Immigration

That Whooshing Noise You Just Heard Is the Sound of 22,000 Impoverished Foreigners Sighing

|

This, from Agence France Presse, is just brutal: 

US officials revealed Friday they had canceled an annual visa lottery for citizens of poor nations, after a computer program failed to make a random selection among some 20 million applicants.

"Regrettably, the results that were previously posted on this website are not valid, they were posted in error," a State Department official said, referring to the http://dvlottery.state.gov/website.

"They did not represent a fair, random selection of entrants as required by US law," he added.

Some 22,000 people, who had already been told that they could go ahead and apply for a coveted visa, have now been told that the results have been voided.

"We sincerely regret any inconvenience or disappointment," the official, who asked to remain anonymous, said.

Set up in 1994, the annual Diversity Immigrant Visa program gives workers from poor countries the chance to travel to the United States on a work visa even if they do not have any relatives or an employer in the country.

The lottery is carried out by an electronic random selection among the millions of applications received every year.

For 2012, at least 100,000 hopefuls were due to be chosen out of the 14.7 million applications, comprising a total of 19.6 million people when family members are included.

The 100,000 then have the right to apply for one of the 50,000 visas which are ultimately granted, with authorities leaving room for those who drop out of the process, or are rejected by immigration officials.

"We sincerely regret any inconvenience or disappointment." 

UPDATE: House Republicans are considering ending the diversity program altogether.

NEXT: Bin Laden Was a Narcissistic, Beard-Dyeing Porn Fan (Also a Mass Murderer)

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. Skynet never read the inscription at Ellis Island.

  2. It was supposed to be a work of fiction! Dammit! It was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint!!!

  3. If it’s good enough for God’s Final Message To His Creation, it’s good enough for the State Department.

  4. They’re better off getting a work visa from China anyway.

  5. Why are we randomly allowing people to enter ? Why are we allowing people to enter at all with 20+ million out of work ?

    The United States of America. This too shall pass.

    1. “Why are we allowing people to enter at all with 20+ million out of work?”

      You are looking at this from a zero-sum gain perspective. You seem to mistakenly believe that one person having a job must necessarily mean another person does not have a job. This may be true for THAT SPECIFIC JOB but this is not true in the larger scheme of things. More workers means a better possibility of the best person for that specific job being found. With that, it also means a more efficient operation. That means a more robust economy and thus more total employment.

      1. This country is 2 lbs of shit in a 1 lb bag.

        There’s a limit to everything. The job market is fucked. Housing is fucked. The dollar is fucked. We live in a house of cards.

        Yet we keep allowing millions to enter every year.

        Fuck you.

        1. “The job market is fucked. Housing is fucked. The dollar is fucked. We live in a house of cards. Yet we keep allowing millions to enter every year.”
          None of these problems are caused by immigrants. These problems are caused by politicians in Washington D.C. and the Federal Reserve. If you are really interested in learning about the origin of the Housing bubble read this article. http://mises.org/daily/3130 Immigrants are not the problem and restricting their entry will not in any way solve the problem.

          1. So allow all who wish to enter, legal or not, and all we need to do is make Washington stop fucking up, and it’ll be like living in Xanadu ?

            Yea. Good luck with that.

            1. If we can get government off of our backs this place would be paradise.

              Why should government be able to tell me who I may or may not hire? Can you explain that to me? Should the state of Florida have the power to force me to hire only people with a Florida driver’s license or ID Card? Why or why not?

              1. Hire or not, immigrants eventually become or give birth to citizens, who then hold power over you.

                The more heterodox a democratic society, the freer it needs to be to function with minimal oppression. That is, even if the rules are highly restrictive, in a homogeneous society the vast majority of people may be on the same page and thus not personally be affected. Once you introduce a large number of cultures, subcultures, viewpoints, ideologies, religions, etc., the number of people who are going to have their preferences constrained by law will go up quite a bit.

                We prefer to work on the “freer” side, but some people would rather prevent the emergence of a large class of citizens whose preferences would threaten the current majority’s desired way of life.

                1. The more heterodox a democratic society, the freer it needs to be to function with minimal oppression.

                  Ever think that creating conditions for greater oppression is the goal of those promoting a more heterodox society? Why would you assume that greater freedom would be the result of a more heterodox America rather than more oppression? Do US politicians strike you as being interested in promoting freedom?

                  some people would rather prevent the emergence of a large class of citizens whose preferences would threaten the current majority’s desired way of life.

                  Hell, yeah! I like my way of life. Why would I work to change it? Why would I passively accept the efforts of others to radically change the society which I find wonderful to live in and which I see as wildly preferable to other societies around the world? Why would anyone assume that new immigrants wouldn’t drag their old societies’ problems in with them especially if they are being encouraged not to assimilate under the pretense that cultural “diversity” is a good thing?

                  Incidentally, some people should read the overwhelming majority of people. You have to be an effed up cosmotarian afraid that your friends might think you’re gauche for expressing warm feelings for your country to subscribe to the idiotic notion that it doesn’t matter if American culture is changed by an influx of pandered-to immigrants from shithole countries.

                  1. Heterogeneous, right?

            2. So all we need to do to make the USA a Xanadu is impose more and more government restrictions, until there is finally enough government force to force society to be prosperous?

              I read a great book about how that line of thinking works out.

          2. Immigration does have benefits in a general sense, but one of those is undeniably that tends to lower wages on the low end of the scale. This may be great for the economy in terms of lower wages, but it can harm poor workers already here and can lead to pressure for more welfare benefits. To the extent that we value the welfare of Americans and non-Americans equally, this may be a good trade off — but most people don’t look at it that way.

