mulatto is not a racist word, it’s just like the word negro which some old blacks still use.

    6. So, Grego, since things are as they are now, they can never be different? That’s your argument? And you need to brush up a bit on negative vs. positive rights.

  25. We need to be very careful with the next amnesty because the last one (Simpson Mazzoli) had problems. One approach would be to do everything the exact opposite of the way that SM did. Under SM, amnesty claimants were charged to apply. Under johnl, illegal workers would be paid for registering. Under SM, we made border crossing more difficult. Under johnl, registered illegal workers would be allowed to cross the border for a reasonable fee ($20).

    We need to keep the workers here and offer them financial incentives to keep their families in Wherever.

  26. This is ridiculous, why don’t these guys see the opportunities for immigration?

    http://www.intellectualtakeout…..mmigration

  27. “Libertarianism is simply not attractive … to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism …”

    I’d like to introduce Derb to my first gen Cambodian refugee SIL. Works 50 hrs a week in a foundry, owns several rentals. Every bum in Burien knows her as the one who says loud enough for everyone within a block to hear:

    “NO!
    YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR THE MONEY!
    YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR THE MONEY!”

    1. Yeah and who did he vote for you stupid fuck? Are the most intelligent commenters on the web really so dumb as to not recognize a truck-sized political externality in granting VOTING PRIVILEGES to migrants? Why don’t you find out how immigrants vote? It might behoove you to find out some solid hard data before secreting your fact-free opinions. You should hold yourselves to higher standard than DailyKos or FreeRepublic

      1. Hmm. I provided a counter example (my SIL)to Derb’s blanket statement. Please quote my “fact-free opinion” from my post. BTW, to whom are you referring when you say “he?”

        Signed,
        Supid Fuck

        1. he he – I mispelled “stoopid”

  28. Restrictions on immigration violate the property and contract rights of Americans. If I want to hire or rent to some guy from Guatemala, it should be between him and me, period.

    1. When illegal alien squatters take over your land, as they have done to many southwestern border ranches, get back to us.

  29. 1. I have a question (good luck answering it, because I have never gotten a straight answer from libertarians on this). At how many people do you think this country will become “full?” I have to ask again, because that cover issue in the picture is a lie with the phrase “Immigration Forever”, yet there are over 300 million people in the United States right now. At some point our lack of resources or simple space will not allow any more people to come in. You and I can certainly disagree on what that limit is, whether it’s 300 million or 300 billion. But at the end of the day, even the most hardcore libertarians would have to agree that there is some theoretical limit at which the number of people are a net minus, not a plus. So what is it?

    2. I notice this article dodged Derbyshire’s question of Saudi Arabia. Would the libertarians on this site think it’s a good thing if all 11 million Saudis decided to pack up and move to the USA? Would you welcome them with open arms? What about if all 170 million Pakistanis did so? Do you seriously think it would improve the quality of life? (please try to answer the actual question and not dodge it with accusations of racism, like this article did).

    1. 1. How many people would it take before you would say that Manhattan is “full”? Even the most hardcore you would have to agree that there is some theoretical limit at which the number of people in Manhattan are a net minus, not a plus. So what is it? If you cannot give a number, then surely that means the state should regulate migration into Manhattan, no? Of course, the same argument applies to Manhattan, Kansas, as well.

      2. First, they wouldn’t. Second, if they did, I would hope it would be investigated as a conspiracy planned by a foreign state and handled as such. Third, if they did, and it wasn’t a conspiracy of conquest and the bad apples could be sorted out as everyone argues they should always be sorted out, then, yes, the state should not prohibit their free migration.

    2. 1. I have a question (good luck answering it, because I have never gotten a straight answer from libertarians on this). At how many people do you think this country will become “full?” I have to ask again, because that cover issue in the picture is a lie with the phrase “Immigration Forever”, yet there are over 300 million people in the United States right now. At some point our lack of resources or simple space will not allow any more people to come in. You and I can certainly disagree on what that limit is, whether it’s 300 million or 300 billion. But at the end of the day, even the most hardcore libertarians would have to agree that there is some theoretical limit at which the number of people are a net minus, not a plus. So what is it?

      What is your definition of a “net minus”?

      Also, the concept of immigration is not a one way street. If the conditions of the country were becoming more than one deems acceptable, then they should have the capacity to seek countries that are more conducive to their ideals.

      2. I notice this article dodged Derbyshire’s question of Saudi Arabia. Would the libertarians on this site think it’s a good thing if all 11 million Saudis decided to pack up and move to the USA? Would you welcome them with open arms? What about if all 170 million Pakistanis did so? Do you seriously think it would improve the quality of life? (please try to answer the actual question and not dodge it with accusations of racism, like this article did).

      While I believe these types of questions are implausible hypotheticals, I can only respond by asking “What could we do to stop such a massive migration”? Do you think we would shoot down their planes or ships to prevent them from coming here? Could we prevent 170 million from entering our border? Doubtfull.

    3. I have a plan already prepared to sell California desert to 11 million Saudis.

    4. Your first question is just silly.
      As for the second, if the population of Saudi Arabia could all find and legally acquire places to live, then yes, they could all immigrate to the US. It is the right of property owners to rent or sell their property to whomever they want.

      1. I find it VERY illustrative that neither MikeP, Ray Pew, johnl, or Zeb actually answered my first question. None.

        So how many? Either give me a number or what conditions would tell us decisively that this country is “full”. I’m still waiting… (followed by sound of crickets)

        But since I’m a man who has carefully thought out his beliefs, I’ll answer your questions!

