Has the GOP Abandoned Ronald Reagan's Legacy on Immigration?


Writing at National Review, Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute argues that today's Republicans have betrayed Ronald Reagan when it comes to the issue of immigration:

In April 1980, when Ronald Reagan was competing in the presidential primaries, he rejected the building of a wall between the United States and Mexico: "Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit — and then while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems."

If a Republican presidential candidate said such a thing today, he or she would suffer withering criticism for being soft on illegal immigration. Instead, we hear Reagan's successors talk about implementing national ID cards, imposing intrusive regulations on the labor market, raiding farms, factories, and restaurants, and harassing small-business owners trying to survive in this tough economy, all in the name of chasing away hard-working immigrants.

Read the whole thing here. Reason Reason on immigration here.

NEXT: The Obama Administration Puts Its Historic Commitment to Fighting Medicare Fraud on Hold

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. OT: http://freethoughtblogs.com/bl.....-movement/

    It's official, libertarians are responsible for the depraved desires of some atheists who wish to anal-rape a 15 year old girl.

    1. Libertarians, or as some commenters described them, "Randian douchebags".

      But, to be fair, I've never heard James Randi advocate such behavior.

      1. But, to be fair, I've never heard James Randi advocate such behavior.

        He "plays" for the other Team! NTTAWWT

        1. That one really surprised me. I figured Randi was banging chicks, left and right. Nope, gay.

          1. I was not surprised by that. He always gave off a bit of an Andrew Sullivan vibe only without the insanity.

            1. My gaydar is weak. I was even somewhat (though nowhere near as much as with Randi) surprised when Takei came out.

    2. She sounds like a really fun person to hang out with.

      1. No, just a really, really annoying and unattractive woman.

      2. I had just gotten out of a long relationship and needed something to pass the time in the void known as singledom.

        It's not a void, sunshine, it's a way of life for some people...

    3. I couldn't get to that part. My mind really shut off after a few sentences. What the hell is she talking about?

    4. Article summary and comments: Harpy feminists are harpy.

    5. I tried to read it. Really, I did, but I involuntarily plucked my eyes out of my head after a paragraph.

      What the fuck was she complaining about?

      1. I can't get through it either. Can't keep my mind from wondering.

        1. Can't keep my mind from wondering.

          Wondering what?

      2. Men are pigs when they male:female ratio drops below a certain level.

        One woman committed the crime of saying "I love you guys, don't change".

        Of course, as Kissinger observed, the fighting is so bitter because the stakes are so little.

        1. I thought that was Churchill who said that.

          1. Could be: the vicious warmongers are starting to blend together. 😉

            1. Churchill was not a war monger. Standing up to Hitler is not war mongering.

              1. There's more to Churchill than standing up to Hitler (and handing Eastern Europe to Hitler's co-conspirator Stalin).

                There's his idea of having the RAF using poison gas on civilians in Iraq. His secretive mobilization of the British Navy in the run up to WW-I that escalated the conflict. His strategy of gaining England allies by using plots and stratagems to embroil neutrals in the conflict.

                As a kid Winnie loved playing with toy soldiers. He never outgrew that childish pursuit, much to the detriment of the world.

                1. If he hadn't mobilized the Navy early, they would have never gotten the BEF to France. And the French would have lost at the Marne and probably the entire war.

                  And he didn't escalate the conflict nearly as much as the Germans who demanded France hand over half of their country as security against attack and invaded France and Belgium.

                  And yeah, England was in a fight for its life. They tried to get other countries on their side by any means they could. So what?

                  1. There is Gallipoli. It's actually quite remarkable that Churchill was able to rehabilitate himself after that fiasco.

                  2. England wasn't in a fight for its life in WWI.

                    They were in a fight for their worldwide hegemony, which they lost within 2 generations anyway.

                    1. They should've just given it to us while they had it to give, then criticized all of our moves loudly in their superior British way, which would have more credibility, as they would've ceded power while still on top of things.

                    2. onetime I saved a penny a day for a whole year and when I broke my piggybank I had a whole 31 cents.

                    3. They were in a fight to keep a balance of power in Europe. England never did have world wide hegemony. It was certainly a mistake for England to bail out France. What did they are if Germany ruled Europe?

                    4. It's really not the UK's fault. The kaiser decided dominating Europe and the German colonies wasn't enough--he had to challenge British dominance of the seas, thus threatening the British economy. Which started escalating the whole mess.

      3. I'll give you a hint: The word "privilege" is mentioned 13 times in the article and comments.

        1. ATHEIST GAZE

          1. ATHEIST GAZE

            That seems homophobic.

        2. I also like how they reacted when someone introduced the word "mansplaining".

          1. The standard fall-back position: The designated "oppressed" in any scenario cannot ever be considered in an oppressor role. Unless they confess to the venal crime of not being a liberal.

        3. Earl Mcbakersfield says:
          January 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM
          Looks like Mallorie had too much privilege, and is now excommunicated. A Judas 'gina. An honorary misogynist.

          1. That is exquisite

      4. I think what she's really bitching about was the fact that a girl is having fun hanging out with boys and that makes her a gender traitor, of course. (Honestly the more I think about it, the more it seems like so many of the feminists' complaints are really just issues left over from feeling left out in high school. And Lord knows there's no one they'd rather get revenge on than the popular girl.)