            In addition, I think it is becoming clear that the importation of huge numbers of especially low-skilled people can lead to a serious political tilt in a leftward direction. (Which is of course the reason the Democrat party wants essentially unlimited immigration, both legal and illegal.) And it’s a fantasy to think we can “continue” to have a federal government of limited, enumerated powers in the face of an increasingly socialist population. So massive immigration may be great in a general economic sense, but really, really bad for libertarians in the long run.

            1. 50,000 visas won’t have much impact on either wages or politics (particularly since visa holders don’t get to vote).

    2. Nearly every one of those 20 million people could have a job tomorrow if they were willing to lower their standards.

      1. Lowering my standards to a slum and living 20 to a room isn’t acceptable.

        1. Then that’s your fucking problem that you find it unacceptable. You have no right to take that out on other people who DO find it acceptable.

          1. Really ?

            Wow.

            1. Freedom is hard! Let’s go shopping!

            2. Really?

              Yes, really. You are not entitled to a some arbitrary certain standard of living just because you want to be.

              1. Yes, really. You are not entitled to a some arbitrary certain standard of living just because you want to be.

                LOL at this load of nerd goonery. “CLEAN RUNNING WATER, MEDICINE, AND SAFE HOUSING ARE PRIVILEGES, NOT THE HALLMARKS OF A STABLE SOCIETY!!!”

                1. Clean water? The number one killer of poor people in America is obesity.

                  Think about that for a minute.

                2. “CLEAN RUNNING WATER, MEDICINE, AND SAFE HOUSING ARE PRIVILEGES, NOT THE HALLMARKS OF A STABLE SOCIETY!!!”

                  The hallmark of a stable society is one where people WORK to produce those things. They don’t expect them to be handed to them on a silver platter, you entitled piece of shit.

            3. I actually think you would be MORE likely to find a better paying job in a libertarian society, not less. It is government regulations that are holding this economy and the job market back, not immigrants.

              It is the government that is holding people back.

              1. No no no.

                Itz TEH IMMIGRENTZZZZZ!

        2. You’re living in a slum and 20 to a room because of immigrants?

        3. My daddy always told me any man who says he can’t find work ain’t lookin’ hard enough.

        4. Fucking fucked-up fuckers fucked up.

        5. It probably would be acceptable to the diversity visa recipients, so they’re not in competition with you.

      2. I’ve wondered what I would do.

        I’ve been fired and unemployed, but never for long enough to run out of savings or need to sponge off someone (other than my wife) to pay the mortgage.

        If it came down to it, would I take the night shift at 7-11 or the fryer patrol at McD’s? I’d like to think so, but until you’re up against it, you just don’t know.

        1. There’s dignity in pumping gas for other people.

          I’ve worked a number of hairnet/nametag jobs, and dug my share of ditches. Typically, the people I worked with were good. It was the customers who lacked dignity.

          1. Totally true. Just last night I watched a documentary on Netflix about some of the people who have one of the worst jobs imaginable.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNlwh8vT2NU

          2. Seriously, what the hell is it that causes some customers to be such insufferable shits? I’ve never taken a shitty day out on someone in a retail store.

      3. Tulpa|5.13.11 @ 5:01PM|#

        Nearly every one of those 20 million people could have a job tomorrow if they were willing to lower their standards.

        I used to share this sentiment, but after being unable to find work for five months, I’m starting to think otherwise. And, at least in my case, it’s not about lowering standards. I have two degrees, 16 years of work experience, and 12 years of military service, and I can’t even get hired for a minimum wage position at McDonald’s.

        I do have to take a big part of the responsibility for that though, since I decided to go back to school for yet another degree in a field that actually has high demand, so my hours available to work are limited now. Most employers prefer a more flexible schedule.

        1. And, at least in my case, it’s not about lowering standards.

          my hours available to work are limited now.

          ??????

          Restricted work hours constitute high standards. I’d expect a high IQ person to understand that.

          1. It’s a reaonable sacrifice to make for a degree in a high demand field though.

            Personally, I think it’s better to take out student loans and finish your studies faster than to work part time, unless the wages are high. For me, unless I’m getting $20-$30 per hour, the time is better spent on writing my dissertation.

            1. It’s also reasonable not to want to stand waist high in pig shit twelve hours a day.

              But if you’re not willing to do that you have no right to say you don’t have too high standards.

    3. The visa lottery is one of the few ways a poor person from another countries with no legal ties can enter the US. 20,000 visas a year is TINY. It’s a shot in the dark, but it’s still a shot. Don’t human beings everywhere deserve a chance to live the life they want?

  6. ‘Diversity Immigrant Visa?’ WTF?

    1. No crackers

      1. ^^ever so this^^

        Get some more non-whites in with no employer so that they immediately go on the public dole. Shove them into bilingual education so that they don’t learn english quickly. Let them chain migrate a dozen family members who also go on the public. And, presto! A new voting bloc.

        1. Oops. Left out the step where you teach them to demand that they be supported in preserving their culture since to do otherwise would represent discrimination, a violation of their “rights” or some other nonsense.

  7. There’s no right to come to America, Mexico, Germany, Russia or any country in the world. Immigration is a PRIVILEGE. Why is that so hard to understand? Come on libertarians, if immigration is a right why isn’t a house, healthcare, education, and a so-called “living wage” a right as well?

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. There’s no right to move to New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles or any other city in the United States. Moving from one city to another is a PRIVILEGE. Why is that so hard to understand? Come on libertarians, if moving from one city to another is a right why isn’t a house, healthcare, education, and a so-called “living wage” a right as well?

      1. Yes, it is a privilege, afforded to us by the Constitution. There’s a reason it’s not called the Rights and Immunities Clause.

    2. ILLEAGAL DONT MEAN A SICK BIRD

      1. “Warty” doesn’t mean “has a brain”.

