Immigration

Obama Finally Does Something Right on Immigration

A new DHS policy will destroy fewer immigrant families.

|

Since 2009, the Obama administration has broken up tens of thousands of American families in which one or more members was an undocumented immigrant. In many of these cases, the government forced the undocumented spouse or child of a legal U.S. citizen to return to their home country before allowing them to apply for residency in the U.S. Upon leaving this country, however, many of those immigrants were then barred from returning for a period of up to 10 years, a consequence of their having resided in the U.S. without documentation. A new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy will change that for a select few immigrants. 

Current immigration policy says that immigrants who have spouses or parents who are U.S. citizens, and who can prove that their absence will create a hardship for their American families, may qualify for a "hardship waiver" from the 10 year rule. The policy currently requires these immigrants to "touch back" on the soil of their home country to fill out the hardship application and wait there until it is approved. The term "touch back" is deceptive, however, as applicants often spend anywhere from several months to several years carefully navigating the U.S. immigration bureaucracy via satellite from an American embassy while waiting for DHS to determine if their presence is in fact necessary to their American family's survival.

So it's welcome news indeed that with a simple policy change, DHS will soon begin allowing undocumented family members of U.S. citizens to apply for the hardship waiver without having to first leave the country. "It's pro family and pro legal immigration," said Lynn Tramonte of the pro-immigration reform America's Voice Education Fund on a conference call with reporters. "It doesn't create new rights for anyone."

"The waiver is really limited in the law. This is only a procedural processing change," said Cleveland-based immigration attorney David Leopold. "They still have to show that their exclusion would cause extreme hardship." Thanks to this change, those applicants can make that case without leaving the country and risking separation from their families for anywhere from months to years.

According to The New York Times, "Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes to allow the immigrants to obtain a provisional waiver in the United States, before they leave for their countries to pick up their visas. Having the waiver in hand will allow them to depart knowing that they will almost certainly be able to return."

While the policy change applies to immigrants from all countries, it will be especially beneficial to citizens of Mexico, who are required by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to make their petitions at the American consulate in Cuidad Juarez, one of the most dangerous non-warzones in the world, while they wait for their hardship waiver to be approved.

"This adjustment to the rule is important, because it will literally save lives," said Eleanor Pelta of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Most waiver applications are filed in Ciudad Juarez on the U.S.-Mexico border, an extremely dangerous city these days, and more than one applicant has been murdered or seriously harmed while waiting there."

The timing of the announcement could expose President Barack Obama to criticism from across the political spectrum. The right may ding him for making the announcement late on a Friday, which qualifies it as "a Friday news dump," usually reserved for policy announcements that the administration hopes will get lost in the shuffle over the weekend. Some on the left may wonder why Obama waited until nine months before his reelection to fix a policy that dates back to the George W. Bush administration.

The change also only addresses a smidgen of the immigration cases that have been poorly handled under the Obama administration. Some 46,000 undocumented parents of U.S. citizens have been deported since 2009, and roughly 5,100 children of immigrants have been put into foster care. In September, the case of Nadia Habib, a star psychology student in her junior year at Stony Brook University in New York, made headlines when she announced that DHS was going to deport her on her birthday. Habib's father has a green card, but she was brought to the country from Bangaldesh as a child. While Habib was temporarily spared deportation, her father's status as a green card holder—not a citizen—means that Habib's fate in the U.S. is far from assured. 

"We'd like to see the policy extended to the spouses and children of green card recipients," Leopald said on on the conference call. 

Late though it may be, this new policy is a good start. Extending the waiver process to family members of legal residents would be even better. But there's still a mountain of inhumane rules and regulations surrounding immigration to the U.S. that the Obama administration should work to reform. 

Mike Riggs is an associate editor of reason.com. You can follow him on twitter.

Advertisement

NEXT: Navy Rescues Iranians; Jobs Data Dispute; Ron Paul, Freemason? PM Links

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. Ah an immigration post. The perfect way to keep the website hits coming over the weekend.

    1. The perfect way to fill the comments with trolls and crazies too.

      1. Guarantee me no unions, no thieving “solidarity” movements, and cooperation on the destruction of the gangs, and I will welcome them in. Given prior historical examples, I don’t expect it.

        You want cheap labor (it won’t stay that way) and the Democrats want votes. The thing’s a done deal. I do not think it will shrink the state, however. Quite the opposite. How am I the crazy or troll?

        1. I was wrong. You are both. Have fun talking to yourself!

          1. And you “Surly Chef” are a fool.
            No More is exactly right.

        2. You want cheap labor

          False. I want freedom. The State can’t tell me who to contract with and where I can go.

          1. For some people, cheap labor is freedom.

            To single moms, who can’t afford to send their kids to licensed daycare while they work for a living? Cheap labor in the form of immigrants offering to watch the kids is freedom.

            To elderly people on fixed incomes, who can’t do their own yard work anymore? Cheap labor in the form of cheap yard work is freedom.

            1. I agree. I am concerned about the enforcement of contract, however. Do you think, broadly speaking, that the ethical element of the average agent is up to the standard demanded by even these contracts, or do you think that the enforcement of the terms should be put into the hands of the State? America has plenty of cheap labor in the form of people doing jobs that are redundant and other slackers. What we need is individuals coming here as immigrants, not a foreign lounger whom we hope the “Spirit of Liberty” will somehow motivate to become one. They exist and want to come here, I am sure of it. But they are not the entirety or even the majority, and saying that they are is tantamount in my mind to egalitarianism. Given my question of contracts, this inequality may very well expand the government enormously, simply in view of contractual rights in this case.

            2. You have a very strange concept of freedom, Ken. We spend billions on illegals. These people are criminals and need to be sent back to where they came from. Mike Riggs argument is like saying you shouldn’t put a criminal in jail becuse it would break up the family. No wonder Libritarians are such a small segment of the political landscape.

              1. We spend billions on illegals.

                We spend billions more on native born parasites.

                If I were mugged and woke up in a hospital, do you think it would make me feel better about being mugged if the police came back later and told me the guy that robbed me was an American citizen?

                When all the parasites in this country send their children to public schools–and make me pay for it? It doesn’t make me feel any better at all if the parasitic parents who do that are native-born Americans.

                Your parasitic behavior in feeding off of my paycheck to pay for you, your children, your retirement and your healthcare is not okay–because you’re an American.

                And illegal immigrants make up such a small percentage of the parasites feeding off of my paycheck–when compared to native born American parasites–that I hardly even notice.

                Why do you notice? Why aren’t you even angrier about native-born Americans–who make up the overwhelming lion’s share of the parasites out there? Why focus on one tiny little part of the problem?

                Is it because you’re a self-entitled parasite, too? Do you send your children to public schools? Does your retirement plan consists exclusively of Social Security and Medicare? Because if it does, you’re a welfare queen too! And if there’s anything worse than a welfare queen? It’s listening to a welfare queen complain about welfare queens.

          2. Jordan, they’re not trying to tell you who you can contract with. They’re just keeping out people not authorized to be in the United States, in the property of the Republic. Now, if you don’t like the idea of a sovereign nation that has borders, then why don’t you just say so and admit that you are an Anarchist? Hmm?

            1. Now, if you don’t like the idea of a sovereign nation that has borders, then why don’t you just say so and admit that you are an Anarchist? Hmm?

              Premise. Conclusion. Join them the fuck up.

          3. BS. A representative democracy can enact laws that limit with whom you can contract. If that means only legal residents, so be it. If you don’t like the laws, work to get them changed.

            1. A representative democracy can enact laws that limit with whom you can contract.

              Actually, my rights aren’t and shouldn’t be a popularity contest.

            2. Out of curiosity, do you feel that way about the Second Amendment?

              Or do you just reserve that weird idea for when people want to hire somebody to mow their lawn?