        How many people would it take before you would say that Manhattan is “full”?

        Probably the point at which people are sleeping on the street not just out of poverty, but because there is no more room for housing, and skyscrapers can no longer be safely built higher based on current technology. But a city depends on food imported from the countryside, so a single city is a bad example; you need to look at the ecosystem that can support it.

        What is your definition of a “net minus”?

        The point at which adding additional people hurts the economy rather than helping it. Keep in mind that certain resources (like water) replenish themselves at nature’s pace, not the rate that’s convenient for man. There’s always a tipping point where you exceed the carrying capacity of your environment.

        “What could we do to stop such a massive migration”? Do you think we would shoot down their planes or ships to prevent them from coming here? Could we prevent 170 million from entering our border?

        Just to clarify, I wasn’t imagining an entire horde of people arriving at once, but over a period of time. But anyway, you are dodging the question which still stands: would we benefit from transferring the entire population from Pakistan to the United States?

        1. Okay, here’s an answer to your first question…

          Hong Kong — which is not too crowded at all, has virtually no natural resources but quite a bit of parkland, and was the most laissez faire place on earth for decades — has more than 3000 persons per square mile. That density would allow the US’s 3.8 million square miles to hold over 10 billion people. Since that is higher than the predicted maximum world population mid-century, I’d say we can answer your question…

          At how many people do you think this country will become “full?”

          More than will ever live at any one time.

          1. MikeP,

            Look what I said above about how cities are a bad example. Your example of Hong Kong fails and fails miserably because the city doesn’t feed itself!! It depends on a lifeline of imports to survive (and food is not the only problem by far – there are other problems such as waste disposal, but I’ll go with food for now for simplicity). If all of Asia were as dense as Hong Kong, then the territory wouldn’t be able to import enough rice to sustain itself because all of Asia would be starving.

            Heck, even England started to feel the effects of starvation during Germany’s submarine blockade during WWII – and they have plenty of farmland. I could on and on with examples, but you get the idea.

            I strongly suggest you look at the example of St. Matthew Island:
            http://arcticportal.org/featur…..hew-island

            Or closer to home, look up the fresh water crisis we have in America. Our current rate of depletion is unsustainable – and that’s only with the people who are already here now:
            http://www.boston.com/bostongl…..er_crisis/

            1. What you consider a weakness — the city doesn’t feed itself!! — I consider a strength.

              People would not immigrate to the territory if they weren’t more valuable there than somewhere else. If they are that valuable in that crowded a place, then they will be fed.

              Believers that free migration improves economic welfare generally believe that free trade does too. At least you are an example that the inverse can also be true.

              It’s pretty funny that I first considered Hong Kong Island itself a fine enough example of livable density, but I thought that the 120 billion people that would put in the US to be a bit much compared to the potential maximum global population.

            2. “Your example of Hong Kong fails and fails miserably because the city doesn’t feed itself!! It depends on a lifeline of imports to survive.”

              You mean they (GASP!) trade freely with others!?

              The only countries who strive for the kind of ‘independence’ you seem to be in favor of are the likes of North Korea (Juche) and Cuba.

              1. MWG said,

                You mean they (GASP!) trade freely with others!?

                It looks like my actual point just flew right over your head. You and MikeP seem to have some kind of mental block about this so I’ll phrase it a little differently. Simply put, it’s a fallacy to claim that since a city can sustain a population density of X, then a country could sustain the same population density.

                The ecology allows us to have small pockets of extreme population density scattered in certain key areas, but it would implode very quickly if you allowed the population to become that dense everywhere and anywhere.

                1. First, how would it implode?

                  Second, humanity doesn’t become that dense everywhere and anywhere, like jam spread across the countryside. Taking again the example of Hong Kong Island, with 42,000 people per square mile, there are dense places where lots of people live, but most of the island is not populated.

                2. “…but it would implode very quickly if you allowed the population to become that dense everywhere and anywhere.”

                  Like Hong Kong is imploding?

                  1. Like Hong Kong is imploding?

                    Wow! waaaaay over your head I guess. Simply read my answer again. Hint: things like food and water come from far and wide just to support people in Hong Kong.

                    1. The original question was not… At how many people do you think this country will become “full” if you assume the rest of the land disappears off the face of the earth?

                      Even if it were, I would still contend that 10 billion people — the density of Hong Kong and one-fourteenth the density of Hong Kong Island — could live in the US. This is, after all, a country where almost none of us grow far more food than we can eat and almost all of us pour drinking water on our lawns.

                    2. Even if it were, I would still contend that 10 billion people — the density of Hong Kong and one-fourteenth the density of Hong Kong Island — could live in the US.

                      Considering that we are already using fresh water at an unsustainable rate with 300 million, I’m curious how you would magically solve this problem with 10 billion people. I love science fiction as much as the next guy, but this discussion is about current technology.

                      (BTW – desalination technology is not a solution right now. It is extremely energy intensive, and the cost of transporting the water far inland makes it impractical in the USA).

                      This is, after all, a country where almost none of us grow far more food than we can eat and almost all of us pour drinking water on our lawns.

                      We do so – In areas where water is plenty, but those areas are getting smaller. In states like Arizona, they have been cracking down on lawn watering (I have lived there, and you really don’t see lawns any more in the southern part of the state).