    3. Gregory, it’s often futile explaining things to a commie like you, but here goes:

      I have a right to do business with whomever I wish, so long as that business isn’t some conspiracy to steal from or injure some third person.

      So, I have a right to contract with an airline to take me some place, regardless of whether its Saudi Arabia, or Philadelphia.

      Once there, I have a right to rent a place to live from a landlord, whether it’s in Saudi Arabia or Philadelphia.

      Once there, I have a right to enter into a contract to trade my labor for money, again regardless of whether it’s in Philadelphia or Saudi Arabia.

      Now, you may feel that a guy from Mexico magically lacks the rights that someone from New Mexico has to do these things. But that’s because you hate freedom.

      1. Who said people in Mexico don’t have the right to make contracts with Americans?

        1. The U.S. Government?!?

          You ever fill out an I-9 form?

          1. That doesn’t mean they can’t contract with Americans. They just can’t perform their end of the bargain in US territory.

            That’s like saying a violent felon’s freedom of contract is violated by laws prohibiting him from carrying a handgun, since now he can’t get a job as a security guard.

            1. Wow, so being born in Mexico is comparable to choosing to commit felonies?

              You know, Tulpa, no matter how much you profess your love for the state, it’ll never respect you in the morning…

              1. Your point-missing skills are impressive.

                1. I understand your point completely. The state justifies violating the rights of people with a history of violence by arguing that they are not to be trusted with tools that can be used to harm people.

                  YOu extend this further, arguing that therefore someone born on one side of an arbitrary line should have their rights violated, as well as the person on the other side who wishes to do business with him.

                  OF course, the person who was born on the wrong side of the line hasn’t done anything that implies they are a menace to society. But that’s merely a trifle.

                  Moreover, its not some academic point; some of the people whose rights you thing should not be respected were the jews fleeing Nazi Germany, who were sent back to their deaths by the government you worship. All because they had the wrong religion, and were born on the wrong side of the line.

                  1. It’s called an analogy, tarran. I’m not equating Mexicans with felons.

                    And of course I don’t have to scratch you very deep to unleash a torrent of ad hominem, false ad hominem at that.

                    1. Right Tulpa,

                      Let’s recap the thread shall we?
                      1) I list a bunch of contracts that people have a right to engage in under a libertarian order.
                      2) You ask who would deny them those rights.
                      3) I answer the U.S. government which explicitly bans two of those transactions for people who were born on the wrong side of a line unless they meet stringent criteria.
                      4) you then claim that’s not a violation of their rights, because they a) they can fullfil a contract on their side of the line, and compare the situation to the state refusing to allow fellons to arm themselves implying that the state can deny you rights arbitrarily for any reason at all. Note, the justification for the state denying violent felons that right is based on the argument that violent felons, having a history of aggressive violence are not to be trusted with the tools that permit them to aggress again. But you extend this further, implying that just as the government can reasonably suspend the rights of one class of people (violent felons), it can suspend the rights of other people (Mexicans) and that this is not really a rights violation at all.

                      5) I, assuming you accept the concept that people have rights, point out that you are arguing that people’s whose rights are being violated because of their past behavior justifies the violation of the rights of people who haven’t done anything wrong.

                      I should point out at this point Tulpa that my rejoinder was unfair. It was presumptuous of me to assume you believed that people inherently have rights and that you were being hypocritical.

                      6) You accuse me of not getting your point

                      7) I recap the argument I made in para 5.

                      You then claim that I am making ad-hominems and missing your analogy.

                      1) So, what specifically was your analogy? Because as far as I can tell, you are arguing that the govenrment is not violating anyone’s rights because (a) people neither have a right to guns nor freedom to contract, or (b) when the state outlaws something it’s not a violation of their rights.

                      2) What ad-hoiminem? Do you even know what it means? If I said that Tulpa makes an identical argument made by FDR and therefore we should ignore him, that would be an ad-hominem.

                      But I didn’t, did I? I just pointed out the assumptions built into your pathetic attempt at Socratic questioning.

                      Don’t get all butt-hurt because people have your number.

                    2. as the government can reasonably suspend the rights of one class of people (violent felons), it can suspend the rights of other people (Mexicans)

                      You’re stealing a base here. It has not been established that Mexicans have a right to cross the border into the US.

                      What ad-hoiminem?

                      some of the people whose rights you thing should not be respected were the jews fleeing Nazi Germany, who were sent back to their deaths by the government you worship.

                    3. You’re stealing a base here. It has not been established that Mexicans have a right to cross the border into the US.

                      No, the burden of proof is on people like you to show they don’t have a right to so something.

                      BTW, accusing you of worshipping the govenrment is not an ad hominem. It’s actually at most a fallacy of composition: Gregory up thread opposes freedom of contract, Gregory worships the state, therefore anyone who opposes freedom of contract worships the state.

                      Of course, while you have criticized the state for acting stupidly, I don’t recall reading you actually arguing that anything the state did was immoral.

                      You might want to brush up on rhetoric before throwing terms around ignorantly.

                    4. You’re stealing a base here. It has not been established that Mexicans have a right to cross the border into the US.

                      No, the burden of proof is on people like you to show they don’t have a right to so something.

                      BTW, accusing you of worshipping the govenrment is not an ad hominem. It’s actually at most a fallacy of composition: Gregory up thread opposes freedom of contract, Gregory worships the state, therefore anyone who opposes freedom of contract worships the state.

                      Of course, while you have criticized the state for acting stupidly, I don’t recall reading you actually arguing that anything the state did was immoral.

                      You might want to brush up on rhetoric before throwing terms around ignorantly.

                    5. Trying again:

                      You’re stealing a base here. It has not been established that Mexicans have a right to cross the border into the US.

                      No, the burden of proof is on people like you to show they don’t have a right to so something.