              1. OK Ken, so what amendment are you quoting to support illegal immigration? Moron.

                1. A representative democracy can enact laws that limit with whom you can contract.

                  Which rights can and can’t be voted away in a democracy?

                  My right to contract with whomever I please to mow my lawn seems just as fundamental to me as my right to own a firearm.

                  Don’t you think about anything you write before you write it at all?

                  Do you or don’t you believe our democratically elected representatives can take away my right to contract for a gun?

        3. Guarantee me no unions, no thieving “solidarity” movements, and cooperation on the destruction of the gangs, and I will welcome them in.

          I have ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War.

          I despise unions. I’d never join one, but I’m not willing to give up the right to join one.

          I don’t know what you mean by a “solidarity” movement, but I’m not willing to give up the right to join one of those either.

          As far as cooperation in the destruction of gangs, don’t we pay cops to do that? They don’t pay enough for me to spend any of my spare time fighting gangs…

          Why should immigrants agree to do any of that?

          We should let them in, but only if they’re willing to support your political agenda? Sounds like you just got a chip on your shoulder.

          1. My concept of citizenship is not dependent upon ancestry.

            Unions should be illegal. If you don’t like your job go somewhere else.

            What I consider to be solidarity movements would be JDL, ADL, La Raza, White Citizen’s Councils, NAACP, The Fraternal Order of Irish Police Officers, und so weiter. I view these sorts of groups with suspicion due to their ability to coerce people–into silence, into charity–which was why I brought up the last point, fighting the gangs.

            Are these immigrants going to cooperate with the police we pay to as you say fight gangs? Or is ethnic solidarity going to trump that, as in Omerta, The Blue Wall of Silence, No Snitchin’, Harsanyi calling Ron Paul ‘racist’–with the willingness to cooperate with the investigation of illegal and unethical activity being perhaps my “Gold Standard” of citizenship, otherwise naturalization.

            This ability to be trusted is also the prerequisite in creating or agreeing to a contract, so can you see why I feel this quality or character of the incoming populations to be something on which I need to be reassured?

            1. Citizenship is based on ancestry in most countries, as it should be.

              1. Let’s see: are you saying that the populations with rights in America ought to consist solely of those descended–as Mr. Schulz is–from veterans of the Revolutionary War?

                1. Sounds good to me. The Catholics have wrecked this country.

            2. Unions should be illegal. If you don’t like your job go somewhere else.

              I’m trying to understand if it’s that you don’t believe in the freedom of people to assemble and work together in their own interest?

              Or if it’s just that you don’t believe in freedom.

              My concept of citizenship is not dependent upon ancestry.

              Why should everyone else have to live by your rules?

              This ability to be trusted is also the prerequisite in creating or agreeing to a contract, so can you see why I feel this quality or character of the incoming populations to be something on which I need to be reassured?

              No one is required to reassure you about anything, certainly not about the “character of incoming populations” in regards to how you perceive their cultural values?

              You seem to have some entitlement issues of your own.

              1. People’s contracts are enforced by government power when said contracts are abrogated by one or another party. An increase in government power entails the concomitant loss of my liberty and yours–this is the point of libertarianism, no?

                So an influx of people of poor character entails an increase of government power and the decrease of liberty. Where’s the entitlement in seeking to protect my liberty?

                1. Where’s the entitlement in seeking to protect my liberty?

                  The entitlement is in the assumption that other people shouldn’t be allowed to do something unless it benefits you.

                  1. Ken, he’s saying that unions should be illegal because they are liberty squishers. But a better way of stating it is that unions should have no governmental force or authority, which they currently enjoy. That’s what gives them this power they wield over people. They are an extension of government power because they are protected and propagated by it. So they are using the coercive force of government to achieve their results, rather than voluntary and free association. You really don’t get that?

              2. Unions should not be given any government protection or authority. That’s the problem. The unions bought politicians by promising them the votes of labor.

                Worse, unions operate like the mafia…by thuggery and intimidation or by using the laws they were able to get their pocket puppets to pass.

                So once again we see that corruption has perverted a system that would be fair and offer equal protection under the law, were it not for the meddling and graft.

                Unions aren’t the only ones who do this, of course, its just an example.

                1. Unions should not be given any government protection or authority.

                  I agree with a lot of what you said about unions.

                  The idea that the government has no business getting involved, especially.

                  But that wasn’t what No More Anarchy wrote.

                  No More Anarchy wrote, “Unions should be illegal.”

                  I despise unions, but just because I despise them is no reason why other people shouldn’t be free to join them. …but then I’m not a self-entitled person who thinks the the government should rearrange the rest of the world just to suit me.

                  1. Right. I think he just didn’t think it thru, and mis-spoke. As you say there is no reason to ban them, merely to divest them of any status or protection. The power of the free market is protection enough. If people find value in joining and paying dues to these organizations then they should be able to do that. But, and this applies to everyone, no matter what they are, unions should not be allowed any government protection and no illegal behavior should be tolerated. If you belong to an organization that engages in criminal behavior, then you’re just a gangster.

                  2. I said unions should be illegal and Rand Paul said that ObamaCare is slavery. But on whom should an equal and free citizen be able to call when lazy workers collude to block hard ones from applying for a job, destroy equipment, infest the political apparatus such that these behaviors are not only legal but protected, form blocs along ethnic lines to make these privileges into racial ones–as in Chicago, whose corruption cost untold millions of dollars? Or are politics like Chicago’s a form of organic government whose formation, up to and including Obama, had nothing to do with union activity?

              3. What about the freedom of the business owner to run his business as he sees fit and pay what he thinks the labor is worth? I think he should have more rights thaan a mman or woman working for a wage. If they don’t like the pay or the work, They can quit and look for another job. Like I said befre, you are a moron.

                1. What about the freedom of the business owner to run his business as he sees fit and pay what he thinks the labor is worth?

                  Who said anything against that?

                  “If they don’t like the pay or the work, They can quit and look for another job.”

                  If employers don’t want to pay union wages, they should be free to hire someone else instead–so what’s the problem here?

                  Like I said befre, you are a moron.

                  Name calling means you’ve run out of anything else to say. Name calling means you lose.

            3. from that comment I can tell you’ve never been at a workplace with a union. The biggest thing a union does, from the point of the individual employee, is keep the employer from doing illegal activities. Not activities like stealing, but stuff like improper breaks, insufficient emergency medical insurance (worker’s comp), following the ADA, preventing discrimination, and a huge list of things that most people have no idea about. If the unions didn’t exist at all, workplaces wouldn’t bother to follow any of these laws, because the fine is less than observance. If you like being paid for overtime, getting a minimum wage, not being forced to live where you work and locked in, not being forced to work 100 hours a week, getting paid on time, having health insurance, etc…all of these things are because of unions.

              Can the be courrupt? Of course, money courrupts everything. But are they needed? As a member of the CWA, I know my company is in a better financial position because of our workplace policies…and they wouldn’t be there without the union. The union keeps the company on it’s toes and keeps them from crushing ours.

              1. The AFL CWA is one of the most corrupt unions in the country. Second only to the teamsters.

          2. A union is not a right. Private companies ought to decide who they can hire and fire – period. Public unions should not exist as they have proven to harm citizens financially and are inherently corrupt.

            1. Freedom of Assembly is in the Constitution.

              Even if it weren’t, it would be covered in the 9th Amendment, no doubt. …not that our rights are defined by the government, anyway.

              But if you’d prefer a county with a constitution that imagines people’s rights don’t exist unless the government says so? There are other countries you could immigrate to…

              1. Ken once again shows his ignorance. Freedom of assembly is not the same thing as a union and he knows it. That is a major red herring.

                If the workers at a given business wants to meet after work they are free to do so. That freedom should end when they try to blackmail the business to pay them more or do anything of the sort.