                    3. Not at all. Your point is bullshit. Hong Kong has more people than they can support with the resources they have. They TRADE with other countries (Yes, some of them really really far away, that’s what free trade is all about), but they continue to grow and are amongst the wealthiest places in the world.

        2. I find it VERY illustrative that neither MikeP, Ray Pew, johnl, or Zeb actually answered my first question. None.

          So how many? Either give me a number or what conditions would tell us decisively that this country is “full”. I’m still waiting… (followed by sound of crickets)

          If someone tries to give you a number it will be based on some model that assumes various constants. But in the real world, variables are constantly changing. Therefore, I can’t give you any meaningfull number, seeing as I believe that economic realities motivate individuals and, so long as the market is relatively free, will either prevent such massive overpopulation or solve resource issues.

          But since I’m a man who has carefully thought out his beliefs, I’ll answer your questions!

          How many people would it take before you would say that Manhattan is “full”?

          Probably the point at which people are sleeping on the street not just out of poverty, but because there is no more room for housing, and skyscrapers can no longer be safely built higher based on current technology. But a city depends on food imported from the countryside, so a single city is a bad example; you need to look at the ecosystem that can support it.

          Why would people continue to immigrate to such an area if better living conditions are available? Such hypotheticals hinge on some belief that people don’t act for self-interest. People tend to live in areas of squalor, because they CAN’T emigrate to better areas, not because they immigrate to such areas.

          What is your definition of a “net minus”?

          The point at which adding additional people hurts the economy rather than helping it. Keep in mind that certain resources (like water) replenish themselves at nature’s pace, not the rate that’s convenient for man. There’s always a tipping point where you exceed the carrying capacity of your environment.

          And the beauty of a relatively free market is that prices adjust to scarcity and demand. If I see that the cost of a gallon of water is a month’s wages because of overpopulation and limited water source, then I think twice about moving there.

          “What could we do to stop such a massive migration”? Do you think we would shoot down their planes or ships to prevent them from coming here? Could we prevent 170 million from entering our border?

          Just to clarify, I wasn’t imagining an entire horde of people arriving at once, but over a period of time. But anyway, you are dodging the question which still stands: would we benefit from transferring the entire population from Pakistan to the United States?

          How would I know? Since you stated that it wouldn’t happen en masse, what time frame are we talking about? Are we really concerned that much about the Pakistani’s that live here currently? Last I checked, the vast majority were decent people. Why would the remainder be vastly different?

          1. If someone tries to give you a number it will be based on some model that assumes various constants. But in the real world, variables are constantly changing. Therefore, I can’t give you any meaningfull number, seeing as I believe that economic realities motivate individuals and, so long as the market is relatively free, will either prevent such massive overpopulation or solve resource issues.

            You are avoiding the question also. If you look again, I said “give me a number OR what conditions would tell us decisively that this country is ‘full’.”

            Just tell us. When people are starving? When there is physically no more space? When waste products pile up four feet high? When?

            And the beauty of a relatively free market is that prices adjust to scarcity and demand. If I see that the cost of a gallon of water is a month’s wages because of overpopulation and limited water source, then I think twice about moving there.

            Ahhh! Perhaps without meaning to, you fall upon some real enlightenment here. What you said above is true, but that’s like saying putting higher taxes on goods are no problem for the economy because people can still shop around for the best deals!

            What you are forgetting to mention is that when population increases, scarcity of goods and consumption of resources increases also, which drop the quality of life for everyone. IOW, if EVERY country is a little overpopulated, then by today’s standards the choice isn’t really between good vs. bad options, but between bad vs. worse options.

            People will still go to the places that can best support them, but that doesn’t mean they are better off.

  30. Why is the “Rule of Law” not adequate for the Liberal Czarists in the Obama administration, but they can intimidate the State of Arizona by dragging them to court. It seems remote that this legally correct for UTAH, to enact its own Guest worker program. Utah will be noticeably joining the other Sanctuary States of California and Nevada. These two states have high illegal alien concentrations and out-of-control State general public deficits. California is drowning in a Gov. Jerry Brown’s massive 26 billion dollar debt, followed by Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada with roughly $3 Billion. Reid was the perpetrator who eroded E-Verify, the illegal immigrant electronic business verification system; stripping E-Verify of its mandate. How many more States will be overrun by millions of illegal immigrants, running from the restrictive States of Arizona, claiming they have no need to halt the encroachment?

    Hopefully, I do hope the citizens and legal residents, who will be financially harmed, will throw out the lawmakers who decided to do nothing? As they did in California and Nevada, who are now paying a heavy penalty, as even more economic foreigners start stealing jobs, compliments of dishonest businesses and then applying for public benefits with stolen ID. Then all the children of illegal parents crowding into school classrooms, and whole extended families filling up seats in the hospital emergency rooms will be slowed to a dribble. The story is the same throughout this country and the only hope we have to not prolong this sick carnival is by joining the nearest TEA PARTY. We must rid ourselves of Liberal, Democrats and Republicans who stealthily would arrange amnesties, behind the public’s back. There are many good Presidential candidates who have the TEA PARTY agenda at heart, which will rid us of this unconscionable epidemic of this alien invasion.

    Foothold children to a large extent exhaust the social welfare programs in the US. This is serious intent to legally enter America in near full term of pregnancy, so the birthright law comes into effect. The anchor baby has now a nationwide term, defining an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth; the law is ruthlessly used in apply for welfare programs. The female if allowed staying, gets even more benefits, when they become pregnant again, and again and again. This insures cash payments, food stamps, Wicca and federal Section 8 housing that shortly the whole extended family moves too.