                      BTW, accusing you of worshipping the govenrment is not an ad hominem. It’s actually at most a fallacy of composition: Gregory up thread opposes freedom of contract, Gregory worships the state, therefore anyone who opposes freedom of contract worships the state.

                      Of course, while you have criticized the state for acting stupidly, I don’t recall reading you actually arguing that anything the state did was immoral.

                      You might want to brush up on rhetoric before throwing terms around ignorantly.

                    6. “Burden of proof” is kind of a meaningless concept in these sorts of first principles discussions. You posit that freedom of movement between jurisdictions is a natural right, while I view it as a privilege that comes about after mutual agreement of the jurisdictions in question. The US states made that agreement in the Constitution; the US and Canada have for the most part done the same (with some minor restrictions for paroled felons).

                      A jurisdiction that has no control over the movement of people across its borders really cannot be called sovereign in the usual sense.

                    7. You posit that freedom of movement between jurisdictions is a natural right, while I view it as a privilege that comes about after mutual agreement of the jurisdictions in question.

                      Explain to me what a jurisdiction is. How do you think they come about? Why does the organization called a jursidiction have the power to override the owner of a meatpacking plant’s hiring decisions?

                      A jurisdiction that has no control over the movement of people across its borders really cannot be called sovereign in the usual sense.

                      Interesting. Can you expound on this a little more?

                    8. Right Tulpa,

                      Let’s recap the thread shall we?
                      1) I list a bunch of contracts that people have a right to engage in under a libertarian order.
                      2) You ask who would deny them those rights.
                      3) I answer the U.S. government which explicitly bans two of those transactions for people who were born on the wrong side of a line unless they meet stringent criteria.
                      4) you then claim that’s not a violation of their rights, because they a) they can fullfil a contract on their side of the line, and compare the situation to the state refusing to allow fellons to arm themselves implying that the state can deny you rights arbitrarily for any reason at all. Note, the justification for the state denying violent felons that right is based on the argument that violent felons, having a history of aggressive violence are not to be trusted with the tools that permit them to aggress again. But you extend this further, implying that just as the government can reasonably suspend the rights of one class of people (violent felons), it can suspend the rights of other people (Mexicans) and that this is not really a rights violation at all.

                      5) I, assuming you accept the concept that people have rights, point out that you are arguing that people’s whose rights are being violated because of their past behavior justifies the violation of the rights of people who haven’t done anything wrong.

                      I should point out at this point Tulpa that my rejoinder was unfair. It was presumptuous of me to assume you believed that people inherently have rights and that you were being hypocritical.

                      6) You accuse me of not getting your point

                      7) I recap the argument I made in para 5.

                      You then claim that I am making ad-hominems and missing your analogy.

                      1) So, what specifically was your analogy? Because as far as I can tell, you are arguing that the govenrment is not violating anyone’s rights because (a) people neither have a right to guns nor freedom to contract, or (b) when the state outlaws something it’s not a violation of their rights.

                      2) What ad-hoiminem? Do you even know what it means? If I said that Tulpa makes an identical argument made by FDR and therefore we should ignore him, that would be an ad-hominem.

                      But I didn’t, did I? I just pointed out the assumptions built into your pathetic attempt at Socratic questioning.

                      Don’t get all butt-hurt because people have your number.

                    9. tarran is correct.
                      How does an accident of birth, namely the geographic location of it, have fuck-all to do with your right to engage in commerce with another human being?

                      If government can simply restrict the rights of classes of people who have done nothing to violate anyone else’s then you might as well just set up a feudal system and declare one class of people serfs and another class nobles.

                      We go have a class based society now. Citizen and illegal immigrants. And they work under very different conditions, and one exploits the labor of the other. The illegals are fulfilling the same role as the fucking peasants of 200 years ago.

                    10. As explained above to tarran, you’re not arguing for a right to engage in commerce, you’re arguing for a right to cross borders. Prohibiting contracts wherein one or both parties would have to break laws to fulfill the contract, is not a restriction on the legitimate freedom of contract.

                    11. Tulpa, surely you agree that I have a right to travel on land whose owners have given me permission to travel?

                      So why do you have a right to declare the boundry between two of these pieces of property a “border” and to declare that your declaration overrides the owners’ permissions?

                      I should point out that you are claiming the right to intervene in the transactions of others. It’s no different than you claiming, for instance that your neighbor has no right to invite people from South Carolina to work on his house.

                    12. The illegals are fulfilling the same role as the fucking peasants of 200 years ago.

                      Except for the minor detail that the immigrants are here by choice, while the peasants were bonded to the land they were born on.

                      If the immigrants don’t like the deal they’re getting here, no one’s going to chase after them if they leave.

      2. “blah, blah … Saudi Arabia … Saudi Arabia … Saudi Arabia … blah, blah”

        If another country does not recognize your rights as you understand them to be in the US, then you don’t have those rights in that other country. The rights afforded under the US Constitution are not universally accepted.

        In particular,there is no generally accepted right to freely migrate from country to country. No other country accepts the idea that there is such a right, including Mexico, so why should the US? Hating freedom doesn’t have anything to do with it. Unilaterally ignoring the idea of national sovereignty is just stupid. Not everyone plays by the same rules. Like everyone else with a utopian vision, libertarians assume that everyone in the world can be magically made to behave in the manner prescribed by them.

        1. Lots of people beat their children.

          Therefore, we shouldn’t stop beating our children because not everyone plays by the same rules?

          How, Mr. Get a Clue, does the fact that the Saudi government does not permit the freedom of religion prevent us from respecting it?

          How, Mr. Get a Clue, does the fact that the Saudi government does not permit the freedom of association prevent us from respecting it?