                1. People have a right to organize and advocate for their interests whether you like it or not.

            2. Short Viking|1.7.12 @ 2:54PM|#
              “A union is not a right”
              Fail.
              I can join with other people in any form I please; church, union, fraternal organization, chess club, etc.

              1. I believe the anti-union guy is only referring to unions as they exist today, and that type of union he believes is unlawful. That’s true in a lot of cases, but there are simpler manifestations of unions which aren’t bad at all. It’s silly to simply say ‘unions should be illegal’. Certain existent union activities should be/are illegal, just as with certain government actions which unions help to cause.

                Of the two, the government deserves more scrutiny, not unions, since without corrupted and/or corruptible gov’t officials we wouldn’t have most problems that exist with unions.

                1. …and of course, the gov’t deserves more scrutiny because of its intended function and the implications thereof which are easy to forget in the midst of conversation since the government we have is a turd.

              2. Not for the purposes of strong arming other people to your will.

      2. Only 14 comments in and it already has.

        1. Think of them as newly arrived immigrants to Hit & Run.

          The challenge is to integrate them.

          1. They’ll take our comments.

              1. you’re a cunt, and so is your wife.

                1. I’m not married.

                  And anything that might be misinterpreted as a death threat?

                  Makes you look even dumber than usual.

    2. My family is an awful bunch of illegals.

      Last one came in in 1787.

      God awful foreigners.

      1. “My family is an awful bunch of illegals.

        Last one came in in 1787.”

        Doubt they were breaking any immigration laws then, fuckwit.

        Do you morons ever think that retarded argument through?

    3. “A new DHS policy will destroy fewer immigrant families.”

      Damn DHS for forcing people to intentionally drag their families here illegally.

      Damn DHS for forcing people to victimize families all over the globe who have waited patiently to come here.

      Damn the American government for forcing people to use their own children as throwaway pawns in an effort to grab up whatever personal profit they think they can lay hands on.

      Damn Americans for threatening people if they refuse to sacrifice their own and others’ children, lie, steal, and commit banking and housing fraud.

      All of that vicious predation is obviously the fault of Americans, and never of the people who just threw their own children in the garbage at the mere thought they might make a buck by doing so.

      1. The article was particularly disingenuous to talk so much about non-citizen children of US citizens. Yeah, like that’s usually the case. It paints the picture of minor children being sent back to Mexico when 98 percent of the time it’s the parent being sent back, while the kids stay here with the other parent or relatives while getting S-CHIPS insurance, free schooling & subsidized meals.

  2. Irish Catholic immigration:
    IRA/FARC funding
    Knights of Labor/Chinese Exclusion Act
    1924 Immigration Act
    Teamsters–Destruction of American Industry
    Racial Violence;
    Corruption of Police Forces-Blue Wall of Silence; numerous Mafia Association; “Dunphy”
    Catholic League of Decency (ie now the MPAA)
    Timothy McVeigh
    Eric Rudolph

    Such love for private property. Such respect of the rights of others.

    1. Shall I start listing crimes committed by native born Americans?

      1. The illegals aren’t Americans. The Irish never really naturalized themselves. The fact that the latter lionizes the former is more a feeling of sympatico than one of sympathy. I am highly interested in the crimes of native born Americans against the neither native nor naturalized Irish.

        1. The point of the message btw, is that all of these crimes were against fellow immigrants, minorities or both. The natives did the same, but not under the aegis of “poor, immigrant me.”

        2. The Irish never really naturalized themselves

          WTF?

  3. The Protestant Work Ethic is absent here; all of the aforestated things result from its lack.

  4. Reason editors won’t be satisfied until everyone in the world gets US taxpayer funded welfare regardless of citizenship. Hell why even force them to be physically present in US borders, just let anyone anywhere apply. Next up we can make it so only non-citizens can vote. Will you guys finally be satisfied then?

    1. Reason editors won’t be satisfied until everyone is free. If that conflicts with the welfare state, then fuck the welfare state. The sooner it goes bankrupt, the better.

      1. Then why don’t they just admit to being open borders anarchists, like they are? Because nobody else wants that.

      2. How do you expect to end the welfare state when you import (or permit the migration of) millions of people whose children will be enthusiastic supporters of said welfare state and vote to keep those policies in place?

    2. Hmmm… needs more straw.

  5. Bob,

    Libertarianism did not come to destroy identity politics; it came to fulfill them.

  6. Teen girl deported to Columbia repeatedly lied about her identity. Not a helpless victim of evil immigration laws.

    Immigration Officials Investigate Circumstances Under Which Texas Teen Deported To Colombia

    Jakadrien’s family says she left home in November 2010. Houston police said the girl was arrested on April 2, 2011, for misdemeanor theft in that city and claimed to be Tika Lanay Cortez, a Colombian woman born in 1990.

    An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that the teen claimed to be Cortez throughout the criminal proceedings in Houston and the ensuing deportation process in which an immigration judge ultimately ordered her back to Colombia.

    The ICE official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to not being authorized to discuss additional details of the case, said the teenager was interviewed by a representative from the Colombian consulate and that country’s government issued her a travel document to enter Colombia. The ICE official said standard procedure before any deportation is to coordinate with the other country in order to establish that person is from there.

  7. I really think if people are here without having caused any problems and are married to a U.S. CITIZEN, THIS SHOULD BE IN EFFECT, HARDSHIP OR NOT A FINE COULD BE PAID, AND IF NECESSARY ,THEY COULD BE PAID OUT OVER TIME. BUT TEARING FAMILIES APART IS SO WRONG. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH SPLINTERED FAMILIES NOW, WHY ADD MORE?. MY OPINION DOESN’T COUNT MUCH, I KNOW. BUT I DON’T LIKE TREATING OUR NIEGHBORS SO BADLY. WE NEED MORE FRIENDS IN THIS WORLD NOT MORE ENEMIES

    1. There’s this thing called a “Caps Lock” key, and yours may be stuck.

      1. Stop whining.

        1. I wasn’t whining.

          Just trying to help.

          She’s probably out somewhere trying to replace her busted keyboard right now!

      2. Damn Ken. That’s the first thing you have written tday that I don’t disagree with. Let’s see if you can go for another semi intelligent remark.

    2. Almost all people married to a US citizen get permanent residency and can eventually become a citizen.

    1. Yeah….no.

  8. These are just amnesties, rewarding violators of federal immigration laws with benefits paid for by US Citizens. It is immoral, it is theft. But that’s Statism for you. Properly executed, a Statist society can optimize the degree to which all individuals can enjoy the benefits of property. However, in our system the government is set up to steal and thieve at every opportunity.

    1. And freedom is slavery.

      1. You lost me there.

          1. Were you trying to start a conversation about Constitutionalism and Minarchy? Because I’m not sure what your objection is. If you object to our Constitution, then simply say so. If you’re an Anarchist, then spit it out.

    1. Better

    2. Far better.

  9. There are no hardship waives for real Americans who have to foot the bill for these illegals, their anchor babies and the hundreds of billions in direct costs they impose on taxpayers. Where is the waiver for us?

    When a government holds foreign nationals over the rights and privileges of real citizens, then that is the very definition of an oppressive and destructive government. The Founders told us what to do in such a case: Revolution; that the government be abolished, and a NEW government be established that will be faithful to the Constitution.

    So, this is that time.

    1. Stop voting for politicians who favor the welfare state then.

      1. Why are you telling *me* this? Never have…never will.

        Ron Paul 2012.

        1. er… excuse me. Ron Paul is for open boarders. So you think that won’t contribute to an increase in the welfare state?

    2. “The Founders told us what to do in such a case: Revolution; that the government be abolished, and a NEW government be established that will be faithful to the Constitution.”