    In one year Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the United States, 70% of the women giving birth were illegal aliens. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million dollars to deliver these babies, the feds another 9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in 31.3 million. The sheer numbers are phenomenal. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were foothold babies. FAIR estimates there are about 363,000 children are born to illegal aliens each year. It’s a must read the report in a Pdf file “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine.” Just Google the whole text.

    This nation is crippled by entitlement programs, which has escalated the national deficit to 14.5 trillion dollars. Thanks to decades of uncontrolled spending, we can no longer afford the money expended on the world, or illegal immigrants flocking here. Billions go every year to foothold children, brought into America by poor families in every corner of each hemisphere. The costs must be reversed now, not later as we are heading to a monetary swamp, where America’s credit will be further downgraded by Standard and Poor. Before we reach the debt ceiling, we must force on our reluctant politicians cuts in discretionary spending and every niche of the ever growing government agencies. Many could be merged with others federal entities and all pseudo offices could be closed down. The country is broke and we are fighting wars for other countries.

    We should open up new drilling areas, including Anwar, Alaska. I’m only one of millions of moderate Conservatives who demand not being dictated to by environmentalist who have overwhelmed sane citizens, enforcing such laws as the endangered Species Act. Relocate the wild creatures along the border, or places where they can drill for precious oil. Give Communist China, Mexico an ultimatum that they play by the free trade agreement rules or the TEA PARTY leaders will renegotiate them. Whatever issue is involved such as Oil, Free trade treaties it smells of corruption, lobbyists Campaign Contributions and favors.

    1. …an ultimatum that they play by the free trade agreement rules…

      Oh, so very, very close to a whole rant without a mercantilist fallacy.

  31. “Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies.”

    Isn’t this kind of the frontier thesis of America? That the people who come here will want freedom because they are leaving their home countries for those very reasons, rather than remaining complacent with terrible economic/political situations like the rest of their former countrymen?

    1. There is simply zero evidence they come ‘looking for freedom’ — they come looking for better wages, and a whole host of benefits courtesy of US taxpayers. And the problem is, their children (and sometimes themselves) vote to increase those benefits — quite rationally as they are poor.

      Seriously, look at the voting records of the congressional ‘Hispanic’ conference. You guys are digging your own graves. That is, unless the whole left-libertarianism movement is really about upending our society and mass immigration is a weapon in that struggle.

  32. For information on world Libertarians working on the issue see http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  33. So I take it Derbyshire will be stumping for Paul?

  34. Mass immigration with a welfare state only grows government. For the life of me I can’t understand how people like Nick Gillespie can’t figure that out. It isn’t rocket science. Milton Friedman knew it and Ron Paul knows it.

  35. So some people say that immigrants love liberty because they’re fleeing oppression while others say they’re collectivists because of culture.

    How do we know who’s right? I think the fairest thing to do is get data on voting patterns of recent immigrants and their descendants.

    1. Lol dude this is what Derb and others have been screaming for a decade. Hey Nick, why don’t you post some data on this? Immigration turns out the most data-free posts on Reason.com. Compare this post with something on the budget or health-care.

  36. The cover of your magazine is too funny: the treacly Ellis Island art with a “Happy Birthday Star Trek” corner.

  37. Why do most purist libertarians (as evidenced by the generous sampling above) assume the existence of a pure libertarian minarchy (or anarchy) in the US, with absolute property rights and other manifestations of absolute individual rights, when arguing the pro-immigration position? Is it really not as obvious to them as it is to the rest of us that we are so far from absolute property rights that they literally look like idiots, or children, or idiotic children, when they argue in this way? I mean, we are talking about a country where you aren’t free to specify the religion or marital status of your renters if you are a landlord. And yet, somehow, we are supposed to be able to logically extrapolate from this non-existent regime of absolute property rights to a pure libertarian solution of the immigration problem? Preposterous. Get back to me when you can temper your fantasy world with a dose of reality.

    I am pro-immigration, generally. Just not a purist about it. And frankly embarrassed, as a more pragmatic libertarian, to see the level of jejune argumentation applied by purist libertarians in this debate.

    1. Right on. This sentimentalist crap is embarrassing. For example, there are two functions you can carry out on property – inclusion and exclusion. Hence, “immigration” in a pure libertopia would simply mean inclusion and exclusion decisions of property owners. Now, the minarchists here get the part of inclusion right – by saying there’s no right for the state to refuse (in theory) someone in New York from inviting someone in Mexico to his private property.

      However, they completely ignore the EXCLUSION part. Who is allowed to exclude? The state socializes the costs of the migrant that the New Yorker invited via confiscation of tax revenue to fund emergency room visits, in-school tuition, free public schooling, etc etc.
      Furthermore, for whatever reason, if you wished to exclude people from your ‘neighborhood’ (which would simply be a mutually-contracted coalition of contiguous property owners), this would be illegal or racist or whatever. And since such associations are rare due to monopoly land ownership by the Federal and state governments, individual property owners really have no rights of exclusion. Add to this anti-discrimination laws, and things are further fucked up for the property owner in the host location.

      But theres still more! What else? Affirmative Action. And no, peasants, AA is not simply some help given to poor African-Americans that doesn’t cost much or matter much. It is a wholesale legal complex enforced by thousands of lawyers on employers public and private via the doctrine known as “Disparate Impact.” Oh and it includes ALL non-whites! Yeah, so you can come walk across the border and sue people for discrimination and not be laughed out of court.