        1. Is that why you hang around this particular sausage fest?

          brb gotta go squat kthxbye

          1. By number of posts written by someone who at least claims to be a woman, these comment sections are actually predominantly female.

            1. "By number of posts written by someone who at least claims to be a woman, these comment sections are actually predominantly female"

              You need to look up what predominantly means so you stop misusing it like you did there.

        2. Gender traitor. Just the thought of it makes my eyes roll painfully. We're the same species, you know.

          1. If you look at something like Jezebel, you'll find there is no one they attack more viciously than women they see as betraying the feminist movement. Way to reinforce that old stereotype about women being bitches to one another, ladies.

            1. The really nutty feminists I think would be happier if men starting actively oppressing women again. Like no vote, no jobs, that sort of thing.

              I wonder what they think about gay being the new black? That must piss them off.

              1. I wonder what they think about gay being the new black? That must piss them off.

                Why do you think so many women talk about "my gay friends" like they're a personal accessory, akin to their handbag collection?

                1. So, in the future, when womyn have perfected parthenogenesis and have slaughtered most men in their sleep, they'll keep gay men as slaves? Is that their plan?

                  1. Already been done, ProL.

                    1. Dude. . .that's not real. Not like TOS.

              2. The really nutty feminists I think would be happier if men starting actively oppressing women again. Like no vote, no jobs, that sort of thing.

                Wanna know how to make a feminist really mad? Tell her you're happy that womyn are finally earning more than men.

        3. They must hate you Dagny since you drink stouts and are therefore falling into the trap of the patriarchy. Or does that make you more accepted than a womyn that drinks cosmos.

          Fuck, I can't figure their no true feminist tests very well.

          1. I have to say, after years of reading feminist blogs... there is no one they hate more than "guy's girls." Any woman who does not share their base mistrust and hatred of men is either the victim of the most insidious form of false consciousness or an out-right gender traitor.

            1. You know, I just realized that everything you do is exactly the kind of stuff a fat lesbian would do. Is there something you're not telling us, Ms. MutraSweet?

              1. Hint: SugarFree is engaged to Michelle Rounds.

                1. So, Sudden, something like this?

            2. I'm more inclined to believe feminists and Jezebel hangers-on have a hate-on for women whom guys want to hang out with (that is, attractive and fun women). They don't ostracize men as patriarchal pigs until those men have spent at least a decade rejecting and avoiding them because they look like Andrea Dworkin, sound like a suicide hotline, and smell like old cheese.

              It's bitterness and jealousy. They don't hate "gender traitor" girls because the girls are gender traitors, but because the girls have the male company and appreciation that they'll never have.

              1. Well, yeah. I mean who could seriously call someone a "gender traitor" with a straight-face? 5%? They hate what they cannot have and who they cannot be. Which is a self-created problem. If they got the stick out of the stick in their ass and realized that very little of what anyone says has any seriousness behind it, they could be the women they are so jealous of. Even over-weight or otherwise unattractive women will be accepted as long as they don't launching into a hectoring rant about every boob joke.

        4. I think what she's really bitching about was the fact that a girl is having fun hanging out with boys and that makes her a gender traitor, of course.

          In the war on men, feminists need all the help they can get.

        5. I think that's part of it, but there is of course the pretty standard outrage that men thought sexual thoughts and then voiced them without permission from the appropriate feminist authorities.

    6. Didn't know that Jerry Sandusky was an atheist. Nor Father Murphy times what, a hundred other priests?

      1. I would hazard to guess a few priests are cynical enough to be atheists. And certainly the ones who were butt fucking ten year olds probably were not too sure if there was really any risk of punishment after this life.

        1. Maybe they were thinking that they could receive forgiveness for their crimes sometime after the butt-rape ended but before death?

          1. Maybe. Or they were thinking that they were really doing the kid some good. It was just sex after all. Whatever they were doing, it is pretty clear they were not taking their vows or professed beliefs particularly seriously.

        2. The thought process behind sin can be astoundingly confusing. My roommate freshman year was an arch-Catholic who was engaged before arriving at college. By the end of the year we learned that she was pregnant (with his kid). They had been hooking up during their (infrequent) visits I asked him why they didn't just use protection. He said it was against his religion. I thought "I'm pretty sure sex outside of marriage is too," though I didn't say it. He dropped out that year to marry her - being married or having a dependent child is not allowed there.

          Anyway, the point is that people justify things oddly, even in the face of clear religious guidance that they accept as valid. I don't know what was going on in those priests' heads, but they probably had some sort of rationalization that made sense to them in a religious context. Of course, some were probably apostates just going along for the ride.

    7. "It's official, libertarians are responsible for the depraved desires of some atheists who wish to anal-rape a 15 year old girl.

      Libertarians are responsible for everything that has gone wrong since Adam bit the apple. Everyone knows that.

    8. puckmalamud says:
      January 3, 2012 at 7:29 AM
      I know this is a total side note, but can I just make a request that we STOP EQUATING GENITALS AND GENDER?

      Are we seriously still doing this? Do you honestly believe that the only women who are experiencing misogyny are the ones who have vaginas?


      1. hahahaha oh god I hope that is real and not a troll

      2. Dude, that just blew my mind. Like *blam*...

      3. Oh, that's not a joke. You are what you say you are to them. Bearded, no estrogen, hung dick like a deranged god... but if I sincerely considered myself a women, they would consider me to be one.