      Interesting you bring up the founders who, when they created the constitution, made no mention of immigration. They were about as open borders as anyone.

      1. “Free, White males” would seem to contradict your assertion re the founders.

        1. With the exception of the Alien and Sedition Act there were no laws regarding immigration for around the first 100 years of our history. Immigration and naturalization are not the same thing. Try again.

          1. To hold an immigrant in a state of non-naturalization by means of those qualifiers is to subject them to every horror of which you libertarians complain.

            1. I’m actually married to a non-naturalized immigrant. She holds a green card and lives just fine.

              1. She’s as good as naturalized. I am thinking in terms of mail-order brides, illegals coerced into working, people for whom the difference between being immigrants and citizens represent an enormous potential for abuse.

                1. ‘Mail order brides’ have the same rights and protections as anyone married to a US citizen. ‘Illegals’ overwhelemely come here to work. No coercion necessary.

                  1. And naturalization is the process by which those brides would come to know their rights and the rights of others with regard to them. Your wife knows her rights, right? Were they self-evident to her, or did someone impart her with the knowledge? Do mail order brides and people coming here to work uniformly have that knowledge at their fingertips or inherently within their ability to reason such that they do not violate the rights of others or have theirs violated under our now-mutual laws?

                    1. The information is not hard to obtain and there are in fact a number of organizations working with undocumented workers to help them know their rights.

                    2. Many of them state-funded. It’s the ‘undocumented’ part that really concerns me here. Do you support the DREAM Act too?

                  2. except for the ones that come here to have ancor babies and suck on the government teat. Or push drugs.

      2. You must be unfamiliar with our Constitution. Refer to Article 1, section 8.

        They were not open borders. They simply didn’t foresee that their nation would ever be subjected to an invasion of foreign nationals as it is today. Otherwise they would have probably made it much more specific.

        1. Article 1-8 refers to naturalization, not immigration. The first laws regulating immigrations didn’t come about for another hundred years and were almost solely based on fear of teh Asianz.

          Invasion? Hardly.

          1. 20 million unauthorized foreigners isn’t an invasion? Its the largest army in history.

            Naturalization presupposes immigration; you would have no need of it were you not an immigrant. So shut up, because you’re wrong. The only reason there is no specific law that says anything about immigration is because it wasn’t a pressing and immediate concern, and it was covered by Congress’ delegated powers.

            1. 20 million unauthorized foreigners isn’t an invasion? Its the largest army in history.

              That would come as a surprise to Russia.

              By the way, an army is usually, you know, armed.

            2. They don’t have any weapons they fly no flag they hold no territory. They are not an invading army.

              Naturualization and immigration are two different things. I believe in (relatively) open borders, but I don’t believe all immigrants should be able to become citizens. The constitution touches on citizenship. It says nothing about immigration. NOTHING.

              1. from what I see, most illegals here do waive Mexican flags, have them all over their vehicles, clothing, etc. It would be simple for ICE to drive though a neighborhood and pick up illegals just by looking at the vehicles parked there.

                1. Have you ever been in Boston on St. Patrick’s Day?

        2. “They simply didn’t foresee that their nation would ever be subjected to an invasion of foreign nationals as it is today.”

          They sure as hell did not foresee that the government would force people to fund permanent welfare for scammers from all over the world.

          1. It’s like my mom always said, “Two wrongs make a right.” Wait a sec, I might have screwed that up.

      3. They established a representative democracy through which immigration laws were enacted when such laws became desired.

    3. When a government holds foreign nationals over the rights and privileges of real citizens, then that is the very definition of an oppressive and destructive government.

      I think what really bothers me about the anti-immigrant types is that they become so focused on immigrants feeding off the system, that they miss the forest for the trees.

      I’m so sick of hearing people who send their children to public schools, whose retirement plans consist of little more than Social Security and Medicare, who take government loans to get through school, etc. …talk about immigrants as if immigrants were the welfare queens?

      If you’re one of those people who imagine that you’re entitled to free healthcare, free retirement money, education finance, etc.–just because you’re a citizen?

      Then a more socialist country like Sweden might be the perfect place for you! Over there, they think just being a citizen entitles you to everything.

      1. Not at all. You’re projecting something that isn’t there. I’m not a supporter of the welfare state. I’m a Constitutionalist, and the only welfare the federal government is authorized to engage is the general welfare of the people. Not the specific welfare of any individual.

        To the contrary of your unfounded assumption, one of the few things that I believe I am entitled to as a citizen is the protection against interlopers and invaders, because it is a delegated responsibility of the federal government. Control and defense of the sovereign territory is the cornerstone of any State or Nation. without a border, there is no such thing as a nation. No state exists without a physical border.

        The people of Sweden do indeed have a socialist system, but it was conceived of as only for the Swedish people. You don’t see them trying to support 20 million wetbacks, do you ? It would collapse tomorrow. As it is, its already on the verge of collapse from all the lousy immigrants that they *did* accept, who basically sit around collecting a lot of expensive State benefits and not contributing like the native Swedish population does.

        http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

        1. Nationalist racist piece of shit is a nationist racist.

          1. “Racism” pimp is decreeing someone he disagrees with racist.

            1. Meh. ‘wetback’. Not a racist term?

              1. Pretty sure you don’t have a working definition of racist. Ive never seen the word used correctly online, not once.
                Go ahead, let’s hear your definition, then your argumentation for how using the term wetback is “racist”. This is gonna be good.

                1. The term ‘wetback’ is in the same category of racist terms such as ‘nigger’, ‘spic’, and ‘cracker’. You may not consider yourself a racist, but the fact that you used the term would suggest otherwise.

              2. Meh. ‘wetback’. Not a racist term?

                No. It refers to an act. It derived, as you know, from people sneaking into a country by crossing a river. It could, I suppose, in another place at another time have referred to people sneaking into Sweden from Norway (is there a river there?). It just happened to be Mexico into U.S. The racism angle in this case is pure contrivance.

            2. If one goes by the old definition of “race”, (e.g. the Irish “race”, the German “race”, the Jewish “race”, etc.) Nationalism is, by definition, racist.

              That having been said, where I come from, at least, the term “wetback” isn’t used in polite, friendly discourse.

              1. It’s like rappers using the “n-word”.

                I’ve heard Mexicans call each other mojado, but just like with rappers using the “n-word”, just because they do it, doesn’t make it okay for everybody else.

              2. Again, an incorrect definition of racist. Let’s have yours, I’ve already challenged “Meh” to provide his.

                1. Shut the fuck up, No Am.

                  We all know the only definition of “racist” you’ll accept is: “Brave, honest man fighting to defend the purity of White womenfolk from the lascivious Brown horde.”

              3. That having been said, where I come from, at least, the term “wetback” isn’t used in polite, friendly discourse.

                …but it does figure in some jokes that would be funny if only the underlying sentiment weren’t so ugly.

                1. The underlying sentiment in a racist joke–aha, he’s different–isn’t ugly, but childish. Pretty much every joke does that. It’s just that racist, ugly people tend to tell them these days, since they are no longer innocent fun.

                  1. You may not consider yourself a racist, but the fact that you used the term would suggest otherwise.

                    The fact that you have declared that suggests that you consider yourself the arbiter of such things. You aren’t.

                    “Racism” pimp is tedious.

        2. The only legitimate sovereignty is that of the individual. The only legitimate role of government is to protect said sovereignty and rights of the individual.

          Immigrants do not constitute an invasion. They aren’t an army and they haven’t taken any land. You don’t have an individual right to not be bothered by teh immigrantz. The right to free movement and association on the other hand…

      2. Hmmm. So you are talking about US citizens that pay federal, state and local taxes, paid into SS and Medicare for 35-40 years, and apply for governemnt “guarenteed” loansd, which they pay back at interest.
        Hardly the same thing.
        What a fool.