      Does all that seem like pure libertopia to you? What of the rights of property owners to exclude? They can’t.

      I don’t imagine I can change any minds. I only wish this sneering, condescending, leftist-like attitude on this issue be changed. It does not behoove libertarians to behave this way. We are supposed to be the most rational of political ideologues, and the most systemic thinkers (according to Jonathan Haidt’s research).

    2. At the same time, maybe it’s worthwhile to push back where you can until the system breaks. If you can’t stop spending, push against tax increases until deficits fuck the spenders up. If you can’t stop welfare, dump more people on it until you have no choice but to reform/end welfare.

      Saying “we have to dick over immigrants because the government has forced us to bear the cost of their problems” is a bad precedent, because this SOP for government, and progressives in particular.

      It means that when the government wants to use “healthcare costs” as a means for controlling people’s lifestyles, we’ll just roll over and accept it, rather than standing firm on freedom until freedom wrecks the shit out of their system.

  38. This is where I get off the Libertarian train.

    Has there ever been a culture anywhere that has survived a massive invasion of immigrants?

    England is a great example. You had whoever was there originally, then several invasions of Celts. Then the Romans. Then the German Angles and Saxons. And later the Vikings and finally the French Normans.

    So instead of the original culture, you basically have one of the last two invaders, a mix of German and French. Is this bad? Maybe not, but it’s a bit odd considering that the people are still largely Celtic, but have a totally different culture.

    Iran is another great example. Persia was one of the great nations of ancient times. They survived for thousands of years. Until they got Islamized. Now they are a crazy theocracy, beholden to a religion belonging to a foreign culture, despite producing two of the world’s great religions (Zoroastrianism, which now exists mostly in the US and India, and B’hai, which is persecuted strongly in Iran)

    Or heck, here, why not ask an American Indian how immigration worked out for him. Maybe not so bad now, but ask a 100 years ago.

    1. A better example is the Roman Empire, which imported foreign workers (mostly as mercenaries in their armies) until the Empire was overrun by barbarians, plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.

    2. “Has there ever been a culture anywhere that has survived a massive invasion of immigrants?”

      Define US culture.

      “Or heck, here, why not ask an American Indian how immigration worked out for him. Maybe not so bad now, but ask a 100 years ago.”

      Well, when the Mexicans start forcing us onto reservations and systematically hunting us, I’ll understand your point.

      1. Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie. Fourth of July, ‘Don’t give up the ship”. Trial by Jury. Freeways. Capitalism. Communitarianism. Shape-note singing. Mormons. Bluegrass. The Kentucky Derby. BBQ. ………

        1. Baseball? Have you heard the names of some of the most popular players?

          Hot dogs – the best hot dogs here in AZ are, hands down, made by Mexicans with beans, guacamole, and salsa.

          Trial by Jury. Freeways. – These are cultural?

          Capitalism? – Hayek and Mises, and millions from Hong Kong might disagree.

          Mormons – Baptists might disagree.

          BBQ – Brazilians might disagree.

          In the end, nothing you provided, with the exception of the 4th and Bluegrass (though I don’t know anyone who listens to it), is uniquely American. None of it certainly defines us as a culture, and none of it is threatened by hordes of foreign invaders.

      2. “Well, when the Mexicans start forcing us onto reservations and systematically hunting us, I’ll understand your point.”

        Hear of Brian Stow? The Giants fan beaten into a coma by two ‘Latino’ gang bangers? Is that a start?

  39. Forums for Gary Johnson supporters now online:

    http://www.GaryJohnsonGrassroots.com

  40. You guys go first. Dismantle the welfare state — let’s see how many ‘Hispanic’ votes that gets you. Then dismantle the whole intrusive ‘Equal Rights’ bureaucracy. I can rent to whom I want, employ whom I want, sell my house to whom I want, and convince others (non-violently) to do likewise. This most definitely would include my right to discriminate against people for racial, ethnic, religious, or any other reason.

    Once all that is instituted, maybe we can talk.

  41. You kids don’t get it. You sit here splitting libertarian hairs, counting angels on pinheads, spinning out your abstract theories as if they mattered. Listen; in your open-borders fantasyland libertarianism is dead, dead, DEAD! And you and yours are dead. What the hell do you think happens when 100 million foreigners from around the world come pouring in here? They all sit around sipping espresso while discussing the finer points of libertarianism? — it’s laughable! Listen; they wage a merciless politics of my-group-against-all-others, a savage struggle of competing peoples to see who comes out on top and garner the spoils and who shall be plundered and ruled. For pete’s sake use your imagination, try to see what would actually happen, try getting your thinking out of the lazy rut of your precious ideology and *imagine* the reality.

    If you need some inspiration just crack any good history book and observe the savage struggles of competing peoples contesting over disputed territory. That we have been at relative peace here in America for some centuries tends to lull the mind into thinking it shall always be so, but that is illusion. Take care to safeguard what you have, protect it, the same way and for the same reasons you have locks on your doors and don’t leave them wide open; so too you must guard the borders of your nation and consider carefully who you let in. You act as if the only thing in the world worthy of being protected is your precious ideology! You are oblivious to the great history of culture, biology, and civilization that was given you by your forebears, who gave you life itself, who gave you a language and system of laws, who gave you great art and architecture and everything you are, including the ability to sit idly constructing coffee house theories, and you think not to protect it and safeguard it and pass it along intact to your descendants? Fools! What monstrous treason to say it matters not for your entire inheritance to be submerged and forgotten, as long as your precious ideology remains.