        Which is an admirable attitude until they are all for forcing other people to be as tolerant as they are.

    9. tl;dr. That was way too much hyperventilating stoopid to wade through for the punch line.

    10. Jen McCreight is a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist who recently escaped Indiana for Seattle

      Oh shit...

      1. Looks like new wife time for Paul!

        1. I converted my ex-wife from full-on vegetarian to unrepentant meat eater in less than 12 months. I'm not sure I can do it a second time.

      2. Geeky and nerdy? Scientific, too? She might be trying a bit too hard there.

        1. Yeah, that's pretty much the goon's equivalent of "Look at my brand-new monster truck!"

    11. Again, straw man. No one is saying all men are evil misogynistic assholes

      Take Alan Alda and Phil Donahue! They're not misogynistic assholes.

    12. This has what to do with Reagan's legacy on immigration?

    13. This has what to do with Reagan's legacy on immigration?

    14. Maybe someone can mansplain to her that not every atheist is a freethinker. Certainly, anyone with skin that thin is probably not one, since it takes a little bit of mental and emotional fortitude.

  2. Mexicans are our new communists.

    1. We are all Mexicans now.

      1. Woman is the Mexican of the world.

        1. What does that make Salma Hayek?

          1. Half-Lebanese


            2. You know who else was half-Lebanese?

              1. Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world? ($63 billion)

                1. I was going to go with Helen Thomas but on closer inspection it seems both her parents were from Lebanon.

                  1. A picture so terrible Reasonable won't show it inline. Wow.


      1. "NEW YORK CITY!?!"

        Which tickles me since, IIRC, Pace got bought out a decade or so ago by a company based out of NYC.

  3. When talking about "illegal immigrants", the only thing most GOPer's hear is the word "illegal". To them, that means a law was broken, and the law is the law. It never seems to register that the "illegal" is only guilty of tresspassing, and of a political kind at that.

    1. So, rather than make laws that real human beings can comply with in a real world, we should just look the other way? I disagree. Change the law to something that has a real chance of working; something that doesn't doom workers to living second-class-not-quite-citizens lives because they want to work on this side of that imaginary line.

      1. What a great idea! I'm surprised no one has thought of it.

        Can you get around to it when you have the time? I'm busy at work today.

      2. Actually, I was just pointing out that many GOPer's talk about illegals as if they are some sort of criminal monsters instead of mere tresspassers. It's this attitude I was addressing. And it's this attitude that I think hurts any debate on the issue, because some GOPer's are looking at it as a serious crime issue.

      3. Brett, mestizos come to America as it is in their self-interest to do it. The obvious and corresponding question then is, Is it in our self-interest to allow mass mestizo immigration? If the answer to that question is "no", and I submit it is rather obvious, then of course a way can be found to see to, if need be, their total repatriaion, much less keeping any more from getting in.

        Now, a bonus question for you: Where is it written in the stars that we ought prefer the self-interest of mestizos over our own self-interest? I think you will be hard pressed to affirm that it is so written.

        1. Where is it written in the stars that your "we" and "our" is the same as my "we" and "our" or that "we" and "our" should have unalienable individual rights that "them" and "their" do not have.

    2. "Illegal is a transparent code word for "filthy Mexican."

      1. If it's transparent, that has to be the worst secret code ever.

  4. Also, will Ronald Reagan HURRY UP AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY?!!
    I've had it with the RR worship. Enough already.

    "He's dead, Jim..."

    1. RR the fiscal conservative. How much did the debt go up during his term?

      RR the small government guy. How many departments did he cut?

      RR the lover of liberty. Didn't the war on drug users and militarization of police escalate under his watch?

      RR the hero... NOT!

        1. No kidding. The Soviet Union would have almost certainly, probably, possibly collapsed eventually.

          1. And that merits hero worship decades later for all things utterly unrelated. Of course.

            Now run along and play with the other children, FMG.

            1. Do you even remember a single day before Reagan became President? Were you even alive?

          2. I used to buy the theory that RR caused a race to bankruptcy that the USSR won, but after talking with people who lived there at the time I'm not so sure.
            And even if it is true, it still does not take away from the fact that Mr Fiscal Conservative rang up all that debt, that Mr Small Government grew the government, and that Mr Liberty was an enemy of freedom.

      1. T0 be fair, there was that whole "freeing Eastern Europe from Communist slavery" thing.

        1. Dude, that was, like decades ago. Some of those people are not even alive anymore.

          1. A lot of them talk funny, too. Seriously, have you ever tried understanding Polish? It's wicked tough.

    2. Whatever Reagan's merits or demerits are, few in today's GOP would even know. He is more of a totem than anything; kind of like the skull of Old Major in Animal Farm.

  5. As I posted this morning in the AM Links:

    What I find intersting is that in the film A Touch of Evil, made in 1958 that is set on the US/Mexico border, one of the main charcaters marvels that the US and Mexico share a 1,700 mile open border,

    As recently as 19-fucking-58.

    So what I want to know is what happened between 1958 and today that put an end to the open border policy, which I don't recall being problematic.

    1. That was just on the other day! I remember that line.

      Plus how young Charlton Heston was. He made a pretty convincing Sr. Vargas.

      "BURRITOS! SOYLENT GREEN IS...BURRITOS!!!" Line cut from the original film...