      1. I care.

        1. I know not banjos, and you sir, are no not banjos.

  10. Just the other evening, I heard an acquaintance murmuring about how he has heard Ron Paul is a you know- raaaacist. I was engaged in a conversation with somebody else at the time, but the next opportunity I get, I’ll ask him how many Swedes and Australians his Dreamboat-in-Chief has deported.

    1. David Harsanyi called him a racist in these very pages. What are you saying? I don’t think he’s a racist (I’m voting for him).

      Here’s why David called him a racist: Harsanyi is a Sephardi name; the Sephardim depend upon the Israeli welfare state to exist; Ron Paul opposes aid to Israel. Thus–racist.

      It seems to me a very rare circumstance where “reason” trumps identity politics; I am mistrustful of libertarian arguments vis a vis immigration for that reason. I am not opposed to immigration, even unlimited immigration. I want to see some contingency for how to protect my property. Is that trollish or crazy?

      1. That’s standard neocon fare. Oppose aid to Israel or oppose invading Israels enemies (ie Iran) and you’re an anti-semite. I’ve pretty much heard them come right out and say it like that.

        1. But hearing standard Neo-Con fare from the mouth of a purported libertarian, in a purported libertarian publication is disturbing to say the least. And it seems I’m hearing it more and more. I have no desire to go to Lew Rockwell; but I have no desire to be called troll either.

          1. What Neo-Con fare are you referring to? Reason’s? Yah, those guys (David included) are not really Libertarians. Reason attracts a melange of weirdos with inconsistent messages and contradictory beliefs, but none of them are really Libertarian. Nick and Matt for example, are the closest to being Libertarians, but they reveal themselves as Anarchists from time to time. Which I guess nobody picks up on much. And Harsyani, yah, I’d guess he’s just another Zionist who finds it awfully convenient that the mental handicap of Christian orthodoxy under which most Americans labor can be exploited to protect and advance the agenda of the state of Israel.

            1. Where is an actual libertarian site? Is there one?

              1. Based on your comments, I don’t think “libertarian” means what you think it means. I think if you are looking for more compatriots who share your ideology, you’ll find them here.

                1. I am not a fascist. Cartels, rent-farming, coercive group behaviors, correlate too strongly with identity politics to ignore. I just want people naturalized; who if they sometimes disrespect the law, still believe in it. If you are aware of a robber or murderer, and the state doesn’t catch it, and if no one reports it, is it a crime, in your opinion, to be reported? Or should common ethnicity preclude its recognition as a crime? Ethnic blocs are a moral hazard to not only Democracy, but also the Republic. I am the opposite of a totalitarian. I support sovereignty.

                  1. Ethnic blocs are a moral hazard to not only Democracy, but also the Republic.

                    If you believe that, then why do you support an immigration system that discriminates in favor of some ethnic groups to the detriment of others? Do you realize that immigration requirements and quotas vary between U.S. embassies? Do you realize that for citizens of many nations it is impossible to legally immigrate to the U.S., much less naturalize? Considering these requirements are arbitrary, and are slanted against non-White majority countries, how can you say you don’t support identity politics?

                    Lastly, an observation, if your views on immigration are very closely shared by scum like the American Third Position, well….you’re judged by the company you keep, yes?

                    1. That observation is about the same as saying Ron Paul is racist. The fact that some ethnicities have gone through the process of naturalization more thoroughly by no means indicates that they are by that token more “naturalizable.” I have no idea, for example, how long an undocumented worker has been here, and there is no way to verifiably establish it. How do I know that he understands basic property rights? How can I override the will of the individual state using the Federal Government to allow them to stay if they are not wanted in the state itself?

                    2. And how can requirements both be “arbitrary” AND “slanted against non-Whites”? One implies deliberation and the other implies none.

                    3. I refer you to Merriam-Webster

                      2. a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority
                      b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

                    4. “Unrestrained” here refers to “unrestrained by law.” But those requirements constituted the law in this case. Rather, what we are seeing is “arbitrary” enforcement of immigration law in favor of those “non-Whites” it is perceived to be “slanted against.” This is identity politics.

                    5. Oh, and from your link:
                      http://american3rdposition.com…..n-bachmann‘s-iowa-chair-defects-to-ron-paul/
                      AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    6. I don’t get what you find so funny about that.

                    7. They confuse his politics like you confuse mine. I am not pro-white or anti-white. I specifically mentioned the Irish in one of my rants. Naturalization is key here, especially as regards the validity of other people’s rights. Ethnic blocs are anathema to naturalization. People vote in ethnic blocs because they are poor and powerless. The politician rewards his own, with graft. When you bring up ethnic ties, sentimentalism somehow makes that into “honest graft”. Even better, those who are anti-corruption simultaneous become racist by default.

                    8. The fact that some ethnicities have gone through the process of naturalization more thoroughly by no means indicates that they are by that token more “naturalizable.”

                      That’s not what I’m saying at all. Currently, people do not have an equal chance to legally immigrate to this country. In part, the criteria is economic, but it is also racial in that countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have much lower immigration quotas than countries in Western Europe.

                      How can I override the will of the individual state using the Federal Government to allow them to stay if they are not wanted in the state itself?

                      Well, one of the purposes of the Federal government is to protect the rights of the individual.

          1. My opposition is to identity politics, not non-white immigration–asshole. And I’m Jewish and mixed.

            1. You should be opposed to all immigration. I doubt you’ve ever examined the issue sufficiently to see past the distractions of race-baiting and class warfare that the government has trotted out on stage for your entertainment.

              1. I’m not certain on that. The Constitution has a process of naturalization, by which I infer that there must be an allowance for immigration as well. I just think that the only acceptable goal of immigration should be naturalization.

                1. No, you’re reading more into it than is there. It says they have power over it, not that it must occur.

                  So a rational person, looking at the issues of why we would ever want to import more people, would reasonably conclude that we don’t need any more.

                  Even if we needed to import LABOR, that doesn’t mean we need to create new citizens.

                  Congress could decide that you can bring in labor who are not citizens, (guest workers, which we already have a program for) under whatever conditions you deem appropriate, as long as its not slavery, they aren’t conscripts, but rather come willingly, and that you aren’t depriving them of a natural right.

                  The problem comes when people employ these illegal workers (people that are not authorized to be present in the US nor authorized to work here), and privatize the profits from that while socializing the costs of that.

                  That is what bankrupted California and will bankrupt the other states with high numbers of illegals, eventually.

                  1. What, are you saying that they wanted to recreate the polis of Greece, where the metic eventually had more wealth than the citizens or the the slaves? I guess I can see it coming from Jefferson, but then you’d get into things like predatory ostracism as a form of rent-farming like the Greeks had, and all other sorts of bad things. But it also kind of fits with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Still not sure since it isn’t explicit, both in the sense of say, the Federalist Papers, or strictly “expressly,” if you know what I mean. If the document doesn’t mention it, they don’t got it.

      2. Harsanyi is a Sephardi name

        Where did you get that?

        Hars?ny is a village in Borsod-Aba?j-Zempl?n county in eastern Hungary; “Hars?nyi” is a last name derived from that (literally “from Hars?ny”). That some people who bear the name is of the Jewish persuasion doesn’t make it into a “Sephardi name”.

    1. TEH FLASH MOBZ!!!!1!!!!111!!!

      1. Won’t someone please cure me of my mental afflictions?

  11. Not to nitpick too much but everyone of these immigration articles start out with the “breaking up the families” line. Unless the rest of the family is for some reason not legally allowed to return home with the deportee than technically the government is not breaking up the families, they are breaking themselves up. Overall a good article but starting out with a somewhat misleading appeal to emotion makes one question the credibility of the rest of the article.