          There is nothing utopian to ending rights violations here at home. What is utopian, is claiming that we need to wait until everyone else does it. I can just imagine some cleric in Saudi Arabia making the exact same argument, we can’t allow foreigners to work as managers in the oil company until Americans allow us to work in their country

          I also love your assertion that national sovereignty should be respected. How the hell does that play? You just claimed that the U.S. shouldn’t permit something until the rest of the world does it. Do you even know what national sovereignty means?

          To be frank, Mr Get a Clue, you seem pretty ignorant of what libertarianism is about. So, I’ll give you a clue:
          A libertarian political order is one where the state refuses to aggress against people. That’s it. Not all the states in the world, just the one controlling the territory you are in. So all we are arguing for is the suspension of violent actions by the U.S. We argue that it’s irrelevant if Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or France, or Canada are being horribly repressive, freedom here at home is a good thing.

          Let’s do a thought experiment:
          the Indian government decides that too much food is being exported (this actually happened a few years ago). Let’s say that instead of just outlawing the practice as they did, the Indian government blew up the rice processing equipment in their harbors. Should we do the same? After all they are no longer playing by the same rules…

          The freedom to migrate to the U.S. was one of the freedoms whose defense prompted the War of Independence (it’s toward the end of the Declaration of Independence). That freedom benefits everyone, the migrants and the people living in the areas they migrate to, because free people improve their lot, and in so doing improve the lot of their neighbors. And just because the Mexican govt, the Saudi monarchy, the Japanese state, or the German govt don’t take advantage of this freedom does not mean we shouldn’t take advantage of it ourselves.

  8. http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/05/…..st_540.jpg

    Show me the borders, bitch

    1. Zoom in and look for the barbed wire, the mine fields and the military checkpoints, fudgebrain.

  9. Goddamn that’s heartbreaking. Even just applying for a Green Card is this nailbiting process where you are in total limbo until the magic mail arrives. And the lottery is so, so much worse in terms of the uncertainty. The government giveth and the government taketh away.

    They should have let those 22,000 come and do another “fair, random” lottery just to rile up the anti-immigration trolls.

    1. They should have let those 22,000 come and do another “fair, random” lottery just to rile up the anti-immigration trolls.

      Best suggestion I’ve heard on hear all day. Don’t let L4F, aka Greg Smith, hear you though. He’ll get his brother, STEVE SMITH, to rape you.

      1. *correction: best suggestion I’ve heard on here all day.

  10. “Come on libertarians, if immigration is a right why isn’t a house, healthcare, education, and a so-called “living wage” a right as well?”

    Barf… but I’ll bite anyway.

    The freedom of movement and association (ie. immigration) are legitimate rights because they exist independent of government and or coercion. The things you listed are not legitimate rights precisely because you do not have the right to another’s services or money.

    Housing – You do not have a right to a contractor’s services.

    Healthcare – You do not have a right to the doctor’s services.

    Education – You do not have a right to a teacher’s services.

    “So-called “living wage”” – You only have a right to the mutually agreed upon wages between yourself and your employer.

    You’ve made this same idiotic argument many times before. Keep on makin’ it and continue to look dumb (at least amongst libertarians, that is).

    1. +9999999999999999999

      1. Thanks PIRS, but the point is hardly ‘ground-breaking’ and worthy of such a high score. It was written for the lowest common denominators here.

        1. Sometimes it is that basic message that needs to be heard. There are some here unwilling to repeat the basics because they find it old hat. Well, there are plenty who happen upon these threads who NEED to hear that. We sometimes forget how many people do not yet even understand the basics.

          1. how about just “positive rights lol” for shorthand

          2. Even the oldtimers here need to be told again and again – different countries, different cultures, different patterns of behavior, different political perspectives, different recognized rights, ergo free flow of people across international borders is not going to happen and is a terrible idea for anyone living in a country in which most people are fundamentally content, particularly if the country shares a border with a truly disfunctional country like Mexico.

            Step outside your libertarian fantasy and look at the world as it really is.

            1. I like how MWG makes a reasoned argument and your reply is to list a bunch of words which if you squint and turn your head slightly might begin to look like premises and then proceed to draw a conclusion with not a strand of bubblegum to connect the two. You know that ‘ergo’ isn’t a magic word that makes your argument work, don’t you?

    2. To rephrase:

      Freedom of movement (including immigration) is a negative right, like freedom of speech and association. No one has to be coerced in order for you to exercise that right; all that needs to happen is for the State to keep its hands to itself.

      Positive rights like housing/healthcare/education require that someone else be coerced to provide them to you.

      1. The concept of positive liberties is the motherfuckering Space Devil.

      2. Under that formulation, property rights are positive rights.

        1. I should clarify, the right to exclusivity on your real property (ie, freedom from trespass) is a positive right.

          1. So is the right to be free of assault a positive right, then?

            1. The right to state assistance in preventing assault would seem to be.

              1. And that’s why “the right to state assistance in preventing assault” is not a right.

                Indeed, consider that the state actively assaults those who try to transport, house, or employ unapproved migrants as well as the migrants themselves.

                The actual right you have in this regard is for the state, as well as every other human actor, not to assault you as a peaceable migrant or his associate — a right the state abrogates incessantly.

                1. Those who aid criminals do not have a right to be left alone by the state.

                  And really? You don’t think that equal protection of the law demands that the state assist you in defending your life and limb, to whatever extent that is possible?

                  1. We, or at least I, am debating the very definition of “criminal”. Indeed, helping someone who is not legitimately a criminal evade persecution by the state for those non-criminal acts is usually considered noble.

                    And “equal protection of the law” is, similarly, far down the chain from the first principles of individual rights.

                    Rights are primary. Laws recognize and secure those rights. States execute and prosecute those laws. States that are in some sense fairer than other states execute and prosecute those laws equally across the populace.