      1. Yup. Good film. Kinda felt like it was a template of sorts for No Country for Old Men. Not the plot line, just the feel. Those Coen boys borrow from everything.

        And correction, it: Touch of Evil" not "A" Touch of Evil.


        1. Yeah, the "upward" filming was what I noticed in "Touch" - the whole movie was spooky. The Coens used that type of shot more in "Blood Simple" than "No Country" IIRC.

          Yep - ole Orson's a pretty good fimster, but them Coen boyz sure do make good movies, too.

          1. I like Touch of Evil. Little known fact--Orson wasn't actually quite Fat Orson yet. That's a fat suit.

            1. Really? I did not know that.

              1. I believe he was portly/fat even then, just not that fat. It was supposedly before he "let himself go."

    2. [ahem]


  6. My recollection of the Reagan days is that it was the Democrats who wanted strict immigration laws, because the unions claimed that immigrant workers were driving down wages, and accused the Evil Big Business Republicans of wanting the flood the country with cheap labor. I am not sure when and why the parties flipped on this issue.

    1. See also, "Equal Rights" c. 1870-1960's-ish.

    2. Because the Dems didn't wanna cede the brown vote to the GOP, and the GOP realized that the Dems wanted to bring in a vast underclass to wash their Mercedes' and increase wait times at Emergency Rooms.

    3. The power base changed. Unions became a greater minority and Hispanics became a greater pool for the neolibs to pander to. The neocons then turned around and decided to counter with some pandering to xenophobic sentiment.

      1. Unions didn't become a greater minority so much as the sectors that were unionized changed. It moved from manufacturers unions to public employee unions. And in the world of public employees, there are no limits on the number of people in the workforce, so MOAR MEKSICANZ!!!11!1!!1! didn't hurt them so much, but rather provided additional jobs as there would be a greater need for public employees to inform the vast hordes of non-natives of all the goodies and bennies available to them at the public trough.

        1. And in the world of public employees, there are no limits on the number of people in the workforce

          Well, there's that. There's also the fact that illegal aliens can't be public employees, so seat-warming government drones have no reason to fear being replaced by Manuel Labor.

    4. Democrats figured out that illegals = votes.

      1. This oft-repeated myth is simply false; illegal immigrants can't vote. Occasionally a legal immigrant does (through stupid stuff like "motor voter"), and then ends up getting deported when they go to renew their visa or apply to become a U.S. citizen.

        Family of illegal immigrants can vote, of course. As well they should.

        1. This oft-repeated myth is simply false; illegal immigrants can't vote.

          Most illegals have fake IDs so they can pass as citizens. So, yes, they can register and vote. I would be fascinated to learn how many actually do, but I'll bet it isn't none at all.

          1. "Most" is overstating . Call it "many".

          2. Why on earth would illegal immigrants want to expose themselves to the detection of the authorities all to cast one lousy ballot, which most natives don't even bother to do?

            And no illegal immigrant passes as a citizen--they're just trying to pass as legal immigrants. Or just trying to pass as "Dude who has a drivers licence" so checkpoints like the ones Escondido sets up don't steal their car.

            1. "Detection of authorities"? The immigration laws in this country, up until the last few years, have only been enforced haphazardly, AFTER George W. started talking up 'comprehensive amnesty' and the HUGE 'blowback' of 'NOOOO!!!' from people of all political backgrounds basically melted the phone lines and overwhelmed the e-mail storage space up there. That's why 'Immigration reform' has been shelved for several years now. American workers will do the work, but for a decent wage. Illegals are paid a sigificant percentage less than Americans would be for the same work.

        2. Think a little longer-term: their kids can vote, and they're likely to vote for TEAM BLUE.

          1. (A) Why do you assume Mexican kids will be Team Blue in 20 years (most Mexican descent people I know are Team Red, but that's probably because I met them at church), and (B) who cares?

    5. Have they? The big Obama supporter in the office just came back from Disneyworld and all she could complain about was all the foreigners that were rude, etc. etc. and working every job in sight that Americans should be working.

      1. Did you explain to her that it just wouldn't work to have a fair-skinned corn-fed Nebraska lass portraying Princess Jasmine?

      2. "Celebrate Vibrancy!" doesn't quite work out so well when the Vibrant Ones either don't assimilate into the existing culture or adopt its worst traits.

      3. Of course. Liberals love school or neighbourhood integration, until it happens to them. Then they vote in a "not soft on crime" government.

  7. Off topic

    State police today slapped Lt. Gov. Tim Murray with a $555 fine and cited him for speeding, crossing marked lanes and not wearing his seatbelt for his pre-dawn crash in November that clocked him driving at a high of 108 mph ? probably while asleep at the wheel.

    Murray this afternoon said he has "no recollection" of ever dozing off Nov. 2 at about 5:26 a.m., but he's accepting that ruling. He also refused to release cell phone calls and texts of the day of the crash, as requested by the Herald.

    "It happened very quickly," Murray said when trying to explain how he gunned the undercover cruiser he was driving to a high of 108 mph.


    1. I usually have "no recollection" of falling asleep at the wheel, either, so I'm with him on that.

    2. Is there some significance in the $555 figure? Isn't 555 the prefix for fake phone numbers? So it's a fake fine, isn't it?

      1. $999 was taken.

    3. This is the same State Police that found no cause for action when one of their own mistakenly shot a 66 year old out walking her dogs???