    1. There’s plenty of room for pathos in rational debate.

      Sometimes the best reason to oppose something is out of compassion. There’s nothing irrational about compassion.

      Go read some Bishop Butler or something…

      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3150

      1. No there isn’t. Only in this perverted welfare state is such a premise valid. Altruism is stupid and immoral, as Ayn Rand proved.

        Compassion, as it is an emotion, must be an individual responsibility not a collective one that can just be foisted off on the unwilling. It follows that individual self-interest might lead to different results when practiced by various individuals, but the non-aggression principle limits those practices to not infringing on anyone else.

        That’s a rational framework. Compassion is a practice that has to fit into it.

        As an individual, I should not be forced to support your charities. Do that on your own dime and time.

        1. If you can’t tell the difference between altruism and compassion, then you should probably skip the Butler and start with something simple.

          Oh, and just becasue Ayn Rand wrote something? Isn’t really proof of anything.

          1. Compassion is something logic allows for, as a discretion. It can’t recommend it, even as a guideline. It’s in the realm of ethics that you hash these things out, and the ethics of giving an undocumented worker precedence over one that is documented kind of suck.

      2. There’s nothing wrong with emotional appeals per se.

        There is something wrong with using emotional appeals regarding 0.1% of an issue as leverage to try to change people’s opinions about the whole issue.

        1. Yeah, how could someone use the breaking up of families–in a rational discussion about how this particular policy has been breaking up families?

          Is that what I’m supposed to think?

          1. That’s not the reason for this article and you know it. They’re pushing open borders as the ultimate goal.

      3. “Go read some Bishop Butler”

        Thanks Ken, but I’ve read enought ethics philosophy to fill a library. It’s all pretty much bullshit. At the end of the day, regardless how messed up it is, might makes right in the sense that without the power to impose your ethos, it doesn’t mean squat.

        1. You gotta love the commenters who assign homework because they can’t argue their position themselves.

    2. Thank you — this is exactly what bother me about that argument.

    3. You’re right, all the citizen spouses have to do is quit their jobs here in the US, pack up their kids, leave their extended families here in the US and move to Mexico where they may or may not learn the language and they may or may not find a job.

      1. aka “Responsibility”

        1. Teh law is teh law, right NMA?

          1. Precisely 🙂
            They followed it, and he didn’t. If volition comes into play, then by all means my tender-hearted friend–deport them all.

            1. I wonder what your thoughts are on the Fugitive Slave Act. After all, teh law is teh law.

              1. That violated the prerogative of Free states. Do you support using the Commerce Clause as a justification for the Federal Government enforcing this Fugitive Slave Act? I’m deeply interested in hearing your arguments.
                The law is the law and the Constitution is the Constitution.

                1. Way to miss the point. Teh law is teh law is not an argument. Do you have an argument as to why the right to free movement and association should be infringed upon? Or are you saying that because some politians got together to decide what’s best for us, write it into law, then that in and of itself is sufficient. You’re correct that ‘the Constitution is the Constitution. Now if you could show me where the constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate immigration you might have a point.

                  1. Article 1, Section 8. Look it up.

                    1. The Feds have the authority to regulate naturalization and that’s it. It says nothing about immigration no matter how much you wish it did.

                      Instead of saying, “Article 1, Section 8. Look it up.” why don’t you quote the actual phrase?

                    2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

                    3. Immigration was left up to the State until 1890.

                    4. The states, that is. In any case, the state is being either backed up or undermined by the Federal Government, if you want to call coercion on that. The states have the right to kick people out of them prior to that, though. I don’t think California wants any more.

                    5. Again, that’s related to citizenship, not immigration.

                    6. So you want metics?

                2. Do you support using the Commerce Clause as a justification for the Federal Government enforcing this Fugitive Slave Act?

                  Article IV, Section 2

                  No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

        2. Teh law is teh law, right NMA?

        3. How dare someone fall in love with someone else before checking their passport?

          1. One of the two must have known.

          2. Or checking their arrest record to see if they’re subject to parole conditions not allowing them to leave the state.

            I guess we have to end those too!

            1. Shorter Tulpa:
              “The law is the law!”

          3. Fall in love with someone, maybe go on a few dates? That’s one thing. But to marry and/or have children with someone? Yeah, you should be thinking more carefully before taking those steps.

      2. Funny thing is, that’s exactly what hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants do every year.

        (oh sorry, we’re supposed to say “undocumented” instead).

    4. The government is taking action which results in the family breaking apart.

      Any subsequent action or inaction on the part of the family which may affect that effect isn’t causative.

      1. So everytime someone goes to jail the government is breaking their family apart. They’re are not responsible for their own actions at all? The law is the law? If the law isn’t the law than that is anarchy. Which is fine with me but that’s not what we currently have. I know that if I am in any country illegally that if I’m caught I will most likely be deported. Using the “your breaking family apart” defense may be useful but it’s not exactly honest since you knew that was a possibility when you choose to not follow the law. What I’m saying is that if you want to have an honest discussion about immigration, let’s not start it by playing hearts and flowers on the violin.

        1. “If the law isn’t the law than that is anarchy.”
          Like the kids tossed in the slammer since “the law” makes dope illegal? They’re anarchists?

          1. And I think you’ll find that what you’re seeing is the rejecting of this wholesale abrogation of responsibility that illegal immigrants and their supporters engage in.

            Not that the people denouncing the immigrants aren’t overdoing it too, but there really is an attempt to minimize the responsibility that some of these immigrants bear, and it’s a serious sticking point for some people.

            1. “wholesale abrogation of responsibility”

              Care to put that in English?

              1. Dude, just get a dictionary.

        2. The law is the law? If the law isn’t the law than that is anarchy.

          That is a false dichotomy. The system we have today doesn’t fit neatly into either one of those categories, even if we exclude the mutability of the law.

          The unspoken question is whether the law is effective and just as written, executed, and interpreted. The author is writing from a certain point of view. That’s bias, not dishonesty.

          1. Hey, I’m all for anarchy. Bring it on. It would be the greatest 5 minutes of our lives. But if I get busted for drugs, even though I think drug laws arer stupid, I know I’m going to jail. Yeah, it’s bullshit but you know what, that’s the law. I choose not to follow it, I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. I can argue that we should change the drug laws without playing the “helpless” victim and without saying I shouldn’t have to abide by laws that I don’t like. Not abiding by laws you don’t want to is anarchy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but lets not pertend that’s not what it is. I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same side here, and I did point my criticism out as a nitpick.

            1. I see these appeals to emotion made on a the left all of the time and it pisses me off which is why I bring it up when I see the same stuff going on here.

              1. “little Johnny was five when he found his fathers loaded gun on the kitchen table blah, blah blah”

                “Did you know that untrained citizens were allowed to own lethel weapons like the one one that killed poor Johnny”

                “Something must be done, for the children”

                yada yada yada

  12. I came. I read the comments.

    I now leave you all with pity and remorse to fend the trolls off yourselves.

  13. Mother Jones tries to explain Ron Paul

    1. 54% support legalizing pot.

      54%? Really? Who the fuck was in their sample group?

    2. Apparently 27% of libertarians support Mitt Romney. I would like to see where they’re getting their data. I don’t think 27% of his family supports Mitt Romney.

      The whole left column was ripped off and reworded from a old Reason article.

      1. I don’t think Mitt’s dog would give him 27% support.

  14. Marketa is a 100% professional and the collections captured of her in Paris are playful, sensual and stunningly erotic.

    MARKETA CAME to Hegre-Art.com during the cherry season and this shapely, silky skinned femme fatale from Prague did things with cherries that will linger on the memory and make this lush summer fruit taste sweeter every time we slip one into our mouth.