    When your inheritance, your country, your people, your language, your laws, your country, and your family is entirely submerged, well there too goes your little ideology, glug, glug, glug, that ridiculous tin god enthralling you for the moment, which ridiculous god would vanish leaving you without so much as a lincoln penny if your crackpot notions were ever to be realized, God forbid. Grow up. I was a Randian libertarian, too, in my younger days but I am no longer and from my vantage point higher up the mountain I look down now and see how libertarianism can be a cult, like Scientology, it traps your mind in a circular little room. Get free. There’s a larger world, a world that extends back in time and forwards in time, extends up to the heavens and down to hell, and you are a link in the great chain of being, and not just some atomized individual. I have been sent by your forebears to knock some sense into your wayward skulls full of mush.

    1. I have been sent by your forebears to knock some sense into your wayward skulls full of mush.

      These would be our forebears who, less than a century ago, saw fit to have anyone and everyone except the sick, those likely to become public charges, and of course the awful Chinaman enter and live in the US without a second thought?

      I think you may have misunderstood their instructions.

      1. That’s not true MikeP. Our forebears only allowed immigrants from European countries to become citizens.

        1. “Enter and live” is not “become citizens.”

          1. Some non-Europeans were allowed to enter and live in America, but a key difference compared to now is that as non-citizens they were NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE.

  42. I once heard libertarianism described as a philosophy suited for adolescence who are protected by RESPONSIBLE adults. Notwithstanding much of your valuable contributions, I believe this article proves the comment correct. Go to the article below and tell me these are the kind of people you want “taking over” vast parts of the Southwest US and exercising influence over most other areas.

    http://www.examiner.com/immigr…..ng-w-video

  43. Re Randy|4.30.11 @ 12:31PM|

    Like I respond when people ask me about my politics: I used to vote Libertarian…’til I decided that they were crazy.

  44. Tino at Super Economy has a good answer to libertarians on why open borders is the death knell for libertarianism. In short:

    “Modern libertarianism is a self-destructive ideology. This is because the unskilled immigrant population that open borders invites is an exceptionally infertile ground for libertarian values. Consequently open borders in a democracy will automatically lead to a welfare state as the immigrants sooner or later become the majority of voters.

    To no ones surprise, rather than becoming libertarian, immigrants loyally support the Social Democratic welfare state, as their economic self interests and the political culture of their societies would predicts. In the latest Swedish election, only 43% of Swedes but 77% of non-western immigrants voted for the left (this was an unusually bad year for the left, who got 92% of the immigrant vote in 2002!). In the United States, where while only 35% of non-Hispanic whites prefer higher taxes in return for more government services, the figure is 65% for first generation Hispanic immigrants, and 66% for second generation Hispanics.”

    http://super-economy.blogspot……anism.html

    1. Consequently open borders in a democracy will automatically lead to a welfare state as the immigrants sooner or later become the majority of voters.

      The United States had open borders prior to the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era happened. QED.

      1. “The United States had open borders prior to the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era happened. QED.”

        The Progressives also launched the eugenics movement, too, didn’t they. To weed out, according to Wikipedia, “excessively large or underperforming families, hoping that birth control would enable parents to focus their resources on fewer, better children.”

        I wonder how “progressives” of that time would’ve reacted if they could’ve had present-day adoration for “diversity” and “multiculturalsim,” and all that it means, explained to them.

  45. ***The United States had open borders prior to the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era happened. QED.***

    The tendency that Tino describes of subsequent generations preferring higher taxes is more likely to occur now where you have groups with lower average levels of academic achievement. Jason Richwine discusses this below. Obviously if populations were interchangeable things would be a lot easier.

    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/…..ZiZDY4YzQ=

    1. And yet the fact that European immigrants and their descendants actually did institute a welfare state in the US apparently means lttle. Oh, and actual Europeans in actual Europe went much farther with their welfare states.

      It’s all non-westerners’ fault.

      1. No, but in supporting mass immigration, you guys are adding to the demographic power of your ‘progressive’ opponents. They are intelligent enough to see that, why aren’t you?

      2. And yet the fact that European immigrants and their descendants actually did institute a welfare state in the US apparently means lttle.

        It means something alright, but not what you think.

        Europeans immigrants and their descendants may be too collectivist, but they’re a race of Randians compared to the non-Europeans who are flooding into our country.

        Have you no understanding of the concept of choosing the lesser evil over the greater evil?

        The only hope of libertarianism rests with people of European and/or Jewish descent, that much is obvious from the polling and voting data.

        However collectivist we are, the Blacks and Mesoamericans are far worse.

  46. And yet the fact that European immigrants and their descendants actually did institute a welfare state in the US apparently means lttle. Oh, and actual Europeans in actual Europe went much farther with their welfare states.

    This is a good point. Let’s also not forget that an all white country, Russia, went beyond the welfare-state and imposed total communism. The reason for this is fundamentally ideological not racial.

    The culture is dominated by collectivist ideas of which the racialists are but one version (Larry Auster admits this openly). The welfare/regulatory state is totally made possible by an altruist ethics – an ethics which is dominant in the West because of the legacy of Christianity. In fact, the Left really is nothing more than secularized Christian ethics with god removed. They have taken the altruist and egalitarian components of Christianity and made a political religion out of it; a religion that would never have ascended if not for the Christian sentiments of a Christian culture.