    4. And this was only done after a FOIA request (which I believe was resisted) forced the disclosure of the details of his crash.

      1. Why is government allowed to have secrets from we the people? Or is that us the people? We, who the people are being?

  8. Has the GOP Abandoned Ronald Reagan's Legacy a Principled, Sensical Approach on Immigration?

    Yes. Yes, they have.


  9. Jews have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs ?
    It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains.

    1. Can someone at the Urkobold School of Trolling please start explaining to their budding young trolls that unsourced BS quotations from famous people is NOT acceptable trolling behavior?

        1. All you have to do is put the link in dipshit and it is not an issue.

          1. You went a step further you lazy ass shit for brains motherfucker who can't even be asked to google a sentence for the credulity of its content. I prefer if you really care that you look on your own.

            I'm John, I need my precious little hands to be held.

            You disingenuous back tracking piece of shit. Now you say, 'All you have to do is put the link in dipshit and it is not an issue.' But just a post above you declared it to be obvious bullshit.

            Fuck you, you lazy ass motherfucker.

            1. When you put up an outrageous quote by a famous person that seems totally out of character with their public image, a link is usually needed.

              And it is not my job to google your bullshit. Put up a link if you want people to believe you about anything.

              1. And it is not my job to google your bullshit.

                Is it your job instead to comment on a blog all day on the tax payers dime? It leaves you no time to google?

      1. You're here, all day. Hey, you ever get anything done at work?

        He was the nicest, and the only talented person I saw in all Berlin, except perhaps old Fuerstenberg ? and Kurt Singer. And he was a Jew; and so was Fuerstenberg. And my dear Melchior is a Jew too. Yet if I lived there, I felt I might turn anti-Semite. For the poor Prussian is too slow and heavy on his legs for the other kind of Jews, the ones who are not imps but serving devils, with small horns, pitch forks, and oily tails. It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains. I vote rather for the plump hausfraus and think fingered Wandering Birds. But I am not sure that I wouldn't even rather be mixed up with Lloyd George than with the German political Jews.

        Notes after a meeting with Albert Einstein in 1926, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 10, p. 383

        1. Interesting. Why not put the citation up in the first place?

          1. All that reminds me that we are overdue for another thread's worth of Ron Paul shitting on.

            1. I can't quite figure out why someone would bother putting up antisemitic Keynes quotes on a board that already hates Keynes. Maybe it has something to do with the agricultural city state.

              1. Keynes was a closet libertarian and his work was actually satire. Like Machiavelli.

              2. Since almost every person a century ago was racist and anti-semitic, I am never shocked to find out that someone I otherwise admired holds those views.

                It is only people who are ignorant of history who think that the figures of the past should somehow be held to the standards of today in all matters.

                1. It's like I never existed at all.

                2. It is only people who are ignorant of history who think that the figures of the past should somehow be held to the standards of today in all matters.

                  You don't think that JMK was conscious that his sentiments were venal so should not be criticized because, according to you (not true, btw) everybody was doing it? What of accepted prejudices of our times? Should you get a pass for expressing prejudice that you know to be venal, but due to the common acceptance of that categorical prejudice you are not at fault?

                  1. No. I think the views are reprehensible.

                    But I am not going to ignore someone's work for the reason that they hold views that I dislike. The work should stand or fall on its own, not "I don't like so-and-so's work because they were racist/anti-semitic."

                    Are you going to reject the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers were, by today's standards, racists?

                    1. The man as subject matter is not irrelevant. The body of work doesn't obtain a greater relevancy than the man who created it. Who the man was has a bearing on every conclusion he made. The goal post are staying put.

                    2. "Who the man was has a bearing on every conclusion he made. "

                      It's almost as though there were a name for that line of thinking...

                    3. It's almost as though there were a name for that line of thinking...

                      It's only a fallacy if it is wrong. To say the man was not the message would be news to foe and fan of his work alike.

                    4. ...ignore.

                    5. We owe it to our selves!

                      Parse that, ad hominem deficient, fuckers!

                    6. Well, child, I suggest it's time you grew up.

                      Because there are damned few people of the past that did not hold views we now consider reprehensible.

                      If you are going to blow off everything from Shakespeare and Homer to Jefferson, Adam Smith and Frederick Douglass - all of whom held at least one viewpoint we now consider anathema - you are not going to have much left to work with.

                    7. That was aimed at "bullshit", not Xenocles.

                      (I thought that the word Xenocles pointed to might be a little difficult for a child of "bullshit"'s age.)

                    8. Go ahead, copy and paste MNG a few more times. There is a library worth of material for you to borrow from.

        2. This is what lame trolling actually looks like.

          1. This is bullshit! You people are suppose to be paying attention to me.

            1. is a little over my head. But I so desperately want to be liked by the regulars that I will post over and over. Too bad I am not clever. Or funny. Or relevant. Or even liked.

              1. That's more like it! Let the hatred pour through.

                1. BTW, why you post as 'Reason's Clever Banter' instead of 'The Real Wisdom of Ron Paul'? Lol! Sucka punch!


    If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum.

    1. P'WNED!

      Saw that on Twitter. Ouch.