    Marketa is a new woman from new times, empowered, in charge of her own destiny. With the symmetrically perfect features of a Greek goddess, the look in her eye is almost unnerving, as if Marketa is more divine than human. It is a beauty so perfect as to be almost artificial and touches us subliminally as a reminder of our genetic inheritance.

    Czech and Ukrainian beauty mixed and stirred like you have never seen before: as explosive, he said, as a Molotov cocktail!

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=65

  15. It appears as though I have been neglecting my duties (sorry, been on vacation). I hope this will tide everyone over.

  16. This is an improvement to the same extent that having your rapist wear a condom is an improvement.

    1. Yep.

      Definitely an improvement, but it still don’t feel too good.

  17. Am I the only quasi-nationalistic person here that believes in open borders?

    1. Open boarders don’t get on well with welfare and other forms of enforced charity. Further, without at least a little care they could really screw with public health.

      Will you settle for open boarders for healthy, solvent, employed or self-supporting, not-a-wanted-criminal types?

      1. That wouldn’t be open borders. Open borders means no filter, anyone who wants to cross can do so.

      2. Problem with this is that you’re using more government intrusions to bandaid the problems caused by earlier government intrusion.
        It may be temporarily effective (maybe), but what further intrusion solves the problems caused by this one?

        1. I’m unclear about how controlling its own border constitutes “govt intrusion”.

          1. And you’re also unclear on the concept of begging the question.

            1. Yeah, whatever. You dispute that the border belongs to the government?

              1. Tulpa|1.7.12 @ 7:44PM|#
                “Yeah, whatever.”
                Oh, what an intelligent response! Hey, duuuude…

                “You dispute that the border belongs to the government?”
                Oh, so you’re willing to discuss it? Yes, I do dispute that *anything* ‘belongs’ to the government.

        2. Problem with this is that you’re using more government intrusions to bandaid the problems caused by earlier government intrusion.

          Yup. But stopping the existing intrusion is almost certainly a harder problem.

          And even if you solved the harder problem you couldn’t afford to stop it overnight.

          1. “Yup. But stopping the existing intrusion is almost certainly a harder problem.”
            Could be, but where does that lead? Do we simply keep adding intrusions because adding them is ‘easier’ than fixing the problem?

        3. I’m for open borders, but against open citizenship. Do I win a cookie?

    2. Unless you end the welfare state, open borders is a really stupid idea.

      First order of business is to stop pissing away our money. After that, we can open the borders.

      1. This is certainly true, but even if the rest of the population took brain control drugs and started agreeing tomorrow, it would take time to dismantle the existing economic reality. Economies are adaptive systems and they can’t make U-turns.

        1. “Economies are adaptive systems and they can’t make U-turns.”
          Agreed.
          But given that, do we add our (libertarian) support to adding to the problem?

          1. We’re not starting from just having a welfare state to which I propose to add a “wide gates” immigration policy.

            We’re starting from a welfare state that has a highly restrictive immigration policy which I propose to loosen.

            It is neither philosophically pure nor particularly satisfying, but the only barriers to it’s rapid implementation are political.

            ‘Course they’re pretty big barriers at that.

            1. “We’re starting from a welfare state that has a highly restrictive immigration policy which I propose to loosen.”
              I missed where you proposed the ‘loosening’. No snark, but what do you propose?

      2. Do you feel the same way about tax cuts, ending the drug war, or any other libertarian idea?

        As long as the welfare state exists, we can’t do ‘x’ particarly in this case where illegal immigrants help prop up the 2 biggest welfare programs; Social Security and Medicare.

        1. Grrrr…

          Should read:

          As long as the welfare state exists, we can’t do ‘x’ IS A PRETTY LAME ARGUMENT particarly in this case where illegal immigrants help prop up the 2 biggest welfare programs; Social Security and Medicare.

          1. See? We *do* have an edit function!
            Seriously, how about a complete re-post so I don’t have to try to insert comment A in slot B?

        2. Depends on whether I’m feeling idealistic or practical that day.

          There are some goals that could be obtained in brief window, other that require the long view.

          If you’re serious about this you want both and know the difference.

          Making real progress on the long terms plans means getting some small scale progress and showing the disbelievers that they can work. It means getting some experience running (or pointedly mostly not running) various bits of government successfully. Our pool of practical knowledge on that front is pretty limited right now, while the statists have spent the last hundred plus years honing their skills at running things their way. They know how to plow the streets and fill the pot holes. They have institutions in place to protect the food supply and mitigate the risks of fires. We get to point at the Underwiter’s Laboratories and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (and these things are good, but they are sparse on the ground).

          If we don’t offer a vision of more freedom with continued material well being we are well and thoroughly screwed.

          1. “They know how to plow the streets and fill the pot holes.”
            Well, only if you’re willing to put up with poor results.
            “They have institutions in place to protect the food supply and mitigate the risks of fires.”
            Ditto. All those e-coli infections happened *with* the institutions to ‘protect the food supply’ in place. My goodness! We need *more* regulations!
            “If we don’t offer a vision of more freedom with continued material well being we are well and thoroughly screwed.”
            If libertarianism has to compete with lies with more lies, there certainly is no hope.
            We (if I can be so bold) can hope that the lies are exposed as lies and that the offer of more liberty *and* more prosperity is sufficient.

            1. “They know how to plow the streets and fill the pot holes.”

              Well, only if you’re willing to put up with poor results.

              The question isn’t how good they are at filling the potholes (adequate if your town is well run, not so much in other places), but how well would they get filled during a transition to a much more libertarian society.

              If the answer isn’t at least close to as well you won’t have public support no matter what you have to promise eventually. But if you’re starting flat-footed you won’t have the economic ecosystem in place and you won’t have any institutional memory—not in the rump government, not among the vendors, not among their suppliers, not among the people who use the roads. The teething problems will be big.

              It doesn’t have to be that way.

              The part of the country I’m living in right now has fully privatized, competitive trash services. It’s wonderful. Better, cheaper and more responsive that the service I’ve gotten from any city.

              That is a knowledge base that could be used to bootstrap the privatization of other services, and it is an example that you could hold up to the electorate to get their agreement.

              If you have people running reasonably libertarian local governments then you have people going into state government with those attitudes. Libertarians in the state governments can try to bootstrap to national government.

              But you have to be able to show something that the mass of the people will read as success. Which means that you have to pick your battles on the ground.

              Mind you, that’s not to suggest you stop pushing the philosophical high road. You need people thinking the big pure thoughts to keep you energized and focused. And to stay on top of the new specious arguments that will be thrown against you.

              But you cant just have the big thoughts.

  18. Most posters have never posted here before or are using a different name. Probably Riggs pseudonym.

  19. When everyone can vote, everyone loses. Democracy doesn’t work.

    1. So who should rule?

      Where does he derive his legitimacy?

      1. No one should rule.

        And for government to be legitimate it must have consent of the governed. How else?

    2. When everyone is super, no one is!

  20. I like this word, “undocumented”. Like the US Army engaged in undocumented entry into Iraq in 2003, and my neighbor’s dog digs undocumented holes in my flower bed.

    1. No sir officer, those are not illegal narcotics, their just undocumented.

  21. I dunno man wholw thing sounds kinda scary to me dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Pros.tk

  22. So it’s ok to give certain people who broke the law special treatment because they happen to have families? Meanwhile this guy here, who happens to be gay so he can’t get married, or this guy there, who is infertile so he can’t have children, can’t take advantage of change?

    Doesn’t seem quite fair, no matter what side of the immigration debate you are on.

    1. John Rohan|1.7.12 @ 10:30PM|#
      “So it’s ok to give certain people who broke the law special treatment because they happen to have families? Meanwhile this guy here, who happens to be gay so he can’t get married, or this guy there, who is infertile so he can’t have children, can’t take advantage of change?”