    Until self-sacrifice as a moral ideal is challenged and defeated it wont matter what the racial makeup of your society is. If you were to kick every non-white person in America out right now, the Left would still gain cultural dominion and institute a welfare state. They would do it in the name of the poor and they would have the backing of the entire academy. A country will always mirror its intellectuals. Our intellectuals are almost all Leftists and they are almost all white.

    If you conservatives would oppose the welfare state and its altruist underpinnings with the same ferocity that you oppose non-white immigration, the country would be a free market paradise right now. But you don’t do this because you are Christians and to you self-sacrifice is a moral ideal; the “something above the individual” crap that you always spew. After all, Jesus sacrificed his life to save the entire species from Original Sin. With a mythological foundation like that, how on earth do you ever expect to oppose the welfare state?

    You can’t and you won’t. The only people opposing the welfare state in principle right now are libertarians, von Miseans and Randians. You conservatives are fracking useless in the war against the Left.

    Oh and Mr. Dean Ericson, you can tell that to that know-nothing “Traditionalist” guru of yours, Mr. Larry Auster.

    1. You can’t and you won’t. The only people opposing the welfare state in principle right now are libertarians, von Miseans and Randians.

      And guess the background of 99% of those libertarians?

      Their either descended from European gentiles or European Jews.

      The only opposition to the Welfare State is coming from people who are being made into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population because of mass scale non-white immigration.

      Open your eyes.

  47. “Our intellectuals are almost all Leftists and they are almost all white.”

    But there aren’t ‘almost all Christians’. In fact, many are the children or grandchildren of Jewish immigrants from the last ‘great wave’.

  48. I’m always struck hy how selfish libertarians are. While conservatives and liberals have their unattractive aspects, libertarians are the worst, starting with that third-rate philosopher they consider their goddess. Just overgrown children.

    The one fantastic thing about immigration- both legal and illegal- is that it is obliterating libertarianism. When the left is permanently in power in this country, I’ll be laughing at all the Randians as they get taxed into oblivion.

    1. You’ll be taxed into oblivion too, sour-grapes man.

      1. No, I am not a materialist, and I have no desire for money, because $30,000 in America lets one live like a king of 50 years ago. If anything, you will be subsidizing me. Thanks in advance!

  49. Libertarians pride themselves on their scientific objectivity. So let’s look at one great experiment and see how that turned out. California was once a middle of the road state that did often elect conservative Republicans to statewide office. Not pure libertarians, perhaps, but a lot closer than liberal Democrats. That will not happen again. Why? It’s the demography stupid. The once great state has now become a third world territory. But I don’t expect this to have any impact on closed minds. Many libertarians, like the Bourbons remember everything and learn nothing.

  50. ***It’s all non-westerners’ fault.***

    @ Mike P,

    No, but as Mitchell Young correctly observes, you are adding voting power to those who favor greater redistributive policies. That’s just the reality of it.

    1. Damn straight Mr. Schwartz.

      I’d dare the good Libertarians of this site to show me a picture of Ron Paul supporters with more than a token number of non-whites.

      It just can’t be done.

  51. The one fantastic thing about immigration- both legal and illegal- is that it is obliterating libertarianism. When the left is permanently in power in this country, I’ll be laughing at all the Randians as they get taxed into oblivion.

    This is a moronic statement. How is libertarianism being discredited when the god-damn country is a semi-socialist cesspool. You “Trads” are a bunch of idiots. You say Rand is a third rate philosopher. What does that make Larry Auster? Saying he’s an amoeba is too charitable.

    1. This is a moronic statement. How is libertarianism being discredited when the god-damn country is a semi-socialist cesspool.

      So you want to country to get worse so it’ll drive people to Libertarianism?

      Good luck with that, I doubt it’ll have a chance in hell of working.

      The non-whites will keep voting for the welfare state forever because they’re so collectivist as compared to the relatively individualistic whites.

    2. You clearly aren’t terribly bright, so I will try to dumb it down for you. The only racial group that will ever act in a libertarian fashion is whites (spare me anecdotes of Jose the gardener who loves Ron Paul). That of course is not to say that most whites are libertarian- they are not. But shifting the demographics of America from a white majority to a Third World cesspool is a death knell for any type of libertarian movement in this country. I’m sure this primitive, tribal sentiment offends your sensibilities, so I will just say “enjoy the future.”

  52. Libertarians pride themselves on their scientific objectivity. So let’s look at one great experiment and see how that turned out.

    Stan, you are so fucking stupid that you could only be an Austerite. What experiment was conducted in California exactly? A libertarian one? Please moron. California is the most socialist state in the union. What failed in California is not “libertarianism” but socialism/welfare-statism. Incidentally Stan, the welfare-state was entirely created by progressive CHRISTIANS. I’m willing to be that you are a Christian Stan. If you want an ideology to blame for California, why don’t you start with that ridiculous mythology known as Christianity.

    You fucking Austerites are a plague on this earth.

    1. Stan, you are so fucking stupid that you could only be an Austerite. What experiment was conducted in California exactly? A libertarian one?

      An open borders experiment was conducted in California.

      It didn’t work out so good.

    2. Mad Max – that’s cute. Yes – liberalism is built on Christianity and Christianity is built on Judaism. What’s libertarianism built on? Libertarians love to rail on and on about their close alignment with classical liberals – funny how most were Christians and deists and strong proponents of the cultural norms of the times (religious and traditional).