    2. Inasmuch as I can't stand Santorum on issues of social policy and foreign policy, I'd have to concede that I think he'd be stronger on economic policy, most specifically entitlement reform, than either Obomba, Mittens, or Newcular Titties. That's hardly a ringing endorsement, but at least he's signed onto the idea of entitlement reform unlike the others. (although, it is noteworthy that he's signed onto that while not in office and seekin reelection, so one does wonder how hardcore he'd be on that once in power).

      1. When he office, Santorum voted for big spending bills and generally was as corrupt as any other Senator. So I'd doubt he'd change anything for the better.

        1. I suspected as much, although I'd be willing to forgive for some senseless pork spending as relatively cheap if it came along with a substantial and meaningful entitlement reform package, since those are the two budget busters. Not that I have my hopes up, nor would I consider casting a ballot for Santorum, but just kind of trying to lie myself into thinking that maybe one of the establishment tools will offer something at least moderately less-revolting than the current state of affairs.

  11. The GOP used to support a path to citizenship and legal residency for immigrants, but then it took an arrow in the knee.

    1. I work with my mother selling fruits and vegetables - it's fun most days but a lot of hard work.

  12. OT, but since we're talking about Reagan:

    So California has some rule that went into effect in 2010 but which they recently started enforcing, hard.

    Basically, any vendor who gets paid from someone in California, or any vendor which is a California entity who gets paid from any out of state entity has to file appropriate paperwork or California withholds 7% of the vendor payment over $1,500.

    I ran into this with a customer: non-Calif. customer, doing business outside of California, with my non-Calif. business. Still have to file the compliance paperwork.

    I can't wait until I have to do these filings for all 50 states with every major customer. The total withholdings if you're out of compliance could easily exceed 100%.

    (I won't get into the myriad of other irritating reasons to avoid business in the Golden State, like having to pay $800 in tribute to transact any business there.)

    1. Funny how none of the dickheads who justify every other intervention under the Commerce Clause will see a problem with this.

      1. By which I mean that the CC was meant to stop impediments to interstate business arrangements. However, crap like this and in-state business-government "partnerships" never get called into question, even though the former restrict interstate trade, while the latter act effectively as tariffs would.

        1. Well said. In addition to having to compete with someone up the road who paiysno local taxes (and probably little state, either) by promising to hire some minimum wage workers, I have to deal with making sure some random state doesn't suddenly start docking my invoices.

          For all the IRS's faults, I'd sure rather deal with just them than 50 states X 1,000 local municipalities for income tax, sales tax, use tax, franchise tax, and God knows what else.

  13. "I ran into this with a customer: non-Calif. customer, doing business outside of California, with my non-Calif. business. Still have to file the compliance paperwork."

    I don't see how they have jurisdiction over such a transaction.

    1. Business is known by the state of California to cause cancer.

    2. They aren't claiming jurisdiction; they're just hanging on to a portion of the money until he proves they don't have jurisdiction.

      And there's nothing wrong with that; government paper-work is done instantly and costs the business owner nothing in time & money.

      1. Of course, California is notorious for claiming jurisdiction over things most states wouldn't. Like it's a separate country or something.

        1. Quit wishing.

          OTOH, while the little quarrel of 1861 - 1865 settled the matter (by force majeur) of whether a state could leave the union on its own, the question of whether the union can kick a state out has never been settled.

          1. You know, California and Canada have a lot in common. Both start with "C", both like protecting the environment, both have deeply socialistic tendencies, both have roughly similar populations, both have long, unfortified borders with the United States, both tend to dislike being confused with Americans.

            How about we just pay you guys to take it?

            1. Depends whether we have to take the people with the state.

              1. What you do with your citizens is your business. We'd never interfere with purely internal matters. Need some munitions, by the way?

      2. How are they even getting the money if neither the business or the customer do business there?

    3. Yeah - that confused me, esp. after AA's description of the law.

      So either your bidness is CA, or the customer was in CA, AA??

      In any case - fuck California. Again.

    4. I don't see how they have jurisdiction over such a transaction.

      We don't need no steenkin' jurisdiction!

  14. The quotes from Reagan are some nice thoughts that were never turned into law. Instead we had amnesty and now the current crap system.

    1. Neither side seems to remember that Reagan was President not King. The Democrats controlled the House for all of his Presidency.

  15. Turns out Krugnuts may be a sheep fucker:


  16. "Pepsi Says Mountain Dew Can Dissolve Mouse Carcasses"


    1. I would imagine so can coke and pepsi. And your stomach acid sure as hell could.

    2. Feature, or bug?

    3. Wel, if you're going to market as an extreme beverage...

    4. My cat will be happy. He's been looking to get rid of some incriminating evidence.

      1. I read "moose carcasses", and was thinking you were brave to own a cougar.

  17. The GOP has abandoned Reagan on raising taxes, too. And on taxing the rich.

  18. Reagan loved labor unions--in Poland.

  19. Santorum's nephew endorses Ron Paul:

    If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle's interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01.....z1iR1g6YY4

    1. Whoa. I can see not endorsing my uncle, but endorsing someone else?

      1. He is a 19 year old college student, I don't think he put a lot of thought into the family implications. I sure as shit wouldn't publicly call out an Uncle but his family dynamic could be different.

        1. But you think he would keep his mouth shut if for no other reason than getting the plum job if his uncle somehow won.

          1. Why mention that Santorum's his uncle at all? The name's different.

            He either loves Paul or just decided throwing his uncle under the bus would be a way to claw his way out of obscurity. Or both.