      Can you say “false equivalence”? I’ll bet you can.

      1. Pray tell, how does giving a married man a legal preference over a single man = “false equivalence”? That doesn’t even make sense. That’s what happens when you just throw around fancy terms to sound intellectual without knowing what they mean…

        1. It’s using a bay-bee as a sympathy ploy to excuse bad behavior. Unwed welfare mothers have used it for years.

          Reason’s, and Ron Paul’s allegiance with illegals has demonstrated the political, and perhaps logical, worthlessness of the libertarian movement. Few of the future citizens produced by amnesty are likely to vote republican or libertarian. It’s like a political movement that’s for “open borders” and welcoming invaders and then Attila the Hun rides right over and lops off their heads.

  23. Just to change the subject for a minute. I haven’t noticed any White Injun in these comments the past days but everyone here knows it is only a matter of time before his white gambolin ass makes another mess of these boards. Yes, I know the best way to deal with him is to just ignore. But I just happened to discover who he actually is. I dont know if others have mentioned his real name, but it is not too hard to find. He has at least one particular incident that is shady to say the least. He doesn’t mind informing drug agents when it suits him. Maybe it is more distraction, but if he pops up here again he should be at least given a name.

    1. I signed him up for something like 300 free catalogs from Catalogs.com. Also wrote his boss a few emails and essentialpublicradio.org.

    2. Next step is COD’ing him random shit.

  24. What’s wrong with immigration policy in the US? The same thing that’s wrong with everything else… Republican bluster.

    How are we supposed to get good policy when every move in the right direction can be demagogued on talk radio in order motivate votes for the GOP from excitable racist morons?

    1. I agree.

      White America voted OBAMA into office.

      What we are seeing is the OTHER White America that is still strong, alive, kicking, and very determined to ‘get their country back’.

    2. “The same thing that’s wrong with everything else… Republican bluster.”

      Oh, please. Selecting at random; how is Republican bluster responsible for the arithmetical fact that Social Security is (and always was) a generational pyramid scheme?

      How is Republican bluster responsible for the social collapse of certain urban areas, like Detroit?

      I’m not saying that the Republicans are innocent angels, far from it. But the mess the country is in is a BIPARTISAN mess. The Republicans (or, for that matter the Democrats) are not capable of creating this big a clusterf*ck on their own.

    3. Don’t be an idiot. NM look who I’m talking to.

      The immigration policy mess is not a GoP issue. It’s a natural result of wage protection (bipartisan) and the welfare state (bipartisan, arguably more democrat).

      As long as our policy protects wages via statutory bias towards unions, tariffs, etc the protected constituency will reject anyone who tries to compete for wages, ie immigrants. It’s not ‘rich republicans’ who go nuts when amnesty is talked about, it’s blue collar union democrats who are deathly afraid of competition.

      Simultaneously they get employers saddled with regulation and mandated perqs which drive up US labor costs even more, which naturally drives jobs out of the country.

      It’s not racist. It’s purely economic. People who enjoy unfair protection always covet it, even if it is unsustainable and destructive.

      To the economically illiterate progressive it’s the fault of the immigrants; never themselves.

  25. Passions: graphic design, typography, CSS, photography, travel, food and winepornoCSS, photography and very recently transplanted to Boston, Dianne has been using Joomla!

  26. Here we have yet another beauty from the Ukraine.

    Meet Elvira who hails from a small village 2 hours away from Kiev. Elvira was impressed after seeing Luba’s photos on the net and desperate to be photographed for Hegre-Art. She had been waiting until she turned 18 to contact Hegre and these photo sessions are her first paid model assignment. Strangely enough we think Elvira’s facial features are similar to Luba’s.

    At 182 cm she is the tallest model on Hegre-Art. She loves to eat and says that she eats too much – meaning all the time! She describes her super curvy frame as a little plump. Elvira is young, crazy and very lively. She isn’t working or studying at the moment but likes to hang out with her friends.

    Elvira is waiting for opportunities in life to come her way.

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=196

    1. And by “opportunities”, she means jocks’ cocks, right? I predict another used-up-by-25 crack whore. No offense, Ukraine.

      1. I just got off the phone with Ukraine, they’re cool.

    2. desperate […] crazy […] isn’t working or studying at the moment

      Sounds like prime OWS material.

  27. Does this mean Canada will be changing their laws to allow these families who may be separated to enter Canada and receive all the services Canadians have? We could use a little help along with advice and criticism here.

    1. Canada has govt. sponsored immigration (a yearly 250,000); if someone’s applying for it from outside of the country and gets accepted, s/he’s a landed immigrant the minute s/he arrives & can apply for citizenship after 3 years. Being a landed immigrant is almost as good as being a citizen, with the exception of not being allowed to vote & be elected (at least on the federal level) and not being able to obtain a Canadian passport (I think). Nothing else comes immediately to mind re differences between landed immigrants & Canadian citizens.

  28. Any singles wanna join rich club with me and hit me up ?
    I am a beautiful doctor and now I—- am seeking a good man who can give me real love.You know any millionaire club ? i think……….S u c c e s s f u l m i n g l e.C//o//m. ….. It is a special site focusing help single rich man or pretty girl find romance so I spend most of my online time there.. My screen name is shadowtalks. If you are interested, add me.I hope your day went well and I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for reading this!

  29. It surely a great step. To do this obama wins the hearts of people of America. I appreciate this exam cram step

  30. It surely a great step. To do this obama wins the hearts of people of America. I appreciate this exam cram step

  31. This new policy will make immigration easier.

  32. You repeat the most obnoxious and misleading propaganda phrase of the open-borders lobby: the notion that the government “breaks up families.” That is clearly untrue. Every time the government deports an illegal alien, anyone in his family who misses him can be re-united with him instantly, in their HOME COUNTRY.

    The US Government does NOT break up families– IMMIGRANTS who leave some of their relatives behind in their home countries “break up families.”

    The US has immigration restrictions, but no restrictions on who can leave to return to their home countries to enjoy quality time with their families.

    Even if you agree with the cheap-labor lobby’s aims, you should have more self-respect than to repeat their lie.

  33. Thanks for sharing the beautiful expression of useful information

  34. Voted Ireland’s favourite painting: http://www.yorutomo-gaido.com/

  35. many of these cases, the government http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-r4-c-9.html forced the undocumented spouse or child of a legal U.S. citizen to return to their home country before allowing them to apply for residency in the U.S. Upon leaving this country, however, many of those

  36. Muy contento de tener un blog, gracias a tantas cosas interesantes para ver las acciones. Espero que sac chanel classique en el futuro se puede utilizar el d?a de su publicaci?n interesante!

  37. Vielen Dank f?r einen anderen gro?en Blog. Wo sonst bekommen Sie diese Informationen in schriftlicher Form so vollst?ndig aufzuhetzen? Ich schon immer gesucht haben.http://www.sacchanelboutique.com/

  38. . citizens to apply for the hardship waiver without having to first leave the country. “It’s pro family and pro legal immigration,”

  39. a Friday news dump,” usually reserved for policy announcements that the administration hopes will get lost in the shuffle over the weekend. Some on the left may wonder why Obama waited until nine months before his reelection to fix a policy that dates back to the George W

  40. of the immigration cases that have been poorly

  41. dump,” usually reserved for policy announcements that the administration hopes will

  42. pose President Barack Obama to criticism from across the political spectrum. The right may din

  43. tens of thousands of American families in which one or more members was an undocumen

  44. t to the country from Bangaldesh as a child. While Habib was temporarily spared deportation, her fat

  45. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????
    ???? ????? ???????

  46. Excellent post share with us and this blog is impresses more people to reading that blog
    Candle Spell to Bring Back Lost Love
    Spiritual Relationship between husband and wife

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.