                    That fourth level is not a primary right. It is the pragmatic (“to whatever extent that is possible”) result of a society’s attempt to protect the primary right, but it is not the right itself.

                    1. A right means diddly squat if there’s no state to back it up.

                    2. I should add that state recognition of a right also affords protection from prosecution for actions one takes defending one’s own right. But again, in the absence of a state, this would be irrelevant.

                      So, to recap, rights without a state == angels dancing on pinheads.

                    3. Yes, some of us have this odd idea that there might be a right and wrong separate to enforcement.

                    4. That’s a useful belief, but unfortunately out in the real world it’s irrelevant. If right and wrong actually had sui generis force in the real world, then we wouldn’t ever need to defend our rights.

                    5. And if defending our rights defines them there’s no good reason to defend them. ‘I’ll go to jail,’ is a good reason not to murder someone. ‘Murder is wrong,’ is at least as good a reason.

                    6. There’s plenty of people for whom the first reason is the only one that matters.

                    7. Well, now you’re just ignoring the argument. Your claim is that rights don’t matter if they’re not defended. My point is that even if they’re not defended, it’s still wrong to murder people – and the reason it’s wrong is because we have a right not to be murderered. So when libertarians claim it’s wrong for the government to violate the rights of citizens or non-citizens, your reply appears to amount to ‘tough shit’.

        2. Not sure I agree. Protection against trespass in my mind is the same as protection against censorship by private actors. They both use government force to protect an existing negative right, but the right existed before government was there to protect it for you.

          Can you explain how I am wrong?

          1. You can reformulate any negative right as positive and vice versa by clever manipulation of words, as I unwittingly did above with “freedom from trespass” vs. “right to state help in excluding others from your property”.

            I don’t buy that property rights are inherent human rights, anyway. They’re only a useful fiction as far as I can tell.

        3. Under that formulation, property rights are positive rights.

          No. The protection by the state of property rights may be a positive right — better termed a privilege or entitlement. But the property rights precede and preexist the state and the state’s recognition of them.

          Property rights exist. States are, according to the founders of the US, instituted and chartered to secure those rights. But the securing is not the right.

          1. But the property rights precede and preexist the state and the state’s recognition of them.

            Explain how this is possible.

            Property rights exist. States are, according to the founders of the US, instituted and chartered to secure those rights.

            1. Dec of Ind is not a binding legal document. The Founders also thought slavery was way cool, so argumentum ad Founderum ain’t gonna fly.

            2. And it doesn’t mention property rights anyway.

            1. Explain how this is possible.

              It’s pretty much the definition of individual rights. You have your individual rights whether or not a state even exists. And the whole purpose of the state is to secure those rights. Thus the rights preexist and precede the state.

              Do you really believe your individual rights change when you travel from the US to Mexico? Or from the US to the ungoverned ocean? Or when you change citizenship? Or when you renounce all citizenship?

              Dec of Ind is not a binding legal document.

              Fortunately, I’m not trying to make a legal argument.

              You are the one who keeps bringing the government into play before recognizing exactly what it is the government should be doing.

              1. It’s pretty much the definition of individual rights.

                Individual rights need not include property rights. Indeed, it’s a tad counterintuitive to say that my individual rights allow me to coerce other individuals who step over an imaginary line….indeed this seems contradictory to the beloved individual right to freedom of movement, no?

                Yes, yes, I know property rights seem to be an integral part of individual rights because they’re so deeply rooted in our culture — and indeed they are a very useful thing for encouraging the creation of wealth. But the right to coerce those who enter your property is clearly a positive right.

                1. Individual rights need not include property rights.

                  Property rights are exclusive rights to control. If you have the exclusive right to control your own body, you have property rights over your own body. If you don’t, then no individual rights can exist. So, yes, individual rights necessarily include property rights.

                  1. Using your idiosyncratic definition of property rights, I would rephrase my criticism as “property rights need not extend to anything outside one’s body.”

                    1. Well, for one thing the body is already external matter – the skin is a magical layer where rights stop. But on top of that I’m sure you know why libertarians argue that ownership of one’s body means that you can become owner of external matter, because no doubt you’ve read your Nozick.

                    2. Nozick must have made one hell of an argument. Too bad no one else can repeat it, apparently.

                    3. It’s the labour theory of appropriation. It’s repeated all over the place.

              2. Fortunately, I’m not trying to make a legal argument.

                In that case you’re just appealing to the authority of the Founders.

                1. No I am not. I am simply making the same argument they are and I assumed a shared cultural understanding that would preclude my entirely replicating their logic for you.

                  Perhaps that was a bad assumption.

                  Or perhaps I should have said “as noted by the founders of the US” rather than “according to the founders of the US.”

                  1. What argument did the Founders make?

                    I hope it’s not that Lockeian mixing labor with land bullshit, because (a) that argument is rife with question-begging, and (b) that’s not how property is claimed or acquired in the real world. If I start planting beets in Central Park, I’m going to get a court citation, not a property deed.

                    1. Well, to be fair Central Park is already cultivated. And replying to a libertarian argument with ‘well, the government disagrees’ is the stupidest thing imaginable.
                      How is the lockean labour argument ‘rife with question-begging’?

      3. What I always find astonishing (but unsurprising) in opinions like the comments to the Guardian story from today’s Morning links about the EU reinstating border controls is how so many people get the idea of the free movement of people, but go nuts over the idea of the free movement of private property.

        1. Ugh… I looked through the comments. All I can say is… barf.

  11. My wife got a green card through one of those lotteries.

    That’s how I know she married me for love.

    1. Good for you! Congrats!

    2. Lucky bastard. I had to go through the hellish fiance visa process for my wife.

      I always complain about that, but thinking about it now, it’s really one of the main things that got me looking at libertarian ideas in the first place.