            1. Maybe he just wanted to make sure he never had to go to another miscarriage cuddling session at Uncle Ricky's house.

              1. I nominate SugarFree's comment for comment of the still-born 2012 year.

              2. ^^^ You won the internet today, SF.

          2. But you think he would keep his mouth shut if for no other reason than getting the plum job if his uncle somehow won.

            This must be why Ron Paul puts half his extended family on the payroll in his campaign.

  20. Fuck The Reagan Administration.

  21. Once upon a time, the GOP was welcoming to libertarian types in a big-tent sort of way and its platform advocated limited government and individual rights, but that has changed.

    The likes of Frum, Rove, Bush, and Gerson refudiated every libertarian tendency held by the Gipper. Seeking a permanent majority, they have redefined the GOP to match the neo-conservative vision, which has no place for the individualism inherent to libertarianism.

  22. What difference does it make to cosmotarians what Reagan thought? They've never held him in high regard, either. In fact, the only time they mention him it's either to a.) disparage him and his policies, or b.) use him to whack conservatives over the head, such as in this article.

    I'll be patiently waiting for Reason to publish an article titled, "Have Cosmotarians Abandoned Rothbard's Legacy On Immigration?"

    1. Especially that noted Cosmotarian Ron Paul!

    2. From slappy's big book of stoopid:

      cosmotarian: A person that enjoys neither sheep fucking or cross burning.

  23. When Reagan was elected we were only 15 years past the nation destroying Immigration Act of 1965. After 45 years, honest men can see that it was a mistake that has radically altered a once great America for the worse.

  24. The GOP has abandoned whatever sanity it might have possessed at some point long ago.

    On immigration they will never stumble upon a decent policy because the attitude of their voter base is motivated entirely by anti-latino racism.

    Similarly, fiscal and economic policy in the GOP voter base is motivated by racism masquerading as a puritan work ethic.

    Their foreign policy is motivated by anti-Arab racism.

    Nothing they believe is motivated by a desire to make the world a better place. It's all fear and stupidity. But what do you expect from a party whose intellectual forefather was a B-movie actor with dementia.

    1. Is there some significance in the 5:55PM figure? Isn't 555 the prefix for fake phone numbers? So it's a fake time, isn't it?

      1. It was a good post but I don't know about work of art.

  25. If it wasn't for the Immigration Act of 1965 I wouldn't be here today. And the March on Selma. If it wasn't for the March on Selma and the Immigration Act of 1965, I wouldn't be here today. I mean, I know how it sounds, I wasn't born after 1965, I know that much! I mean if it wasn't for the March on Selma and the Immigration Act of 1965 I wouldn't be here today, as your president.

    1. The ash tray, this paddle game, and the remote control, and the lamp, and that's all I need. And that's ALL I need too. I don't need One. Other. Thing. Not one -- I need this...

  26. It's unacceptable situation that while millions of American workers are jobless, the government still allows at least a million Legal immigrants a visa to settle here. No ways are all these new arrivals highly skilled workers. Even though President Obama and his White House economic team are no doubt calmed by the Department of Labor's notice that 120,000 jobs were added this November and that the jobless rate dipped to 8.6 percent, its lowest level in two and a half years, the announcement enclosed a mass of grim news as well. The 0.4 percent turn-down from 9 percent was triggered principally by the 315,000 people who gave up looking for work. Furthermore, adding 120,000 jobs scarcely keeps up with population growth. Then since the United States accepts about that same number of authorized-to-work legal immigrants each month, the net new jobs created total is only overall to be few thousand?

    This tendency of American dislocation by foreign-born workers has been well instituted over many years. An analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2011?s second quarter, compared to the same three-month period in 2010, foreign-born workers gained 656,000 jobs, while native-born workers lost 1.2 million jobs. An ever growing population of illegal migrants and visa over-stays, coupled with over-legal immigration in this deteriorating economy will consistently cause the greatest dislodgment among societies most susceptible, in this topic, African Americans.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigrant remarks in the last GOP presidential debate was a calculated risk and didn't set well with the TEA PARTY Conservatives and now shown a substantial decline in the polls. While most Republicans hold Gingrich in high esteem, he, has regrettably, been weak on immigration enforcement. Gingrich voted for the 1986 blanket amnesty, which was a dismal failure through fraud, mismanagement and encouraged more illegal immigrants. This may not seem like a high priority in the next presidential candidate selection, but the jobs and economy are closely related to the illegal immigrant occupation?

    E-Verify gained passage against Newts wishes, but he was able to prevent it from becoming mandatory as did Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. As a substitute, it is entirely voluntary today, which means it is still easy for most illegal aliens to obtain jobs in our country. This is why American citizens and legal residents must emphasis to their lawmakers, that they must co-sponsor Sen. Smith's nationwide and mandatory the "The Legal Workforce Bill, (H.R. 2885.) DON"T LET YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE SENATOR OR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE, BRUSH IT UNDER THE TABLE THIS TIME? KEEP CALLING AND BE ADAMANT ON THEIR SPONSORSHIP OF E-VERIFY.