    3. “What experiment was conducted in California exactly? A libertarian one? Please moron.”

      Please yourself, maxidupe. California was a reasonable state until open borders fools like you imported an underclass predisposed to bribery by the leftist elites already here. The relationship between the Boxers and the Villagarosas is a symbiotic leftist one. And you open borders “libertarian” fools made that happen, like it or not.

      Moreover those Left elites weren’t and aren’t “progressive” (barf) Christians, they are “progressive” (barf) atheists and “Jews” (who haven’t seen the inside of a shul since their Bar or Bat Mitzvahs, but anyway)

  53. ***California is the most socialist state in the union.***

    And what policies do immigrants tend to support?

    “in contrast to the direction of national and state policy since at least since 1980, Latinos of all national origins report a willingness to pay additional taxes for an expansion in government programs…

    Latinos are strong partisans (see Table 11-5). Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans are strong Democrats”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19906/

  54. And what policies do immigrants tend to support?

    True libertarianism opposes those policies! I get the Hispanics vote Left and as a practical matter it is necessary to shut the borders down as we systematically create a minarchy.

    But you fucking Conservatives don’t want to end the welfare state! You don’t want a liberty oriented society. You want more Jeebus and god, family, traditions and all that other “every sperm is sacred” bullshit.

    You asshat Conservatives are in the way! If Conservatism was so fucking great, why did the Left every rise in the first place? Huh? Answer me that.

    1. Yeah, those silly conservatives always going on about family! Don’t they realize that people are just pleasure-maximizing beings who float around? What a bunch of weirdos!

      You know what a dysfunctional underclass raised by single parents is going to do? Vote themselves your money, that’s what. Remember that next time you spout some half-baked Randian bullshit.

    2. Mad MaxiPads doesn’t seem to realize that libertarianism very much depends upon those traditional values that he denigrates. Break up the traditional family? You have more criminal and more delinquent children for the nanny-state to take care of. Actions have consequences. Too many of the hipster “libertarians” here think they have the “freedom” to put anything in their mouths or up their anuses without consequence. It does not work that way, it never has worked that way, and it never will.

  55. The fact that Madmax can not respond with a reasoned argument but only with obscenity and name calling says everything. It makes me suspicious that he is in fact an agent provocateur charged with the task of discrediting the libertarian movement he claims to speak for.

  56. Dead Ericson nails it. So many libertarians are so wrapped up in their pet theory that they can’t see the inevitable demise of their own movement if some of their ideas finally hold sway.

    Frankly I don’t even understand why Libertarianism is so hung up on open borders. What good is it to build a great industry if you just leave the front door open to any knucklehead that wants to wander in?

    No matter how impressive things may seem to the kids at the quad, they mean nothing if they aren’t sustainable in the real world.

  57. Central Intelligence Agency – a self-canceling phrase

    Military Intelligence – another self-canceling phrase

    Libertarianism – a self-canceling philosophy

  58. Well, I’m a libertarian, and have had some experience in political activism, including working with immigrants. Here are some thoughts from the real world:

    * Do you think that a rancher who has land on the US-Mexican frontier has the right to use his firearms to defend his property from illegal alien trespassers? Well, maybe libertarians might, but pro-immigrant groups sure do not, and have taken legal action against self-defense groups such as Ranch Rescue. Have you considered approaching MALDEF or the SPLC on this issue and informing them that individuals can use their 2nd Amendment Rights to defend their own property?

    * The open borders position is alienating many Americans who would otherwise be interested in the LP. What have you for patriotic American property owners along the frontiers who want to defend their lands? Would you tell them that they should simply let criminal trespassers waltz on through, damaging the land and endangering livestock? This is a real question that I have had raised to me by property owners, and would like to get an answer I can give to people. (And please do not waste our time with the usual “If-we-had-a-libertarian-society-then…” type of argument. I would like an answer for the real world as it exists now, not some potential libertarian utopia.)

    * Libertarians claim that ending the welfare state would end much of illegal immigration. But it’s not just simply AFDC or foot stamps. Are libertarians planning to demand an end to affirmative action? What about Chicano studies programs? How about advocacy groups such as MALDEF or MECHA? Do you plan to tell them that collectivism is wrong and that they must dissolve themselves? How far do you plan to get with any of that?

    * The vast majority of third world immigrants will vote Democratic. Most people do not vote abstract ideology, they vote their interests, and it is in the interests of the pro-illegal immigrant sector to vote for liberal big government and collectivism (including such things as university Chicano studies programs which are centers for more immigration advocacy and more taxpayer dollars). And despite some efforts, libertarians have failed to recruit among immigrants and their supporters. If I am wrong, can anyone please show me some success in this area?

    * Open borders: does this work both way? How do you plan to work it so that an American can sashay into any country in the world without having to go through customs or border guards? Can I load up a van with civilian versions of assault rifles purchased legally in the USA, drive down to Mexico, buy a bale or two of cannabis, and then return to the USA, no questions asked? Heck, I can not even get on an airplane for legally constituted travel in the land of the free without being subjected to a de facto jail house search. Call it anarcho-tyranny, but what the libertarian position comes down to is freedom of travel for illegal aliens, and a police state regime for everyone else.

    Anyway, I would like to see these questions answered because I am out there trying to recruit people–and people are asking me these questions.

  59. Gustavo Arellano, the “Ask a Mexican” columnist, is a full blown communist leftist. You fools just don’t get it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.