      1. And the process you went through is the easy one. It’s such a shame how the INS has dragged our country down.

        1. That’s true. If I’d married her before hand, the process would have taken even longer.

          1. The worst is the employment sponsorship. Holy Fuck. The entire process is completely rigged by labor interests to prevent people from ever finishing it. You have to prove to the satisfaction of the Labor Department that NO Americans can do the same job. It’s a process that takes several years, and as a result it’s nearly impossible to get an approval unless the candidate has an advanced degree, or a BS and several years experience PRIOR to entering the US. Plus the fact that hardly any employers are going to put up with that bullshit unless they’re really desperate.

            1. You’re right. I was talking about visas involving relationships.

  12. Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin.

    1. A pseudorandom number generator does not introduce bias relative to the characteristics of the individuals.

      Put another way, a PRNG isn’t more likely to select an Ecuadorian than an Argentinian, as long as the assignment of numbers to applications is not based on national origin.

  13. Lottery seems to me to be the wrong mechanism to award visas. If other visas need to be expanded, fine, but I am not in favor of selecting immigrants randomly. If House Republicans kill it, I say good riddance.

  14. I like the title … and I sighed a hundred times — I think I make up for at least 5% of the whooshing noise people heard today.

    To think that my 10 days of planning and cancellation of trips +++++ – were for nothing … I don’t know how much time it is going to take me to get back to normal … and feel slightly stupid for fully depending on it.

    1. I had a pal in Russia whose permanent resident status got rescinded a week after he arrived because one of his distant relatives was in a Russian prison for laundering money.

      Fucking sucked for him.

  15. Sorry but I was laid off almost a year ago and my husband got his notice 3 weeks ago. We live in Philadelphia and there is nothing, nothing. So forgive me if I can’t get all worked up about this.

    I’m not against immigration in the least but sheesh, do you expect me to get worked up over every denied visa? We’re dying out here. And you’re every bit as clueless as the politicians you excoriate.

    1. Do you understand what a “non sequitur” is, Jeanne?

    2. Slap the Enlightened! took a shit in Philadelphia one.

  16. This is the best goddamn news I’ve heard all week! Suck it up, Enlightened Cosmopolitans?!

      1. “The American Third Position exists to represent the political interests of White Americans.”

        As though those are somehow different from non-white Americans? This is just as absurd as Al Sharpton’s schtick. No, I am no fan of Al Sharpton but replicating his tactics will help noone.

        1. I should have made myself more clear. A3P is the site you’re sent to if you click on Slap the Enlightened!’s handle.

          1. Thank you for the clarification.

      2. Well, I never! How dare those uppity white people exercise their right to organize in pursuit of their political interests! Where do they think they live – in a free country or what?

        You can tell who’s winning the debate by the direction the converts are moving in. I know lots of nationalists that were formerly libertarians (some of the better looking ones, at that!), but I don’t know know a single libertarian that was formerly a nationalist. Looks like you Enlightened Cosmopolitans? are taking on water fast! Good riddance!

        1. “Well, I never! How dare those uppity white people exercise their right to organize in pursuit of their political interests! Where do they think they live – in a free country or what?”

          You’re absolutely right. We do live in a free country. However, when you associate yourself to a group which promotes racial purity and fascism you can expect a lot of people to say your full of shit.

          “You can tell who’s winning the debate by the direction the converts are moving in. I know lots of nationalists that were formerly libertarians (some of the better looking ones, at that!), but I don’t know know a single libertarian that was formerly a nationalist.”

          Oooh, you know some libertarians who became nationalist. Sounds definitive.

  17. lol, kinda crazy when you think about it.

    http://www.anon-toolz.se.tc

  18. UPDATE: House Republicans are considering ending the diversity program altogether.

    That’s a good idea, because

    The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS (Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection)
    is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differentials may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance.

    But since most reasonoids – in common with about 90% of the general populace – don’t “believe” in genetics or biological evolution, please feel free to laugh at those very naughty ideas.

    1. Maybe we just don’t recognise the government’s right to forcefully secure the quality of the gene pool? Also, there are those of us who see IQ less as an accurate measure of how intelligent you are, and more or an accurate measure of how good you are at IQ tests.

    2. I’m more inclined to think that immigration is a process that selects for higher IQs, while social welfare and protection from competition is ac process that selects for lower ones.

      So if we stop letting in the smart motivated foreigners, we just breed more stupid fat lazy Americans.

    3. You know who else tried to build the perfect race?

  19. Lowering my standards to a slum and living 20 to a room isn’t acceptable.

  20. WTF, rats-with-fuzzy-tails?

    Lowering my standards to a slum and living 20 to a room isn’t acceptable.

    INDIAAAAAAAAAA!!1111111

    It’s early. I’ll DRINK! later.

  21. As someone who has been througfh the immigrations system, they should ABSOLUTELY let every single one of those people get a green card. Fuck it if it wasn’t 100% random. That’s totally stupid.

    This is sort of like a University sending an acceptance letter to someone and then going “oops, wait, we accepted you in error!”

    How much of a burden is it to let these people get their visas?

    1. Only 50% of the people selected in the lottery would have gotten visas anyway. The lottery only gives them the option to apply.

      1. So they should still let them go ahead with the process.

        1. That’s probably against the law. In a better world, Congress would pass a bill granting an exception, but we all know how that would go.

    2. Boalt Hall did that, and no one forced them to admit everyone they mistakenly sent letters to.

      Wow libertarians are plain DUMB about immigration.

  22. To sum up:

    1. Bin Laden is dead.
    2. Europe, the only continent ever to implement open borders, is forced to acknowledge the idea is a cluster-fuck and close them again.
    3. Congress considers eliminating the Diversity visa.
    4. 22,000 Impoverished Foreigners will not be exporting their poverty to the United States.
    5. Mike Riggs is crying as though his purse had been snatched.