    Not so obvious is Rep. Steve King of Iowa who has introduced Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R.140) would amend the law so that unborn babies of illegal aliens that are purposely smuggled through borders, through international flight are ineligible for citizenship. The cost to hospitals and an array of welfare payments and entitlements is the most costly for US taxpayers totaling billions of more dollars. This is another demand, you should make of the politicians who represent your state. This carefully conceived court-appointed forced scheme has caused the breakdown of government healthcare and the bankruptcy of at least 69 hospitals in Border States. Although birthright citizenship was allegedly never intended to be the law of the land, it is a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That birthright citizenship is said to account for more than 440.000 newborns a year, born to illegal alien mothers that become citizens merely because their mothers gave birth on U.S. soil. Each of these babies becomes an anchor who retards deportation of unlawfully present parents?and who eventually will be an anchor for entire families as chain migration, leading to the immigration of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO NEEDS TAXPAYERS ATTENTION AND DEMANDING THE CO-SPONSORSHIP UNRESPONSIVE POLITICIANS?

    The current illegal immigration crisis began in 1986, and former President Ronald Reagan was one of the main proponents of the blanket amnesty bill for 3 million illegal aliens. The problem was he presided over a Congress that did everything possible to hamper enforcement of the immigration laws. The "Immigration Reform and Control Act" was the condition of granting amnesty in the first place, thereby disregarding the grand promises that the Reagan Republicans made to this Nation. This complete disregard promoted millions of more people to come, which today is recognized by the majority of pro-sovereignty organizations as ranging over 20 million illegal aliens to even higher population figures? Or you can give credence to a populace figure of 11 million, which the Liberal Press or even the government, report--and are found no purveyors of the truth?

    Now shall we embark on giving back our tax money, to our old folks, our sick and homeless, instead of the IRS stealing our taxes to pay for illegal alien welfare; for their children's education and free health care? Notably is the Liberal press using a different stance to promote the millions of illegal migrants and immigrants already here--saying that it's good for the economy or asserting these people pay taxes. Yes many do, but they are using either stolen Social Security numbers from innocent citizens, or an IRS number known as an ITIN number. A substantial motivation is they have no alternative, if they want to get a payroll job? Then according to the 'Heritage Foundation' the amount of $113 Billion dollars goes to supplementing illegal aliens by hard-pressed taxpayers and every year that amount is rising.

    As released by the IRS, illegal immigrants are returned 4.5 Billion in child/parent tax credits on fraudulent documentation. Little known to most readers is that these foreign invaders send out of the country annually to foreign banks, between 40-46 billion dollars. Yes! They do pay taxes, but it hardly has any impact on the money that is extorted from federal and state taxpayers for children of illegal aliens and drains state treasuries, without compensation. Money going to educate, the massive health care deficit and an overpopulated prison system filled with drug dealers, killers, molesters, pedophiles and a growing proportion of hit and run drunken drivers; those that are caught.

    Just the cost of medical care for immigrants is stunning. The estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $.85 billion, and in Arizona the comparable estimate was $.4 billion per year, according to FAIR?but you know that today it's skyrocketed. One of the most frightening costs to U.S. taxpayers is delivery of babies to illegal alien mothers, who smuggle their unborn babies past agents at borders or on International air flights. A California study put the number of these misinterpreted 14th Amendment babies deliveries in the state in 1994 at 74,987, at a cost of $215 million. At that time, those births constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births, and they have grown now to substantially more than half or the annual Medi-Cal budget. In 2003, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were foothold babies. Medical in 2003 had 760,000 illegal alien beneficiaries, up from 2002, when there were 470,000. Remember the Liberal press and even the US governments are reluctant to unveil the truth of current figures.

    In California L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich States the illegal alien cost is $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to just Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year. These costs do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars for schools.

    Reflect on an illegal alien supplementary benefit, as currently, 12 states allow individuals who are in the country illegally to pay the equivalent of in-state tuition as legal residents. This is on the condition that the same rates to others in the country that are here legally are allowed the same privileges. But this is not so, as certain states are doing it in a direct infringement of federal law. A report from the Heritage Foundation's, an investigation by Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson have explained that Congress passed, that in 1986 former President Bill Clinton signed into law, the 'Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.' Within Section 1623 of the law, state colleges and universities are barred from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens "on the basis of residency within a state" unless the same in-state rates are accessible to all citizens of the United States.

    Von Spakovsky and Stimson wrote, ""By circumventing the requirements of (Section) 1623, these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense," So which states are on the list? The incorrigible violators are California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maryland, and Connecticut.

    If Obama remains president for another term, he will skirt the immigration laws that make us safe from drug dealers, drunken hit & run drivers and a whole mess of criminals reaching American soil. Demand your politician's co-sponsor the 'Legal Workforce Bill, known statewide, Mandatory E-Verify. Stop the occupation of our country from other nations, before it's too late. You can by calling your Senator and Congress person in Congress at 202-224-3121. Our countries laws are being undermined and our sovereignty trashed by Obama's mules in the Department of IN-Justice. Join a constitutional-oriented TEA PARTY near you. Make sure Obama becomes a one term president, before his Liberal henchman erodes away the US Constitution. Join the non-profit pro-sovereignty organization. NUMBERSUSA. Be on your guard as illegal aliens have vote and will again in 2012, unless we institute that every voter posses picture ID which can be authenticated.

    Incidentally?Farmers and giant agricultural community do not support the education for the illegal migrant or immigrant children or the health care--It's all paid for by the hoodwinked taxpayers.


  27. How is the racist bag of shit doing in Iowa?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.