    All in all, it’s been a damned good week!

    1. #4 makes you a truly disgusting creature.

      We red-blooded born in the USA long form birth certificate recipients have done more to impoverish ourselves and our descendants for 7 generations, than a few thousand immigrants could possibly hope to do.

      1. Who’s “we”, Kimosabe?

        1. You slappy. You and your ilk.

          A long time ago, I posted a rejoinder to David Duke. Here’s the bit that applies to freedom-haters like yourself:

          How the Racists Betrayed America
          If one looks at the Supreme Court position on the Constitutionality of these laws, one finds that the impetus behind the oldest variants of these laws, the situations that often established the constitutionality of them, was a racist one.

          The first gun-control laws were meant to keep freed black men from owning guns. The original excuse for the drug war was hysteria concerning white women having sex with black jazz musicians. The first laws abridging freedom of the press where intended to enforce ‘community’ standards, including laws against agitating for suffrage of blacks. The laws forcing people to not discriminate based on race are found to be a legitimate function of government based entirely on the same ‘power’ that permitted laws that forced people to discriminate whether they wanted to or not.

          However, Mr. Duke, you are right in claiming that your views are far more closely aligned with those of the founding fathers than mine. Some, like Benjamin Franklin, were even more hardcore than you, with his opposition to permitting “ruddy-complexioned” Germans from immigrating to the U.S. This is not to their or your credit. Where the principles of the Declaration of Independence were betrayed, the motivation was generally a racist one. In past generations, white Americans were quite willing to betray or give up the freedoms hard-won by their ancestors rather than extend them to black people, Chinese people, Mexicans or Filipinos.

          After the damage wrought to American society by your intellectual forebears, the thorough manner in which they undermined the principles of liberty in this country, I can’t get worked up about Mexicans coming here. Even if they were socialists, they are hardly worse than the native socialists, mercantilists and segregationists who betrayed the principles that our ancestors fought the American Revolution for.

          Honestly, if you weren’t voting for laws that would affect me and my family, I would love to watch you guys mire yourselves in poverty by denying yourselves access to the best and the brightest from the rest of the world.

          1. We’re denying ourselves access to the best and the brightest? The majority of our immigration is coming from Mexico and Central America. How many Nobel Prize winners, how many significant inventions, how many founders of major corporations have come from there?

            *Sound of crickets chirping*

            That’s what I thought…..

            1. ROFL. You really are a moron, aren’t you?

              Slappy, how do you know which nationalities invented what inventions were invented in the U.S.? I happen to know that one of the guys behind the USB standard is from India. However, I’ll bet you have no idea of the nationality of the other guys and just assume they are white Americans. I used to work for a telecom co. The head of operations was South American. If you had seen her name, however, you would have assumed she was Italian (the Mexicans of the 1900’s).

              That’s the beauty of freedom; where someone comes from is irrelevant, they rise or fall based on merits (and luck of course). Of course, you confuse the fact that the nationalities aren’t being broadcast for the assumption that they must all be whatever nationality you consider yourself.

              But hey, keep telling yourself you’re winning the arguments. It’s funny watching you flail around.

              1. Slappy, how do you know which nationalities invented what inventions were invented in the U.S.?

                It ain’t rocket science.

                You ducked the question. How many Nobel Prize winners, how many significant inventions, how many founders of major corporations have come from Central America?

                And no, another one of your Aspergeresque rants about rights isn’t an answer.

                1. Should read, ” how many significant inventions, how many founders of major corporations have come from Central America or Mexico?”

                  1. Oh dear, I guess I answered your question in a way that was too complicated for you to understand, slappy.

                    I’ll dumb it down even further:
                    I don’t know because it’s not something that people track. People don’t track it because it’s not important.

                    However, based on my experiences in various industries, I would expect that the answer is between .5 % and 5% of successful businesses in the U.S. are started by people from Central America.

                    BTW, slappy, how many Nobel Prizes in your family? have you started any major corporations?

                    1. I don’t know because it’s not something that people track. People don’t track it because it’s not important.

                      Considering that I linked to an article that discussed a study that tracked exactly that, I’d have to say I’m not the one here who needs the dumbing down.

                      And to whom would it not be important? I’d have to guess to those to whose advantage it is that the facts not be known.

                    2. ROFL

                      Slappy, you think that article explains anything? You are a moron! Dude, do us Americans a favor and deport yourself somewhere. But, as a favor to “nationalists worldwide” don’t dumb down anyone else’s nation.

                      Have you considered moving to a desert island? You could then be the smartest most capable person in your country.

                      BTW, it’s not business acumen that matters in making the utilitarian case for more or less immigration. It’s actually scores playing Angry Birds. If you weren’t so mindnumbingly stupid, you’d know that.

    2. “Europe, the only continent ever to implement open borders, is forced to acknowledge the idea is a cluster-fuck and close them again.”

      All that racial mixing, right Slappy?

        1. You associate with A3P, but I’m the angry one.

  23. Here’s another question for the open borders crowd: do you support still having border checkpoints to run background checks on foreigners entering the US, to exclude terrorists and such?

    If no, props for being consistent but you’re a lunatic.

    If yes, you must also support erecting similar checkpoints at state (and possibly county) borders in the US, as to do otherwise would constitute discrimination against foreigners. Why should their freedom of movement be restricted by background checks when people who by accident of birth were born in the US can travel anywhere they want without ever getting a background check?

    1. No. Now show I’m a lunatic.

  24. http://www.fivefingersoutlet2011.com

    five fingers outlet 2011,vibram five fingers,five finger,vibram fingers,vibram,5 fingers,vibram 5 fingers

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.